California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[The_Echo]

Funny, my cousin just posted this on Facebook a couple seconds before I saw this thread!

OT: Fucking finally. All's fair in love and war. We shouldn't even have laws on this kind of thing in the first place.

 

[MGlBlaze]

A step forward out of the shadows of ignorance and intollerance. I like it when this kind of thing happens. It reminds my that humanity is still worth defending... if only just sometimes.

Basically, a judge found the ban was unconstitutional.

This has invoked a pretty huge 'no shit!' reaction from me. I'm not sure about everyone else. What, did someone in power not figure that out earlier?

 

[lordbuxton]

you missed the point, what a supprise.

But to anwser the question, it depends if the cause of the blindness is genetic.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

So you're saying that blind people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

His logic is that because you are born gay without a choice, it's a disorder.
Technically this would qualify all sexual orientation and ethnic/racial origin as a disorder.
My guess is his loophole is "heterosexuals can procreate naturally".

 

[Comrade_Beric]

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

Nowhere written in the constitution is the government allowed to do such a thing. And there is no "do what is necessary" clause regarding tax breaks, or marriage.

Article I, Section 8, last paragraph: "[Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Meaning, Congress can make any law it has to in order to perform the duties given to it by the constitution.

Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Meaning, Congress can basically tax incomes how it sees fit.

Does it say at any point "Congress shall have power to tell some people they don't have to pay taxes as high as others"? No, but it does grant congress exactly that power even if it is by implication rather than explicitly. That's why married couples get tax breaks. I can't tell you if it is right for congress to have that power or not, but when you say they don't you are wrong. It is not unconstitutional for the government to give any tax breaks it sees fit to give.

 

[warboss5]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

Actually, under that definition, its not a mental disorder, its a unfavorable mutation. Now, if humans were an animal species, then Darwinian logic would state that the "gay gene" would die out because it is, by its very nature, incapable of being passed on. However, humanity hasn't obeyed Darwinian evolution laws since we learned round things roll when pushed. Humanity is NOT an animal, so the rules of evolution no longer apply to us (for the most part). If every aspect of human culture that wasn't actively contributing towards beneficial evolutionary steps was considered a mental disease, then people who are sexually attracted to people with little body hair would have a mental disorder (since greater body hair would lead to greater heat retention and, therefore, greater survivability in cold climates).

So no, using Darwin as an excuse to classify something as a mental disorder is just plain wrong. Especially when damn near the entire psychiatric community disagrees with you.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

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

Nowhere written in the constitution is the government allowed to do such a thing. And there is no "do what is necessary" clause regarding tax breaks, or marriage.

Article I, Section 8, last paragraph: "[Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Meaning, Congress can make any law it has to in order to perform the duties given to it by the constitution.

Amendment XVI: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Meaning, Congress can basically tax incomes how it sees fit.

Does it say at any point "Congress shall have power to tell some people they don't have to pay taxes as high as others"? No, but it does grant congress exactly that power even if it is by implication rather than explicitly. That's why married couples get tax breaks. I can't tell you if it is right for congress to have that power or not, but when you say they don't you are wrong. It is not unconstitutional for the government to give any tax breaks it sees fit to give.

Just wanted to say I love your avatar even if some of the organization's vigilante actions did cross the line IMO.

 

[ChazzBurger]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

So, if this is a disability, then surely we should allow homosexuals to live in peace and comfort, like we do with all other disabilities? Surely the biggest comfort to them would be for them to become a partner with the so called "disability", to share their "pain" of being "disabled" and live happily with their life. So therefore it must be a good thing that gay rights are now in place?

Thanks for agreeing with us sir! ^^

 

[open trap]

I bet SanFransisco is really happy (thats a joke)

 

[Pariahwulfen]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

You do realize that there are studies showing that the siblings of someone who is homosexual tend to be more fertile than the average person right?

 

[thethingthatlurks]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

Actually, under that definition, its not a mental disorder, its a unfavorable mutation. Now, if humans were an animal species, then Darwinian logic would state that the "gay gene" would die out because it is, by its very nature, incapable of being passed on. However, humanity hasn't obeyed Darwinian evolution laws since we learned round things roll when pushed. Humanity is NOT an animal, so the rules of evolution no longer apply to us (for the most part). If every aspect of human culture that wasn't actively contributing towards beneficial evolutionary steps was considered a mental disease, then people who are sexually attracted to people with little body hair would have a mental disorder (since greater body hair would lead to greater heat retention and, therefore, greater survivability in cold climates).

So no, using Darwin as an excuse to classify something as a mental disorder is just plain wrong. Especially when damn near the entire psychiatric community disagrees with you.

Not to mention that homosexuality occurs in many other species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[-Drifter-]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/science/7147-Science-Sperm-Homosexuality-and-Primordial-Soup.3

Page 3

 

[Hydrus]

you missed the point, what a supprise.

But to anwser the question, it depends if the cause of the blindness is genetic.

Wow....just wow. I'm bowing out of this thread before I'm up to my eyeballs in troll flavoured bullshit.


Good on you California!

 

[lordbuxton]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

Actually, under that definition, its not a mental disorder, its a unfavorable mutation. Now, if humans were an animal species, then Darwinian logic would state that the "gay gene" would die out because it is, by its very nature, incapable of being passed on. However, humanity hasn't obeyed Darwinian evolution laws since we learned round things roll when pushed. Humanity is NOT an animal, so the rules of evolution no longer apply to us (for the most part). If every aspect of human culture that wasn't actively contributing towards beneficial evolutionary steps was considered a mental disease, then people who are sexually attracted to people with little body hair would have a mental disorder (since greater body hair would lead to greater heat retention and, therefore, greater survivability in cold climates).

So no, using Darwin as an excuse to classify something as a mental disorder is just plain wrong. Especially when damn near the entire psychiatric community disagrees with you.

you are wrong I am right.

The entire psychiatric community ? You mean 8 or so liberals who have spent half a hour on wiki ?

You said your self, "it's a unfavorable mutation" and we should be trying to cure these munations, just like we are trying to remove mutations that increase the chances of cancer.

 

[DanDeFool]

The title says it all, but here's a link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/04/proposition-8-gay-marriage-california?CMP=AFCYAH

Basically, a judge found the ban was unconstitutional.

Personally, I am pretty glad they've done this. It's a victory for civil rights and just generally great (speaking as a brit).

Thoughts? I know you're all reasonably enlightened so I can't imagine much hate for this news.

This is absolute bull.

To support gay marrige is to accept a mental disorder as "acceptable".

We should be trying to cure this disorder rather than accepting it as a part of life.

Hmm, all-one-word-all-lowercase handle with only four posts?

Spoiler: I think it's safe to say that

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv215/Luckybug76/Picture1-7.png

That said, I'm glad this went through. Just because homosexuality makes some (even most) people uncomfortable doesn't mean it's wrong, and doesn't mean it's okay to treat gays and lesbians like second-class citizens.

And talking about developing 'cures' for any kind of psychological 'abnormality' is a dangerous proposition for everyone.

For example, here's an article talking about the discovery of a so-called 'faith gene'.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/16378.php

So, technically, we could start research into gene therapy to 'cure' people like the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are arguably more dangerous and hated than homosexuals. But why stop there? Why not bomb the middle-east with a biological agent that does nothing but disable this 'faith gene' in its victims, and all your worries about radical Islam are officially over! Sure, you annihilate an entire faith and thousands of years of culture, but because the majority of the world wants it, it must be alright!

Frankly, I'd rather not live in a world where people are 'cured' of things like homosexuality. Escapists, remember, before you support something radical like this, always take a moment to imagine how your opposition would use it against YOU, because they probably will.

 

[Sovvolf]

Not all my comments, broken no rules any way.

From the looks of this thread it seems i am the only one using logic and reason.

Well that all depends... I'm sure a few of our homosexual members will find being called mentally ill an insult and discriminatory. I'll let the mods decide that.

However I've retracted my earlier comments. I commented before you linked it to Darwin and the his theory on evolution. While I don't agree with you on your opinions of this matter... You've at least approached the subject with logic in mind.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Good, I knew this would happen eventually.

 

[Furious Styles]

you missed the point, what a surprise.

No, your point was that it's a disability because it puts you at a genetic disadvantage when it comes to reproduction. Well, so does being an asshole and being ugly, fat or short. None of them are disabilities, right? (And fat can be genetic, so don't even try to bring that up)

Also, your definition of a disability is more than a little fucked up.

 

[AugustFall]

Hooray! Hopefully this will lead the rest to follow suit.

 

[Godhead]

I believe gay marriage is wrong, that is just my opinion, Its just sounds like an oxymoron to me

Fair enough, care to elaborate?

[http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/warboss5/?action=view&current=its-a-trap.jpg]

hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself =P

HAHA i dont doubt that its a trap.

Well marriage has always been when two people 'come together' under the responsibilities of a religion, and we know that religions tend to reject homosexuality.

So why call it 'marriage' which has always been religious.

We can call them "Butt buddies." (Oh how I love South Park.)

OT: Good for them I guess. Still doesn't really effect me personally much.