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

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Like smoking. I only think it's fair that if I can't smoke in public then I shouldn't have to see two men kissing in public.r.

So its OK to see a man and woman playing "tonsil hockey" in public?

Again - a majority vote on a mostly religious belief? Got to hand it to them - they are persistent in trying to make this a non-secular government.

However - the Constitution is designed to prevent exactly that. And that is exactly what happened in California.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Annee]

It's not fair that the people of California can let their votes be overturned by 4 judges that from my understanding are appointed and not elected.

I did not miss the point. This point has been addressed by several posters - several times in this thread.

The Constitution allows for equal rights for all citizens. It over rode personal beliefs - based on opinion.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Simon....not to delve into your personal life, but you seem to be a straight man, based on your writings.

So, you would not want to see two men kissing in public?

Would it also bother you, as well, to see two women kissing in public??

Just how much 'tongue' is too much, in each case?

Is a man, kissing another man on the cheek OK? It's common in Europe....between STRAIGHT men!!!!

Is the problem a kiss on the lips??? Where is your 'ick' factor going to kick in?

Do you not know that many, many straight men are actually excited to see two women kissing? It is not a secret....it is a staple of much 'straight' pornography....am I wrong here? Please be honest.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


What are you talking about? I have no morals!

Not wanting to see something in my opinion has no basis on the decisions I make in my life. There are things that we don't want to see but yet have to on a daily basis. And it isn't just a man and man kissing or woman/woman or man/ woman. It was a point I was trying to make and in my tiredness I must not be making it very clear.
If two men or two women are allowed to get married I should be able to smoke wherever I please. If two homosexuals are making out on a park bench I should be able to sit on the same bench with them and have a smoke while telling them to GET A ROOM!
My point is you can't overturn the voice of the people in a state. It's their voice and how they felt and it should stand regardless. And it if doesn't stand then I think that the smoking ban should be lifted as well along with any other ban that targets a specific group.


My first post in this thread had a bit of a stab at humor but it would appear I failed miserably

I forgot to add that if there was a law up for vote banning PDA by homosexuals I would only vote yes if it involved all PDA. Would only be fair.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Simon_Boudreaux]

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


No I noticed your humor too I just wanted to understand the extent on what your views were with the PDA stuff. Thanks for the elaboration too.

I guess the main difference that I see between homosexual PDA and the smoking scenario that you described, is the obvious health risk associated with second hand smoke.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I'm straight.

I'm not big on seeing any kissing in public no matter what sexes are involved.A couple pecks on the lips in public is good. You start playing tonsil hockey as one member put it and unless you're a depraved horn dog I don't know many people that would want to see a couple having a tongue fight when they're out with their kids.

Kissing a man on the cheek is not even an issue. Neither is hugging a man. I'm not a homophobe (sp.) I have absolutely no problem with two people of the same sex being together. But it goes with your last question. While I might find it arousing to see two women kiss there's a time and a place for it.In public where there are children and people that might take offense to it is not the place.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

 

.
If two men or two women are allowed to get married I should be able to smoke wherever I please. If two homosexuals are making out on a park bench I should be able to sit on the same bench with them and have a smoke while telling them to GET A ROOM!

My point is you can't overturn the voice of the people in a state. It's their voice and how they felt and it should stand regardless. And it if doesn't stand then I think that the smoking ban should be lifted as well along with any other ban that targets a specific group.
(

Bad analogy. Smoking was banned because of second hand smoke. You smoking does directly affect the health of those in proximity.

Two men kissing - has no health risk to you or anyone.

Of course you can overturn the voice of the people when they base their vote on personal belief and opinion.

If that personal belief/opinion - - - is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.

We are also genetically bipedal - - - so a person born without legs will be denied the right to marry?

Since marriage is defined as being a man and a woman, I don't see why they would not be able to marry. However the person born without legs has a defect just like someone who is gay. Something just got wired incorrectly during birth.

Ok, define what "define" means if you will. For instance a dog can be defined as a four legged animal with fur. So can a cat, so can a weasel, so can a human (doesn't make it TRUE). A definition MEANS NOTHING except to the people WHO USE IT. I can define a conservative Christian as an enlightened person filled with love, or a closed minded bigot who merely takes the definitions of others as proof because they were told so, or however I want. The truth is somewhere between.

You cannot understand this. I define you as misunderstanding and incapable of giving understanding to a point of view outside of the ones you have been told to accept. OH, so the only way you can prove me wrong is to change your mind, which you can't. By your own assumption since I have defined you, NO ONE CAN CHANGE IT. You are trapped, unless you change your mind. That is your definition, and your concept of the definition of a definition.

Love is blind, so is discrimination, and so are you. To accept that the world does not have to be homogenious for you to be productive and happy, will remove a great burden from your soul. I will give you a few more reincarnations to learn that. In time so shall you see.

NOTE TO THE MODS:
I understand that the heated nature of this post could be construed as in violation of the rules and regulations, however it is my hope that this post will be allowed so as to illustrate the irony of the claims presented. Yet, if you feel this is crossing the line, I will remove the post of my own accord immediately as your decision is final, and I do not wish to create ill will, and I wish to illustrate that I do understand that I may be 'pushing it', and I hope that I will be given the benefit of the doubt. Thank you.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by GideonHM]

[edit on 16-5-2008 by GideonHM]

gays should NOT be allowed to get married... Being gay should be a felony.

On the second hand smoke issue. Yes I know that's why smoking in public was banned. It might not have been the best analogy to use but think of the health risk to homosexuals showing PDA. Me and you could just look the other way. But there are many in this country that would not look the other way. And there in lies a problem. Do we honestly believe that it will ever be accepted? Maybe. But if it is it won't be until after a long hard road on both sides. Gays will go through a lot over this. Which to me won't be much different than the things they already go through. It's going to be the religious people, the racist people,those that are just scared of the idea, and then you have my kind that have no problem as long as I don't see it. Well let me rephrase that. I don't have a problem with it, I just don't wish to see it.

Annee

Isn't everyone's vote cast on personal belief and opinion?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Simon_Boudreaux]

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Simon_Boudreaux]

Originally posted by Simon_BoudreauxMe and you could just look the other way. But there are many in this country that would not look the other way. And there in lies a problem. Do we honestly believe that it will ever be accepted?

There are people who have a phobia against Red Hair.

Shall we make everyone who has Red Hair wear a stocking cap?

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Annee

Isn't everyone's vote cast on personal belief and opinion?

NO!

Some people vote according law or Constitutional rights.

What happened is - the Right to marry has been in the Constitution all along.

The difference is how it was interpreted. Law is not finite - but subject to interpretation.

The Judges make a correction in the interpretation to include all genders.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Being homosexual is just not natural and is a defect within the body, like when someone is born with a physical or mental handicap. Like all species, we are born to multiply and two men cannot.

It's a "defect" that occurs naturally, so it is , in fact, natural.

reply to post by Annee

Originally posted by Annee
What happened is - the Right to marry has been in the Constitution all along.

Where in the Constitution?

Originally posted by Annee
The difference is how it was interpreted. Law is not finite - but subject to interpretation.

The Judges make a correction in the interpretation to include all genders.

And which definition of marriage did the judges use to make their decision?

I still haven't gotten an answer to my previous questions.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Annee

Isn't everyone's vote cast on personal belief and opinion?

NO!

Some people vote according law or Constitutional rights.

What happened is - the Right to marry has been in the Constitution all along.

The difference is how it was interpreted. Law is not finite - but subject to interpretation.

The Judges make a correction in the interpretation to include all genders.

With that said then by your own definition we do in fact vote based on our own beliefs and opinions. If law is subject to interpretation then that means it is subject to personal opinion and belief.

While like you I'd like to believe that we vote based on issues and stances. Unfortunately we do not. The vast majority of us vote yes or no on laws based on how we feel about them and not on what they stand or don't stand for. Take the race for president. Ask someone not a member of ATS who they are voting for. When they tell you ask them why. I've done this and you wouldn't even begin to believe some of the responses I've gotten.

If the vast majority of a state votes against something even if a court overturns it, it will still never be accepted.

[q
With that said then by your own definition we do in fact vote based on our own beliefs and opinions. If law is subject to interpretation then that means it is subject to personal opinion and belief.


No - don't agree.

There is a difference between the average persons personal opinion/belief - - and those educated in law.

You first have to be educated in law - to interpret its meaning - in a manner that applies to legal justice - - and in this case the Constitution.

You are really trying to twist words and meanings - aren't you.

I'm rolling my eyes so drastically at some of these replies that I fear they may just fall out. (Reptilian threads haven't even done even this to me.)

By some logic in this thread, I shouldn't have had a happy home, my parents couldn't have kids so they (ohmygosh) adopted me. But, they adopted out of a catholic agency, and they wouldn't have been able to in 1983 if they weren't married.

I shouldn't have my daughter because my soon to be ex huband skipped out, (ohmygosh) she's being raised by myself with some help (albeit minimal) from my mom. (ohmygosh 2 women!!)

Also, by that logic I'm never getting married again, no more kids for me.

A lot of these responses really are way too overboard.

1.) The arguments about "teh gays" getting married leading into bestiality, well teh straights are at fault for that, by that logic anyway.

straights started marriage -> gay marriage - > bestiality (logic in that is rather lost on me though, this argument can't be serious?)

This site is fascinating, I knew sites like this existed, but was too scared that people congregating here would abandon logic and reason (not a jab!) and just start posting whatever paranoiac emotionally driven nonsense was popular that day. To be specific to this post, since when was marriage about love? My parents weren't in love. I know many people who are in loveless relationships. Marriage is a union between two consulting adults. You cannot be a willing participant if you are a sheep, because you couldn't even know how to say "I do," because all you know how to say is "bah." You cannot marry your daughter (providing she is under age) because she is not an adult. Also, is there any proof that you cannot, in fact, marry your daughter? Can someone find a precedence for that claim? I'm sure/almost certain it has happened. Yes. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and yes I would love to move to San Francisco. I am tolerant and proud of it. I am ALSO very intelligent and not ruled by "TEH GAY LOVE" For those people who say it is unnatural, what other behaviors do we know that are unnatural, like flight for example! If we were meant to fly of course we would have been born with wings. Well, guess we #ed that one up! Do you hate flying? Better sell those tickets to Orlando right quick or god is going to send you to hell. Behavior is only damned by society, for in the absence of society, there is no behavior. As soon as society begins to become more tolerant of those around us, the less suffering our ancestors will have to endure. -Byronotron

reply to post by Anesthesia


People fear what they don't understand, and people fear change.

How often have we heard the elderly (or even the not so elderly) talking about the good 'ol days, and how they were oh so respectful, and how children never respect their elders these days. I was always told that, even though I was extremely respectful, until my psychotic birth mother really went off the deep end. I believe this was either Babylonian or Assyrian, but this ancient writing said that effectively "the end of the world is at hand, children disrespect their elders, and women are learning to read..."

No different! This mentality has persisted since the beginning of time. It is always easier to close one's mind, then scream at the top of one's lungs at those who disagree, than it is to look at the real implications as to what one is speaking and see if indeed one's beliefs are actually productive or are actually destructive.

My father is a typical middle American conservative racist. N** this, and N** that, and he tries to blame my college education for corrupting me, because I reject his blind abject hatred of a particular skin color (an all around good guy, but man accepting that part of his personality is all I can do to keep from knocking him out every time he says something racist which isn't all that often, thank the gods).

Why do I have to put up with racism? Because I love him. Because I know that I can be the bigger, more intelligent and patient individual in that respect, and tearing up my home over his foolishness is WRONG. He knows I disagree with him, and sometimes we will get into it, but then we let it go.

Discrimination to more than a few conservatives is only wrong when they are being discriminated against. Anyone who truly understands the horrors of discrimination are loathe to ever accept that witches should not be tolerated to live (which was mistranslated from poisoner), or that loving your neighbor as yourself only pertains to those who follow your beliefs.

The book of John addresses this with the conflicts between two groups of Christians who were fighting over whether it was ok to eat meat blessed before an idol. He stated quite clearly that if they are not forcing one another to forsake their beliefs, then how they choose to live is far less important than living in peace and not killing one another over meat.

See, the biggest problem with people who have problems with homosexuality is that they fear that somehow another person's personal choices reflects on them. God will reject our neighborhood if we have a fag living here (or once upon a time a black person). Or our country. It is not possible to live and let live, if you insist on creating broad reaching laws affecting a minority because their non harmful habits bother you (they will say they are harmful, just like Americans did to the Native Americans trying to brand tribalism, their way of life as communism) you cannot get rid of something unless you convince enough people the act is harmful, contaminating, or evil. That is what this type of agenda tries to push.

With enough people who prefer to live their OWN lives rather than insist that everyone conform to their ideals and beliefs, these people will eventually learn to keep their hatred mostly to themselves. Look at racism, I have seen old footage of full daylight processions of supposed 'good' Christians, business men, and other affluent members of society supporting the Klu Klux Klan. Anyone can use practically any belief system to breed hatred, and they did so rather convincingly. What is the difference between saying Jews are a defect, and saying homosexuals are a defect? NOTHING. By the way, the scientific notion of racism was Eugenics. The perfection of race through selective breeding.

The Nazis said many of the same things about Jews that conservatives say about homosexuals. They just try to word it slightly differently, because they are not drawing the comparison or conclusion that I am speaking of. Also in the same way if you give in at all, it just won't be about keeping homosexuals from marriage, then others will try to separate them from society, or try to 'convert' them, much like the Native Americans had conversion forced upon them. Be like white people, be like us, give up your beliefs and we will give you ours, or we will force you to. It does not end until they lose their pulpit, and more open minded people are allowed to help moderate society in a more balanced way (including allowing closed minded people to keep their opinions).



[edit on 16-5-2008 by GideonHM]

reply to post by GideonHM


GideonHM, I gave you a star for a well-spoken, well-reasoned and very personal account that is appreciated, I would guess, by many here.

One caveat....down in the third- or fourth-to-the-last paragraph you (perhaps accidentally) made a reference to homosexuality being a choice.

I don't wish to sound critical, nor do I wish to appear to nit-pick....but, it is an important point to maintain, that homosexuality is not, never has been, and never will be a 'choice'. No more than 'heterosexuality' is a choice....

One could cite the work of Kinsey, and his 'scale'....you can look that up for yourselves.

The confusion, to my mind, seems to be in one's ability to transcend the binders (blinders?) of various religious upbringings and begin to think for themselves, as logical adults.

There are certainly degrees of human sexuality....I dare not go into them on this board...but I think we all know what I'm talking about. AND...I wish only to refer to consentual relations between adults....PERIOD!

Point is, as adults....only you know your own fantasies, and your biases...

There exist Gay men who have only sexual attraction to other Gay men. There exist gay men....who also find certain women attractive....this is simplistictly called 'bi-sexual'. There are men who have no sexual attraction to other men at all....but enjoy the comraderie of other men....

Now....a man feeling a friendship for another man, as a comrade....THAT is a choice. He doesn't have sexual feelings in any way....he CHOOSES his friends.

This same man goes on a date, after date, after date...and FINALLY....CHOOSES the woman he wishes to spend the rest of his life with!!! Again, that is a choice!

This man is not 'choosing' his sexuality....he is 'choosing' a person who he feels he will be comfortable and happy with.

Of course, the woman should feel the same, as well...if there's to be any bonding at all.

Well, same-sex flirting and relationships, if they occur, follow the same paths....

What catches the eye of one person, to 'turn' him/her on, isn't always what 'turns on' the next person. It's not a choice!! It's in the genes, and the hormones....and ultimately, in the brain!!!