Liberal FASCISM in California

[jillian]

People don't choose being attracted to more than one person either. Is that also a genetic predisposition? People don't choose being attracted to one's sibling either. Is that also a genetic predisposition? What's to stop polygamy and incest from being legalized as well....using that logic?


Law is inherently discriminatory in nature. Nothing wrong with that. For example, we discriminate against thieves and jaywalkers. Discrimination in and of itself is not wrong. You are just throwing around a political PC word that is supposed to elicit a pavlovian response.

If 4 judges can "interpret" the law based on zilch....like flimsy feelings about "honor" and "respect"....think what they could "interpret" next....

Are you suggesting that homosexuals be celebate because you don't approve of what they are? I don't think that's very reasonable.

Frankly, I've already said, between consenting ADULTS, I really don't care about polygamy one way or the other. And you go far afield when you start talking about incest, etc. Those subjects aren't relevant.

the law was interpreted based on the equal protection clause of the california constitution. do you think there's an exact measurement for that any more than there is about what constitues a "well regulated miliitia"?

Law discriminates against behaviors.... not people. I have always thought there was a major problem with a couple who had been together for decades being denied rights that another couple had after 1 minute, just because one is homosexual and the other not.

Don't you see something wrong with that?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are you suggesting that homosexuals be celebate because you don't approve of what they are? I don't think that's very reasonable.

No.

Frankly, I've already said, between consenting ADULTS, I really don't care about polygamy one way or the other. And you go far afield when you start talking about incest, etc. Those subjects aren't relevant.

Gay marriage used to be "far afield" too.

the law was interpreted based on the equal protection clause of the california constitution. do you think there's an exact measurement for that any more than there is about what constitues a "well regulated miliitia"?

Wasn't equal protection originally placed in the constitution to protect race?

Law discriminates against behaviors.... not people. I have always thought there was a major problem with a couple who had been together for decades being denied rights that another couple had after 1 minutes, just because one is homosexual and the other not.

Don't you see something wrong with that?

Don't try the heartstring appeal about some old gay couple. Yes, laws are discriminatory in nature regarding behaviors. What I said. Society decides questons regarding behavior via legislation....not 4 judges. Skin color is a condition. Being gay is a behavior. Liberals are atempting to claim that gay behavior is a condition. Gay marriage behavior is not a "right" any more than plural marriage is a "right" or incestual marriage is a "right".

 

[AllieBaba]

Or marrying your favorite pet.
Peta's all over this one, I promise you. They want to make animals citizens, with rights, and that includes the right to marry.

 

[Larkinn]

More BS coming from the left.
No, there has been absolutely no proof that it's genetic. Those who wish it did are SURMISING there MAY be a combination of genetic and ENVIRONMENTAL factors which CAUSE homosexuality.

In other words, it's not caused in large part by genetics. It is a choice.

Actually there isn't proof either way. That you are willing to dismiss some evidence on one side as "not proof", and some evidence on the other side as proof is evidence for my prior conclusions about you.

"People can't force themselves to be attracted by the same sex if they aren't".
More B.S. and please cite the study where you found that claptrap. I'd like to know how the monitoring was done, while you're at it. Ever watch a porn film? You think they're really attracted or just faking? Can't tell, can you? Well, maybe you can..it depends on how much experience you have with faking it.....

Forcing oneself to be attracted and faking it are two different things.

 

[jillian]

No.

OK. That's a good starting place.

Gay marriage used to be "far afield" too.

I agree. Absolutely. But so was inter-racial marriage and desegregation, the first of which was finally "allowed" by a similar court decision in Loving v Virginia, the second of which, resulted from Brown v Board of Ed. I don't think anyone would suggest either of those Courts did the wrong thing, yet those decisions had huge resistence. So, was the court activist? To the extent that it maybe moved a little faster than government in recognizing what's right, I'd say yes. But I also think that's its job.

Wasn't equal protection originally placed in the constitution to protect race?

I don't think so. I think it was to protect all minorities, but I'd have to check. I really dodn't remember. (It's been a while... )

Don't try the hearstring appeal about some old gay couple. Yes, laws are discriminatory in nature regarding behaviors. What I said. Society decides questons regarding behavior via legislation....not 4 judges. Skin color is a condition. Being gay is a behavior. Liberals are atempting to claim that gay behavior is a condition. Gay marriage behavior is not a "right" any more than plural marriage is a "right" or incestual marriage is a "right".

Ultimately, the law is about people, so yes, the old gay couple becomes relevant to me, same as the Lovings were relevant to the USSC. Society doesn't always decide behaviors or the two cases above wouldn't exist.

Gay marriage should simply be "marriage" or "civil union" (I've never been one to care what one calls it) because the same legal rights should exist for homosexual couples (like collecting their spouse's pension and social security) as they do for heterosexual couples.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

OK. That's a good starting place.



I agree. Absolutely. But so was inter-racial marriage and desegregation, the first of which was finally "allowed" by a similar court decision in Loving v Virginia, the second of which, resulted from Brown v Board of Ed. I don't think anyone would suggest either of those Courts did the wrong thing, yet those decisions had huge resistence. So, was the court activist? To the extent that it maybe moved a little faster than government in recognizing what's right, I'd say yes. But I also think that's its job.



I don't think so. I think it was to protect all minorities, but I'd have to check. I really dodn't remember. (It's been a while... )



Ultimately, the law is about people, so yes, the old gay couple becomes relevant to me, same as the Lovings were relevant to the USSC. Society doesn't always decide behaviors or the two cases above wouldn't exist.

Gay marriage should simply be "marriage" or "civil union" (I've never been one to care what one calls it) because the same legal rights should exist for homosexual couples (like collecting their spouse's pension and social security) as they do for heterosexual couples.

You completely tap dance around the core issue: condition vs. behavior.

Until gay behavior is proven to be a condition...like the color of one's skin....instead of behavior, I see no reason to protect it as a "right". If we protect gay marriage as a "right" we must also protect plural marriage and incestual marriage as "rights" too.

Forcing oneself to be attracted and faking it are two different things.

There's lots of homosexual behavior and "marriages" to be found in prisons.

Normal heteros don't "force" themselves to be attracted to the same sex.
Normal heteros don't "fake" their attraction to the same sex either.

Are these normal heteros exhibiting a condition they were born with or a behavior?

 

[jillian]

You completely tap dance around the core issue: condition vs. behavior.

Until gay behavior is proven to be a condition...like the color of one's skin....instead of behavior, I see no reason to protect it as a "right". If we protect gay marriage as a "right" we must also protect plural marriage and incestual marriage as "rights" too.


There's lots of homosexual behavior and "marriages" to be found in prisons.

Normal heteros don't "force" themselves to be attracted to the same sex.
Normal heteros don't "fake" their attraction to the same sex either.

Are these normal heteros exhibiting a condition they were born with or a behavior?

See, this is where I start pulling out articles based on scientific studies and you start pulling out articles from religious organizations. You won't accept mine. I won't accept yours.

What I will say is that it is becoming more and more clear that there is some type of genetic component. My gay friends staunchly believe it's a combination of nature and nurture, but to a person, if they could have chosen, they'd have chosen to be heterosexual because, quite simply, people don't generally choose to be different, isolated, rejected by family, and all the other fun stuff that so many gays get in their lives. And, personally, I don't think it's any skin off of my nose if two consenting adults who love each other can make a life together. It does you, and that's what *I* don't understand... WHY does it matter to you?

I will leave you with this article, though, because it seems to be a pretty fair statement of the science which currently exists and the research going on, though it's a bit old and may be a bit outdated.

In case you've misplaced your latest copy of Behavioral Neuroscience, there's a fascinating article about how people blink. It turns out that when males and females are exposed to a loud noise, they blink in somewhat different ways -- except that lesbians appear to blink like men, not like women.

The study (peer-reviewed but based on a small sample) is the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may be not simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology. Indeed, some geneticists believe that sexual orientation in men (though not women) may be determined in part by markers in the Xq28 chromosomal region.

One needs to be wary of these kinds of studies, partly because researchers drawn toward this field may have subconscious biases of their own. Moreover, many of the studies on the biological basis of homosexuality are flawed by small numbers or by the difficulty of finding valid random samples of gays and heterosexuals.

Still, while the data has problems, it is piling up -- there are at least seven studies on twins. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation more than fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a gay person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would be.

Earlier this year, the journal Personality and Individual Differences published an exhaustive review of the literature entitled ''Born Gay?'' After reviewing the twin studies, it concluded that 50 to 60 percent of sexual orientation might be genetic.

Many studies also suggest that sexual orientation may be linked to differences in brain anatomy. Compared with straight men, gay men appear to have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus, a part of the brain that affects behavior, and some studies show most gay men have a larger isthmus of the corpus callosum -- which may also be true of left-handed people. And that's intriguing because gays are 39 percent more likely to be left-handed than straight people.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D91231F936A15753C1A9659C8B63

 

[ScreamingEagle]

See, this is where I start pulling out articles based on scientific studies and you start pulling out articles from religious organizations. You won't accept mine. I won't accept yours.

What I will say is that it is becoming more and more clear that there is some type of genetic component. My gay friends staunchly believe it's a combination of nature and nurture, but to a person, if they could have chosen, they'd have chosen to be heterosexual because, quite simply, people don't generally choose to be different, isolated, rejected by family, and all the other fun stuff that so many gays get in their lives. And, personally, I don't think it's any skin off of my nose if two consenting adults who love each other can make a life together. It does you, and that's what *I* don't understand... WHY does it matter to you?

I will leave you with this article, though, because it seems to be a pretty fair statement of the science which currently exists and the research going on, though it's a bit old and may be a bit outdated.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D91231F936A15753C1A9659C8B63

Well, let's wait until the proof is in the pudding...you must also know there's some proof that gays can become straight again...

Do you believe we should also have plural marriage? I'm sure it can be proven rather easily that men are biologically attracted to more than one woman. Oh, that's right, you think polygamy is OK...to hell with the children, right?

How about incestual marriage? After all, it happens in Nature...

 

[AllieBaba]

Go ahead and pull out a scientific study which prove definitively that genetics have anything at all to do with homosexuality.
And then pull one out that proves definitively that choice has nothing to do with homosexuality.
And then pull one out that proves definitively that people cannot force themselves to be attracted sexually to anything.
I won't hold my breath. But maybe it will keep Jillian from yapping for a while to look for those.
And no, editorials from the NYT do not equal definitive scientific studies.

 

[BrianH]

this won't be the victory that gay rights should have had. this has bankrupted the entire constitutional system by invalidating the will of the people. I'll remind you dumbasses, Blacks didn't gain equality outside of LEGISLATION. the PEOPLE voted for womens suffrage. It didn't take a court to authorize (validate legislation, yes; AUTHORIZE, no) either and I'd bet you'll find that supporting maleable judges NOW, while they act according to what you agree with, won't make you keep from crying foul later when they act against what you agree with. Then again, if you think RvW is settled make sure you strap on yuor seatbelt when the pro-life crowd pulls the same trick we saw happen in Cal-if-orn-i-a yesterday.

and Im neither bible junky OR republican so at least be a little creative with the necessary labels.

Exactly, last I checked, the gov. acted at the will of the people. It's called a Democratic Republic. Whether it's right or wrong, it goes against our nation's laws. Desegreation, Civil Rights, Women's sufferge was all put into place by the will of the people (majority)

 

[Larkinn]

Exactly, last I checked, the gov. acted at the will of the people. It's called a Democratic Republic. Whether it's right or wrong, it goes against our nation's laws. Desegreation, Civil Rights, Women's sufferge was all put into place by the will of the people (majority)

Actually Desegregation would have been Brown v. Board, a court decision.

A note about the decision, by the way. The Law Schools of the 7 judges.

Law schools of judges in the majority: Stanford, USC, Berkeley (Boalt) / GW (first in her class at both schools), Stanford.

Law schools of dissenting judges: Hastings, USF, Hastings.

 

[Larkinn]

Well, let's wait until the proof is in the pudding...you must also know there's some proof that gays can become straight again...

Do you believe we should also have plural marriage? I'm sure it can be proven rather easily that men are biologically attracted to more than one woman. Oh, that's right, you think polygamy is OK...to hell with the children, right?

How about incestual marriage? After all, it happens in Nature...

Animals get married?

And I thought you wanted things that were natural? Isn't things that happen in nature pretty much the definition of natural?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Animals get married?

Cute.

However, if it must be known, there are animals that mate for life.

And I thought you wanted things that were natural? Isn't things that happen in nature pretty much the definition of natural?

Who says homosexual animals are "natural"?
They are the exceptions, the unnatural, the abnormal, the weird…

 

[jillian]

Cute.

However, if it must be known, there are animals that mate for life.


Who says homosexual animals are "natural"?
They are the exceptions, the unnatural, the abnormal, the weird…

Not really. Homosexuality occurs in pretty much every species but snakes, but a little more among birds and primates, at least based on the observations of the zoo people I know.

 

[Ravi]

There are gay animals as well. It might seem unnatural to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of nature.

 

[AllieBaba]

Animals get married?

And I thought you wanted things that were natural? Isn't things that happen in nature pretty much the definition of natural?

Only to each other, so far...but animal/human marriages are coming, no doubt.

Along with marriages between close relatives (brothers and sisters, perhaps) who live together and want to force insurance companies to cover them both.

 

[jillian]

Squawk and Milou, male chinstrap penguins, are among several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan. Homosexual behavior has been documented in some 450 animal species, one researcher says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/a...on=&ei=5007&en=25655dedbc29ffd6&ex=1391490000

 

[Ravi]

Only to each other, so far...but animal/human marriages are coming, no doubt.

Along with marriages between close relatives (brothers and sisters, perhaps) who live together and want to force insurance companies to cover them both.

Sorry, Allie, I doubt you'll ever be able to marry your horse.

 

[AllieBaba]

We have political differences, anyway. Plus...he's been gelded.

 

[Ravi]

We have political differences, anyway. Plus...he's been gelded.

No way, Shogun is your horse?