California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Buck Division
However, if there is any component of homosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.

What causes homosexuality?

However, if there is any component of heterosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.


What causes heterosexuality?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey, we just have a misunderstanding. Nothing more. You have your natural desires and never have any intention of changing your mind. That is natural. Obviously. However, for others it is a choice. If from this point on, I were to choose to never have sex with women ever again, and only with men (and I meant it), that by the definition of homosexual would make me one.

Do others have that choice, some do others don't. No matter what though, having to decide that is the most difficult. All I am saying is that for a relationship and the people in it to be called homosexuals all that is required is to be the same gender, whether or not you were born that way. You were, perfectly fine by me.

I don't think anyone has denied choice.

But that is not the point.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Buck Division
However, if there is any component of homosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.
What causes homosexuality?

However, if there is any component of heterosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.
What causes heterosexuality?

Point is well taken, Annee. I submit that some people do discriminate against certain types of heterosexual behavior. Let's face it -- the whole topic of sexuality is fraught with misconception and powerful viewpoints.

When I say it is fair game to discriminate against -- I mean that you can ONLY discriminate against behavior and NOT genetic makeup.

If sexual preference is completely genetic you CANNOT make a value judgement against it. That was what I was saying (not promoting or arguing for discrimination against certain things.)

This isn't over yet! People of California are signing petitions and plan to propose an amendment to the states constitution that will ban same sex couples from getting married at all. They are asking for this decision to be postponed until after the fall elections so that everyone will have a chance to vote on an amendment. I think it should be postponed and voted on by everyone in the state of California.

Originally posted by Buck Division

When I say it is fair game to discriminate against -- I mean that you can ONLY discriminate against behavior and NOT genetic makeup.

If sexual preference is completely genetic you CANNOT make a value judgment against it.

Yes - I didn't think that.

I'm one who believes in the sliding scale. A person may be 100% hetero or homo - - but most people fall somewhere in between.

So I believe a man (or woman) can be predominately hetero - due to society pressure - yet still have leanings toward same sex because of a genetic makeup.

In other words - IMO - many (probably most) people have bi tendencies - - but downplay or deny the same sex attraction because of social pressure.

People need to be free to be who they truly are. (always with Adult Consent - of course).

Originally posted by Solarskye
This isn't over yet! People of California are signing petitions and plan to propose an amendment to the states constitution that will ban same sex couples from getting married at all. They are asking for this decision to be postponed until after the fall elections so that everyone will have a chance to vote on an amendment. I think it should be postponed and voted on by everyone in the state of California.

"Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued.

"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

www.breitbart.com...

Originally posted by GideonHM
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hey, we just have a misunderstanding. Nothing more. You have your natural desires and never have any intention of changing your mind. That is natural. Obviously. However, for others it is a choice. If from this point on, I were to choose to never have sex with women ever again, and only with men (and I meant it), that by the definition of homosexual would make me one.

Do others have that choice, some do others don't. No matter what though, having to decide that is the most difficult. All I am saying is that for a relationship and the people in it to be called homosexuals all that is required
is to be the same gender, whether or not you were born that way. You were, perfectly fine by me.

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. If you were to quit having sex with women and only have sex with men you would be a heterosexual who has sex with men. Why? because your most profound, biological urge is toward the female sex. Homosexuals, on the other hand, experience their sex drive as being driven solely by a profound, biological urge towards members of their same sex. Is it true that some people can choose to experiment with same sex? Yes, it's called adolescence. When it happens later in life, we call it "bisexuality" (I'd rather call it sexual opportunism.) At any rate, recent scientific studies have proven and continue to prove that the homosexual brain is different than the heterosexual brain. Matter of fact, a recent study with sweat discovered that the chemical compounds in male sweat affect the homosexual male brain in the exact same way they affect the heterosexual female brain. This obviously suggests a brain/sex correlation. I guarantee that you, being a heterosexual male, would react unfavorably to the compounds in another males sweat.

Lastly, I am a gay man...I could choose to have sex with a woman. However, would you congratulate me afterwards for becoming straight? Of course not. I'd still be a gay man who had sex with a woman and you'd still be a straight man who chose to have sex with man.

Peace Out

Originally posted by Solarskye
I think it should be postponed and voted on by everyone in the state of California.

This is NOT, or at least, should not, be a matter subject to a vote!


People, under the Constitution of the State of California, ALL People are to be treated Equally Under the Law!



If the Law allows straight people to marry, the Law MUST allow gay people to marry. If the Law allows white people to marry, it must allow non-white people to marry.

If the Law allows Christians to marry, it must also allow non-Christians to marry!


Bear that last point well in mind, all those who would cite religious or "moral' grounds to exclude homosexuals, or any other "group" from the rights and protections granted by the Constitution.

If you are willing to strip (or deny) homosexuals of their rights under the Law, who will protect Your rights as citizens should you, sometime in the future (perhaps not too distant!) be identified as an "undesirable"?



The California Supreme Court Has Not "contradicted the Will of the People", nor has it In Any Way! "Legislated from the Bench" as opponents to this decision accuse: the Court has merely Affirmed that one of basic Rights granted by the State's Constitution may not be superceded by the imposition of a mandate law.


Nor is this in any way a matter of "Birth vs. Choice".


Consider:
Under the Constitution, the Fair and Equal treatment of a person born a Jew cannot be revoked should that individual later choose to follow the Christian faith.

Therefore, a person who, for whatever reason inate to him/her-self, born straight, then "choosing" to adopt a homosexual "lifestyle" should suffer no diminishment in the eyes of the Law.


To those who would seek to negate the Court's ruling, by ammending the Constitution;

Take Care in what you wish for, You might just Get It!

reply to post by Solarskye


I have found that the concept of democracy is often used to deprive people of their rights. I don't legally get to smoke marijuana, or try '___' because of laws that were passed before I was born. People voted on it, so that would make me a criminal because I do not agree with the people (many of whom are dead) who decided what is best for me and anyone else.

Just because a majority of Californians are closed minded and are threatened by giving homosexuals the same opportunities as everyone else, no matter how many times they vote against it doesn't change the truth. As the song put it "nobody's right when everybody's wrong", dignity, respect, and understanding cannot be legislated, but in this case it was ruled. It doesn't take away any conservative's rights away to give rights to a minority. But they don't see that restricting others is wrong, and see these freedoms as restrictions.

I don't want the US to be filled to the gills with ignorant, consumerism minded, overlords who say freedom lies within following the rules at all times. Do I get to pass a law kicking out conservatives and all the corrupt and incapable politicians in the US. NO, I just want to live in peace, mind my business, and most of the people upset would never be the wiser. And that goes for everyone.

This is just another tactic of the few making choices for the many. This is not about homosexuality or homosexuals. It is about some justices over ruling the desires of the peole to push their own agenda. California voted. The majority ruled. Then the justice system steps and says “We don’t CARE what you want.” We the people have no voice.

Personally I think gays should be allowed to marry so that they have to take the same responsibilities that the heterosexual community does. Be careful what you wish for.

reply to post by Bhadhidar

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

If the Law allows straight people to marry, the Law MUST allow gay people to marry. If the Law allows white people to marry, it must allow non-white people to marry.
:

Therefore, a person who, for whatever reason inate to him/her-self, born straight, then "choosing" to adopt a homosexual "lifestyle" should suffer no diminishment in the eyes of the Law.

I have brought this up before, but no-one has touched it.

If gays have the same property rights, adoption rights, and survival rights as straights, what other rights do you want?

I also brought up the issue of child custody, which nobody touched.

Gays can cohabitate, and have sexual relations to their heart's desire.

So what "equality" are you being denied?

reply to post by WickedStar


I will admit that biologically speaking certain female traits attract me more than most men, however if I choose to make a person of my gender my partner and stay with that person the rest of my life, my biological tendency has no effect on the concept of the term homosexuality. To address this in a way you can accept, I propose that we look at it from various perspectives.

You are referencing biological predisposition, which I agree with you. However, due to the human body's ability to adapt, I hypothesize that even an originally heterosexual person could biochemically respond to a single lover or even perhaps a focal group of lovers of the same gender in the same way a person with the biological preference does, and the earlier that choice is made the more likely a permanent and observable change will occur (although the strength of that interaction could be muted or intensified depending on the relationship).

There is scientific precedent for this and it is called developmental acclimatization.
For instance, Sherpas have increased lung capacity, and a person from lower altitudes when exposed to those higher altitudes will first struggle to extract enough oxygen from the air (which is thinner), and the body will take steps to counteract this.

Acclimation is what happens when you are hot and sweat, or are cold and shiver taking minutes to occur. Acclimatization is a longer lasting effect taking days, weeks or months to respond to (like your lungs somewhat expanding to better handle the high altitudes, then after being away for six months losing that capacity). Developmental acclimatization is what occurs if a child is placed into the environment of for example the Sherpas for an extended period. This child will gain permanently larger lung capacity due to early long term exposure to that environment, perhaps not as much as people who possess a genetic predisposition to larger lung capacity like the Sherpas, but that child will possess for the rest of his or her life expanded lungs due to the environmental exposure at a young age that cannot be nearly as attainable after the critical developmental period.

Now, say a boy of 16 with no homosexual predisposition is exposed to a homosexual environment and over time bonds deeply with another male, my hypothesis is that in time his new preference will create a deeper biological connection, allowing his biochemical receptors in his brain to adapt to his surroundings (this applies to females as well) producing a similar if not identical biochemical reaction as someone who is genetically predisposed to homosexuality.

That would depend on that individual's overall genetic capacity to adapt in such a way just like two non related children living with Sherpas will both possess the capacity to permanently expand their lungs, but child A might only be able to increase capacity by 22% while child B due to pure genetics in the same environment might expand by 34% . In that respect I believe that homosexuality is also dependent on environmental factors, and direct contact of a positive nature, could likely produce adaptational effects within the brain and body giving a 'born' heterosexual many of the permanent traits of the biological homosexual.

God, many people would have a field day with that, thinking that you can 'catch' homosexuality, which is not my case, but the longer the exposure of direct homosexual activity (actual sex, not just living with the person, although that child would most likely possess a greater understanding of love and relationships from a different perspective than most people), the greater the likelihood is of that person adapting to their lover, thus giving them a similar biochemical makeup of one who was born that way, stemming from the choices people make and the environment they live in.

What I am saying as well is that homosexuality was a term created before people possessed a greater understanding of its genetic precursors. As it was created, it is merely a term to denote same sex partners. YOU ARE CORRECT in what you are saying, but the original meaning of the term could not have factored that into the meaning.

Also, the original post that started this was misread and did not have to do with this part of homosexuality. Not to mention, the genetics have nothing to do with the discrimination, if I marry a man or show deep affection to one in public, people will oppose it regardless if you call me a heterosexual with homosexual tendencies. They will call me a homosexual, that is my point.

reply to post by GideonHM


You know what? This line of discussion disturbs me deeply now that I think this over.

This is about discrimination. When homosexuality becomes more accepted, you will find people who will rabidly profess that homosexual tests are essential and will use these genetic predisposition information to create sub-classes of homosexuality.

Our Gay Pride group only accepts 'born' homosexuals, you are still somewhat stimulated when you look at women, so get lost or find others of 'your' kind.

This really ticks me off. If I have sex with someone of my own gender I can choose to do so, and if I call myself homosexual, you would have no way to tell the difference unless I allowed you to use the tools of science to discriminate against how I was born.

It doesn't take a conservative or Nazi to give in to segregation and due to the hostilities faced by those who are homosexual in general, it is difficult to see these forces at work. This is no different than Eugenics, using the concept of genetics to find and enforce differences.

I can't believe now that I think of it how insulted I feel. If I decide to call myself a homosexual, and I have sex with a member of my own gender, all the genetic tests in all of existence will not change a thing, and thus I am a homosexual. Are you trying to say I shouldn't participate in Gay Pride? Are you saying that if I was allowed with my lover to celebrate Gay Pride that my genetic predisposition would somehow alter my ability to contribute to Gay rights? B*llS*it!

Amazing! You were actually discriminating against me, and you don't even realize it. Homosexuality is free to whomever wants it, and this insistence on the True Genetic Homosexual, is just another means to discriminate. I am disgusted.

reply to post by GideonHM


That is a very well-written post, Gideon...i will even give you a star, although I will stand on my right to disagree with some of your assumptions.

There is no way a normal 16-year old boy (or girl) who is completely heterosexual, with all of those hormones raging, will respond in the manner you posit.

Well...one caveat....in the heat of those hormones a person may just crave a sexual release, but it doesn't mean he/she would jump to what you proposed....they would masturbate, and fantasize about their imaginary sexual partner.

Someone earlier mention adolescent experimentation....I'm sure it happens often. It usually shows the individual....convinces him/her...of where they stand, how they feel towards the same or opposite sex. Societal pressures play a heavy hand in this as well.

For the record, so there can be no mistake....just having a sexual encounter with a same gender partner does not make the person homosexual. It is the stimuli that excites sexual impulses, deep down in the brain, that defines hetero/homo.

Example....two men, at a single's bar....each will be looking for various physical attributes in the women, and each will likely have differeing tastes...some like butts, lome like legs, some like breasts, etc.

When people use the (much over-used) phrase "sexual preference" to apply to same-sex situations, it is a misnomer. AND, it is misleading. The 'preference' is in the ineffable quality that you look for, in a companion...the eyes, the nose, the breasts.....what have you.

There has to be a physical attraction, a spark...it is a condition of human sexuality....homo or hetero, it is the same principle.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thank you again. However I am not making assumptions. I made a hypothesis. That at an early age (16 is the safest age to choose as it does happen, and the body is still developing) due to long term interaction and biochemical exchanges, I am saying that the human body should be able to adapt to this same sex partner allowing this same type of interaction.

Regardless of original predisposition, and due to hormones being out of control that young man or girl could easily pick a same sex partner if that person is open minded, thus setting the path for long term partner co-adaptation. I am citing developmental acclimatization as the scientific evidence that it can happen. As with any hypothesis this requires testing and re-testing, and re-thinking and observing until suitable evidence arises.

I doubt SDSU would let an Art major borrow a few research grants to study adaptive homosexuality on a long term observational basis. Hmm...

I don't have anything against same sex couples and feel that they would in no way threaten me or my family. This all boils down to "MARRIAGE"!
I don't care if gay or lesbian couples want to tie the knot and adopt or have children or any of that stuff. I do feel that marriage is sacred between a woman and a man. I as a married man to a beautiful woman and have children would like to keep marriage sacred. Call it a union or anything you want to call it with the same rights as a married couple but don't call it marriage. I can see where this is gonna cause alot of problems down the road when two guys are just friends and living together decide to say " Hey! you want to get married so we can get all the benefits of a married couple". It's just a piece of paper and nobody will know. Hell we can still have or girlfriends living with us and maybe they can get married too! Hell let's just all get married now! Like I said before, I don't have anything against this except the marriage part. I'm happy that they get the same rights and benefits of a married couple and that they're happy. There are other institutions out there that only allow certain criteria for that institution and if you don't meet that standard then you can't join. Doesn't mean any rights have been violated.

reply to post by GideonHM


I understand your point and I agree with you that being thrust into an environment different than then one you just left will induce adaptation. However, I disagree with you that sexuality can be molded in such a way. Lets look at Ancient Greece. Sex was a very common thing there where children/young boys were exposed at an early age to homosexual sex by their tutors. By your argument, these children, having been raised in such an environment where they experience homosexual sex repeatedly will ultimately identify as homosexual simply because they've adapted to it. Historically, we know this to not be true. Did some of the children grow up to identify as homosexual, yes but the vast majority of them went on to marry and have families of their own. What you're arguing for is simply sexual conditioning which should not be confused with innate genetic sexual preference. As I said before - just because a man, who identifies as heterosexual has gay sex, he does not become a homosexual. He has simply engaged in a homosexual act.

reply to post by Solarskye


Solarsky:

First off, do you know how many thousands upon thousands of men and women who are platonic friends enter into marriage for the same benefits you're scared to guys are going get married for? I assure you it happens regularly. As for the sanctity of marriage. Over 50% of heterosexual person who become married also divorce. So your argument about the sanctity of marriage is essentially moot. However, who are you to say that the love shared between two men or two women isn't as equally sanctified as the love you share with your wife? Who are you to suggest that their union wouldn't also be as equally sanctified as the union you share with your wife?

Originally posted by WickedStar
Why? because your most profound, biological urge is toward the female sex. Homosexuals, on the other hand, experience their sex drive as being driven solely by a profound, biological urge towards members of their same sex. .

There "may" be a very small portion of gay's who have a genetic deformity or mutation that affects them. However, the vast majority of gay's it is a choice.

Genetic homosexuality is complete BS and an abomination. If it were genetic the entire mutation would have died out centuries ago.....

Gay marriage is a sign of the end times and an abomination..........