Prop 8 heads to Calif. Supreme Court

[CaféAuLait]

The argument is what IS marriage. And the States are free to define it as between a MAN and a WOMAN. Which is what California has done. Your Court case does not apply to Homosexuals. In fact the weight of History is against your claim. It has been understood and has been codified in LAW to mean between a man and a woman. Your court case establishes that race can not disregard that. It does NOT change the basic foundation of what a Marriage is understood to be.

Or next, since all men have a right to marriage, why can not a man Marry a sheep? Using your law the only thing stopping that is LAWS. If all men have a right to marriage no matter what, then since the age of consent in some States is 14 the a 50 year old can marry any 14 year old he wants. Through out the Country. Why, cause one state says 14 is the age of consent and the other 49 would be refusing to honor that using your logic and that of Luissiana.

And those men you speak wanting to be with young children? Are already pushing for such laws..

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships". NAMBLA also calls for "the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."

North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what, why if we legalize gay marriage would we then have to listen to Nambla?

Pedophiles and NAMBLA (more pedophiles) are waiting to pounce they, are hoping that the ban on homosexual marriage is found unconstitutional Why? Because then the age of consent will be called discrimination due to their perverted sexual predilection.

They will fight and argue that is a child is an adult when being charged with murder at 11 and are able to contract to have medical procedures ( abortions) Since a child can be charged as an adult at 11 their argument if society can charge them as adults for crime and medical procedures-- they they can also consent and or make an adult decision to have sexual relations with a NAMBLA freak.

It is all about sexual predilection with NAMBLA and they will fight to have themselves as being seen as discriminated against because of their sexual perverted prowess. They have been billing themselves as having the same rights as those who do not conform to society’s norms for years now. This will give them a stepping stone.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Should have put this portion of my post here instead of the flame zone:

As to the issue of gay marriage versus interracial marriage, lets be clear about one thing: Anti-miscegenation laws were not about denying the right to marry based upon race. They were about telling people who were attracted to people of another race/ethnicity that they must marry within their own ethnicity. Thus it violated the rights of the White man who wanted to marry the Black woman, as well as the Black woman who wanted to marry the White man. It was violating the rights of individuals with a particular preference, i.e. for other races, and was rationalized on the grounds that it did not discriminate against any particular race as it applied to all people. They can marry within their own race just like everybody else. The arguments for and against miscegenation and gay marriage are almost identical.

In 1967, if the issue of interracial marriage were put up to a vote, interracial couples' rights would have been voted down overwhelmingly, by an even greater margin than homosexual marriage today. At around that time the approval for interracial marriage was less than 20%. Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

 

[Father Time]

And those men you speak wanting to be with young children? Are already pushing for such laws..



North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what, why if we legalize gay marriage would we then have to listen to Nambla?

Pedophiles and NAMBLA (more pedophiles) are waiting to pounce they, are hoping that the ban on homosexual marriage is found unconstitutional Why? Because then the age of consent will be called discrimination due to their perverted sexual predilection.

They will fight and argue that is a child is an adult when being charged with murder at 11 and are able to contract to have medical procedures ( abortions) Since a child can be charged as an adult at 11 their argument if society can charge them as adults for crime and medical procedures-- they they can also consent and or make an adult decision to have sexual relations with a NAMBLA freak.

It is all about sexual predilection with NAMBLA and they will fight to have themselves as being seen as discriminated against because of their sexual perverted prowess. They have been billing themselves as having the same rights as those who do not conform to society’s norms for years now. This will give them a stepping stone.

You still didn't answer my question. Why would giving gays marraige mean we would have to give ANYTHING to pedos? Because they think we should? 11 year olds should not be tried as adults

 

[Missourian]

I've said this before but I'll say it again, if you separate marriage from pro creation, you let a genie out of the bottle.
If two men can marry, or two woman, why not two men and a woman, or two men and three women or any combination ad infinitum?

 

[CaféAuLait]

So what, why if we legalize gay marriage would we then have to listen to Nambla?

Pedophiles and NAMBLA (more pedophiles) are waiting to pounce they, are hoping that the ban on homosexual marriage is found unconstitutional Why? Because then the age of consent will be called discrimination due to their perverted sexual predilection.

They will fight and argue that is a child is an adult when being charged with murder at 11 and are able to contract to have medical procedures ( abortions) Since a child can be charged as an adult at 11 their argument if society can charge them as adults for crime and medical procedures-- they they can also consent and or make an adult decision to have sexual relations with a NAMBLA freak.

It is all about sexual predilection with NAMBLA and they will fight to have themselves as being seen as discriminated against because of their sexual perverted prowess. They have been billing themselves as having the same rights as those who do not conform to society’s norms for years now. This will give them a stepping stone.

You still didn't answer my question. Why would giving gays marraige mean we would have to give ANYTHING to pedos? Because they think we should? 11 year olds should not be tried as adults

Your question was:

"So what, why if we legalize gay marriage would we then have to listen to Nambla?"

I believed you meant we would literally have to listen to them complain and explain their stance. So if I did not answer your question I am unsure what you meant. However I said that those in NAMBLA have tied themselves closely to those who do not conform to society’s norms or standards. They will use the case as a stepping stone IMO.

11 years olds are being tried as adults and girls can have abortions without your consent—meaning they can legally sign a contract before the age of 18 and it will be valid in a court of law. Everything leading to these freaks saying that children can decide the age of consent after “grooming” and the age of consent laws are against their civil rights.

 

[Vel]

Why shouldn't gays be able to marry and serve in the army?

It seems ridiculous to me.

As to gays serving in the military, since military units share showers and sleeping quarters, do you not think that the other military personel have a right not to be exposed as sexual objects? No one would ever consider having co-ed communal showers, so why would anyone think that having gay and straight men share the same shower would be acceptable?

 

[necritan]

Why shouldn't gays be able to marry and serve in the army?

It seems ridiculous to me.

As to gays serving in the military, since military units share showers and sleeping quarters, do you not think that the other military personel have a right not to be exposed as sexual objects? No one would ever consider having co-ed communal showers, so why would anyone think that having gay and straight men share the same shower would be acceptable?

Should they screen for gays at health clubs?? Not trying to be a dick....just askin.

 

[Vel]

Why shouldn't gays be able to marry and serve in the army?

It seems ridiculous to me.

As to gays serving in the military, since military units share showers and sleeping quarters, do you not think that the other military personel have a right not to be exposed as sexual objects? No one would ever consider having co-ed communal showers, so why would anyone think that having gay and straight men share the same shower would be acceptable?

Should they screen for gays at health clubs?? Not trying to be a dick....just askin.

No, and they don't "screen" for gays in the military. While don't ask don't tell might not be the best policy, not knowing that the guy sharing your shower is checking out your equipment has probably kept a few guys from getting the crap beat out of them.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I've said this before but I'll say it again, if you separate marriage from pro creation, you let a genie out of the bottle.
If two men can marry, or two woman, why not two men and a woman, or two men and three women or any combination ad infinitum?

Or a man and a gorilla. Yes, I know that the immediate response is to say a gorilla can't consent. But who's to say that won't change? Gorilla's do have self-awaress. At least some of them have been taught to use human language through sign language. Reasoning ability has been shown (for instance, a Gorilla that had been taught signs for "candy" and "water" but not for "soda pop" was able to ask for soda pop by asking for "candy water.")

If government tells two homosexuals they can't have a relationship with each other, live together, etc., that's denying rights. But nobody has a "right" to have their relationship recognized by others. Homosexuals can not, or at least should not, be able to force others to create rules forcing those others to recognize their relationships as having a certain status. And the use of the courts to try to force that is absolutely disgusting.

On a broader level it's one of the things the homosexual movement is doing to "normalize" the abnormal. They are not satisfied with "civil unions" which confer the same benefits as marriage does. They want to force acceptance of their deviation from normal sexual orientation as just one more normal variant; comparable to having blonde hair as compared to brown hair. That, of course, is absurd. But that's what the objective is.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I've said this before but I'll say it again, if you separate marriage from pro creation, you let a genie out of the bottle.
If two men can marry, or two woman, why not two men and a woman, or two men and three women or any combination ad infinitum?

Marriage is already separated from procreation. People who are infertile can still get married. People who are not allowed to take care of kids, e.g. serious sex offenders, can still get married if there's somebody who wants to marry them.

As for polygamy I'd be okay with it as long as all are consenting adults and they don't get any extra legal benefit married couples cannot enjoy. What's the big deal if there are a small number of people out there who want polyfidelity? There's very bold line between lifestyles that one may find distasteful but don't harm anybody, and those actions that do harm people against their consent.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I've said this before but I'll say it again, if you separate marriage from pro creation, you let a genie out of the bottle.
If two men can marry, or two woman, why not two men and a woman, or two men and three women or any combination ad infinitum?

Or a man and a gorilla. Yes, I know that the immediate response is to say a gorilla can't consent. But who's to say that won't change? Gorilla's do have self-awaress. At least some of them have been taught to use human language through sign language. Reasoning ability has been shown (for instance, a Gorilla that had been taught signs for "candy" and "water" but not for "soda pop" was able to ask for soda pop by asking for "candy water.")

We need to draw the line at a fair place, not conservatively merely to avoid some kind of imaginary slippery slope. If a Gorilla can demonstrably understand marriage and give informed consent to it, we may need to revise more than just our marriage laws. Informed consent is a good standard to stick to because the only thing all marriages have in common is they are contracts.

If government tells two homosexuals they can't have a relationship with each other, live together, etc., that's denying rights. But nobody has a "right" to have their relationship recognized by others. Homosexuals can not, or at least should not, be able to force others to create rules forcing those others to recognize their relationships as having a certain status. And the use of the courts to try to force that is absolutely disgusting.

It happened the same way for interracial marriage, i.e. against majority opinion. I find it disgusting the majority is willing to treat people differently under the law based upon something so arbitrary as the kind of adult they're attracted to.

On a broader level it's one of the things the homosexual movement is doing to "normalize" the abnormal. They are not satisfied with "civil unions" which confer the same benefits as marriage does. They want to force acceptance of their deviation from normal sexual orientation as just one more normal variant; comparable to having blonde hair as compared to brown hair. That, of course, is absurd. But that's what the objective is.

Actually homosexuality is not defined as deviant in the DSM anymore. I don't see why we need to care about what's normal. We only need to care about what harms others. A marriage, i.e. contract, people disapprove of is not sufficient to block the right of adults to enter into such a contract. It would have to actually harm others.

 

[garyd]

David, Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not an act of birth no fully peer reviewed study has yet shown that homosexuals are born homosexual. I can't tell if some one is gay or straight by looking at them. It is not the job of the government to extend rights to people based on the way they behave.

And gays already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

David, Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not an act of birth no fully peer reviewed study has yet shown that homosexuals are born homosexual. I can't tell if some one is gay or straight by looking at them. It is not the job of the government to extend rights to people based on the way they behave.

And gays already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that I do.

Your arguments in this post have already been addressed, but I'll try saying it a slightly different way.

What we are talking about is a sexual preference which limits the field of partners one might find desirable. If you are disallowed from marrying who you want to for no good reason, your rights are being compromised. Some guys only/mostly like girls of another ethnicity; some guys only/mostly like other guys. These two preferences have involved civil rights controversies in the last hundred years. Legislating against these preferences is totally arbitrary.

Some people mistakenly believe that laws against interracial marriage trampled the rights of African Americans alone, like so many racist laws in our country's history. Whatever the intention, the actual effect was it trampled on the rights of all ethnicities, specifically people who are attracted to the other race. The White guy who desires a Black woman. His rights were being trampled. The Black woman who desires a White man. Her rights were being compromised. Marriage is a right of individuals to be with whatever consenting adult they choose.

People back then, before 1967, would say, "They have the right to marry within their own race just like everybody else." This sounds a whole like like, "They have the right to marry the other gender just like everybody else."

 

[Burp]

Wrong.

What we are talking about is that the people of California voted on this. The gay-rights people got the issued on the ballot. That was their right. They gathered the signatures, etc. They got their way. The finally were allowed to have the people of California vote on the issue.

AND THEY LOST.

Be careful what you ask for.

You don't get a do-over.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Wrong.

What we are talking about is that the people of California voted on this. The gay-rights people got the issued on the ballot. That was their right. They gathered the signatures, etc. They got their way. The finally were allowed to have the people of California vote on the issue.

AND THEY LOST.

Be careful what you ask for.

You don't get a do-over.

It's not like it can't be voted on again later. Even if the courts don't help, people do change their minds over time:

But the courts have a history of doing the right thing against popular opinion on issues like this:

In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage throughout the U.S. in its famous and ironically named case Loving v. Virginia. 17 To add to the irony, the state of Virginia adopted the state slogan: "Virginia is for lovers" one year later.

In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.

Trends in attitudes towards same-sex marriage (SSM) and civil unions.

 

[Burp]

Guess we should give up voting on everything and let the government decide what's best.

 

[KittenKoder]

As to gays serving in the military, since military units share showers and sleeping quarters, do you not think that the other military personel have a right not to be exposed as sexual objects? No one would ever consider having co-ed communal showers, so why would anyone think that having gay and straight men share the same shower would be acceptable?

Should they screen for gays at health clubs?? Not trying to be a dick....just askin.

No, and they don't "screen" for gays in the military. While don't ask don't tell might not be the best policy, not knowing that the guy sharing your shower is checking out your equipment has probably kept a few guys from getting the crap beat out of them.

Though by worrying so much about whether the guy/girl next to them was checking them out ... I wonder how many straight soldiers accidentally slipped on their gear? Hmm ....... though it would never be checked out .... the implications are far worse.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Guess we should give up voting on everything and let the government decide what's best.

Then and now the courts have ruled the majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority based upon the 14th amendment. Someday majorities will learn that there is no reason to treat people differently when their behavior does not harm anybody against their consent.

 

[Burp]

Guess we should give up voting on everything and let the government decide what's best.

Then and now the courts have ruled the majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority based upon the 14th amendment. Someday majorities will learn that there is no reason to treat people differently when their behavior does not harm anybody against their consent.

Who decides if it harms somebody? Could something harm someone morally?

 

[KittenKoder]

Guess we should give up voting on everything and let the government decide what's best.

Then and now the courts have ruled the majority is infringing upon the rights of the minority based upon the 14th amendment. Someday majorities will learn that there is no reason to treat people differently when their behavior does not harm anybody against their consent.

Who decides if it harms somebody? Could something harm someone morally?

Explain how another persons actions could possibly harm anothers morality if they are ot directly involved ...