California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[warboss5]

i greatly aproove. i think that all the states should legalize it.

Hermes Conrad: Ya mon! You gatta legalize it!
Amy Wong: We're talking about (gay) marriage.
Hermes Conrad: We're talking about a lot of things.

hehe

 

[lordbuxton]

I don't view genetics in black and white, but realy, in some cases there is no arguments for it.
In some there is.

Also im not trolling. And i have broken no forum rules.

Pretty much calling Homosexuals retards and pretty much hinting towards having them cured or killed being good for our species... Which is both homophobic and offensive towards the homosexual members of the community. (Not looked kindly upon by the mods)

Then telling a member to fuck off... That member also called another member a fuck head and I'm sure he'll be in quite some trouble for it... But you'll be in just as much trouble.

I'm not saying your a troll, others are but I ain't. I find your views disturbing and I certainly don't agree with them... But I don't think your a troll. However you have broken a good amount of rules on this forum.

Didn't say homosexuals were "retards", just said it should not be accepted and should be cured like a host of other genetic faults.

Im not allowed to swear ? *shrugs*

 

[thethingthatlurks]

51.5% voted against it, 48.5% voted for it? why did people vote if it didnt matter?

Because we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. If we were in a Democracy than it would be majority rule all, all the time, aka tyranny of the many, but thats not the case in America.

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.

mate they are going to slaughter you, but i think its a fair opinion...

Right, ill cast the first stone...

Who are you to decide who should and shouldn't love each other? who is anyone to decide for another person who they can and can't be with. It's fuck heads like you that bring the world down, it's fuck heads like you that feel you have the authority to tell my family members how to live their life. You sir can fuck right off.

No son, you can fuck off.

Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it.

As a species we should be trying to constantly improve our selves, removing genetic mutations and developing natural immunity to disease.

So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race.

Hey you sound really familiar. Wait... removing genetic mutations... advancement of human race. Oh! You're Hitler! (Godwin's law ironical)
Sorry but your idea is to "cure" every one who isn't perfect sounds like the final solution.

Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.

"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?

Please for the love of God open your fucking eyes and stop trying to be so damn "smart" and "advanced".

Where to begin ?


Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No where did i say we should kill homosexuals rather i said we should be trying to cure it.


"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so much the civil rights but the view of accepting a disorder as acceptable instead of trying to cure it.

So...you're transhumanist? I'm sure you haven't heard the term before, so don't think about it too much...
Let's see...you're most likely a ~15 year old caucasian male with slightly below average IQ, exhibiting symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, socially inept, and most likely an underachiever. You are hardly the sort of person who ought to be telling anybody how to live.

 

[Furious Styles]

Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

If so then why try to cure? Why not simply kill, it would be less costly and more effective. The only reason to cure above kill is compassion, an emotion (or something approximating one).

Also, a world like the one you're proposing would be a hideous amalgam of 1984, equilibrium and Brave New World, where babies are born in tubes so as remove physical contact (because it is primitive, dirty and animal) and the basic bonds of society break down.

You are the worst person I've ever encountered.

 

[Oilerfan92]

I think intolerance is a disorder and we should cure it. It's holding society back and is a primitive urge.

 

[lordbuxton]

I know far more on genetics than everyone else here.
Im sorry if your ego can't take that.

So you're what? A Doctor of genetics? A world leading expert on the subject? More knowledgeable than most of the eminent geneticists on earth? Professor of genetics at NYU? Stanford? Harvard? Yale? If so, professor, what are you doing losing and argument against a bunch of mostly teenage nerds on the internet?

You're so full of shit the Parisian sewage system couldn't deal with you effectively.

Im winning.

And you liberals are the ones full of shit.

All full of hypocritical morality.

 

[-Drifter-]

Lordbuxton you still haven't replied to what I said, and btw I don't think you should be banned for what you have said so far, if you are just presenting opinions and not mindlessly insulting that's fine.
To sum up my position: Homosexuality is not detrimental to humans or many other species. It can help cut down on overpopulation which would be very beneficial and provide extra parents for children without them.
If marriage were a religious rite then people not following the religious rules should leave them along and find their own religion. One problem, CHRISTIANITY DID NOT INVENT MARRIAGE. NO RELIGION DID. Marriage existed completely separate from any religion for a long time, its was several hundred years before Christians started doing anything special involving their religion in marriages. And plenty of other religions have their own religious ceremonies, what if that religion didn't condemn homosexuality? That's not at all fair or equal and would clearly just be favouring one specific religion.
The legal aspects of marriage exist for taxing and census purposes, not for protecting religious or social institutions, anyone who claims that is ignorant of historical facts and is trying to rewrite them for their own benefit.
As for the overruling aspect, sometimes people are too stupid to vote for stuff, when it comes to human rights, then need to be equal, if the majority is discriminating unfairly and without any basis in fact, they are wrong.

Sorry if i missed you, too many questions to answer.

At least you argue a point based on logic and not morality.

I agree there is a problem with population. I could suggest killing the geneticaly inferior off, but im sure that were stur up a massive shit storm up on here. We should aim to expand to the stars and leave this dieing world, within at least 100 or so years. There is no harm in removeing Genetic abnormalities.

No harm in genocide?

 

[ChazzBurger]

51.5% voted against it, 48.5% voted for it? why did people vote if it didnt matter?

Because we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. If we were in a Democracy than it would be majority rule all, all the time, aka tyranny of the many, but thats not the case in America.

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.

mate they are going to slaughter you, but i think its a fair opinion...

Right, ill cast the first stone...

Who are you to decide who should and shouldn't love each other? who is anyone to decide for another person who they can and can't be with. It's fuck heads like you that bring the world down, it's fuck heads like you that feel you have the authority to tell my family members how to live their life. You sir can fuck right off.

No son, you can fuck off.

Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it.

As a species we should be trying to constantly improve our selves, removing genetic mutations and developing natural immunity to disease.

So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race.

Hey you sound really familiar. Wait... removing genetic mutations... advancement of human race. Oh! You're Hitler! (Godwin's law ironical)
Sorry but your idea is to "cure" every one who isn't perfect sounds like the final solution.

Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.

"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?

Please for the love of God open your fucking eyes and stop trying to be so damn "smart" and "advanced".

Where to begin ?


Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No where did i say we should kill homosexuals rather i said we should be trying to cure it.


"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so much the civil rights but the view of accepting a disorder as acceptable instead of trying to cure it.

Have we ever thought that maybe the disabled individual LIKES being disabled?

I mean, we always think of it as a shame for them, but have they actually known anything different? They live perfectly fine lifestyles, maybe not self sufficient, but surely that's where emotions come in. Humans CARE for another. Without emotions there would be no humans, mothers would have no maternal need to care for their children, no love/nurturing instinct. This would certainly cause humans to die out.

Surely a lack of emotions, which you say are not needed in todays society, are much more likely to be harmful to the human race than disabilities are.

 

[CLime]

The issue is not what's important, what matters is that a single judge can overrule the majority with one swing of the gavel.
If those stupid, misguided, close-minded, bigoted idiots want themselves a gay-marriage ban, then they should have it without worrying that ONE judge with contrary opinion is their equal in terms of the law.

No. Prop 8 should never have been voted on to begin with. This is why kids need to pay attention in History class, so they don't get misguided ideas about what democracy really is. The United States is infinitely more democratic now than it was when the Constitution was ratified.

I would be curious how many people oppose this kind of judicial intervention while also decrying the federal government deciding state issues. If 51.5% of Californians call tell the other 49.5% how to live their lives, even if there is no demonstrable harm posed by the issue at hand, then all the coastal states should be able to legislate for the rest of the country, as they hold an even greater majority of the national population.

American democracy does not mean 51 out of 100 people get to band together and curbstomp the other 49. Thank god (any god) for sensible folks like Judge Walker. Not all opinions are valid.

You're assuming that the way the country is run is as perfect as you were told in school. It's sadly not and there are occasions when 51-49 votes happen, in fact far more than you might think. I don't agree with the outcome of the vote. But I do agree that the rule of law must stand. That does not mean that the law is not subject to change. But if it does not come from a mandate of the voters, then you will cause discourse and eventually revolt.

There's a huge difference between "normal" voter issues (such as elections) and the Prop 8 referendum. In the former case, everyone has to live with the option the voters choose- everyone will be affected, ostensibly, by the choices made by the new mayor or governor or president. With Prop 8, the only harm done to heterosexual bigots is a longer waiting list at that quaint old beach-side church. Most of the voters had no right to decide this issue because there was no significant way in which gay marriage could disadvantage them.

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples." -From the judge's final ruling.

 

[-Drifter-]

Im winning.

And you liberals are the ones full of shit.

All full of hypocritical morality.

"I'm winning.

Because I say so."

 

[PhiMed]

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.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I thought the law was a bad idea, but I have one question to ask. You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part? I don't think the Constitution or any of its ammendments have anything to say about marriage whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, the Tenth Ammendment pretty specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government defaults to the states or to individuals.

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government the right to dictate to whom states can grant marriage contracts?

I'm not being facetious. I think the law was a bad law, but I think it was perfectly Constitutional, so unless a federal law is passed to supercede the state law or the constitution is ammended, it should've been allowed to stand. Please explain to me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, I have to view the argument that it was unconstitutional as a slightly less defensible position than, "They shouldn't be able to be married because Jesus says so." At least people who say that can cite their sources.

I believe the references to a "constitution" were references to the CALIFORNIA constitution, which is what Prop 8 amended in the first place to specify marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Not quite.

A federal court doesn't care about the Constitution of the State of California unless it is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. This was a ruling by a federal court. Not only do they have no interest in deciding whether something is allowed by a state constitution, but they have no jurisdiction. That's for state courts.

 

[Pariahwulfen]

Nope you just lost the game, and not everyone on here is a leftist.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Now, tax breaks might qualify as necessary for some other power vested in Congress, but I will leave that to you to find out.

Wait, you're flatly telling me you're wrong but you're going to dick around and say "see if you can find why"? Better question, why should I? You just said you're wrong, I don't need to argue anymore. It would be childish and I have better things to do with my time.

 

[bkeyt]

I'm surprised it took California to take so long. We've had a gay marriage in Iowa for over a year now.

 

[Sovvolf]

I don't view genetics in black and white, but realy, in some cases there is no arguments for it.
In some there is.

Also im not trolling. And i have broken no forum rules.

Pretty much calling Homosexuals retards and pretty much hinting towards having them cured or killed being good for our species... Which is both homophobic and offensive towards the homosexual members of the community. (Not looked kindly upon by the mods)

Then telling a member to fuck off... That member also called another member a fuck head and I'm sure he'll be in quite some trouble for it... But you'll be in just as much trouble.

I'm not saying your a troll, others are but I ain't. I find your views disturbing and I certainly don't agree with them... But I don't think your a troll. However you have broken a good amount of rules on this forum.

Didn't say homosexuals were "retards", just said it should not be accepted and should be cured like a host of other genetic faults.

Im not allowed to swear ? *shrugs*

Your allowed to swear on here (not excessively) your just not really allowed to start swearing at people. Also granted you didn't use the exact word retard... Which is why I used the word "Pretty much". You were calling them mentally disabled which is pretty much the same thing... Only Retard is not the kindest of terminology to use. A term I don't like using my self.

 

[Furious Styles]

Im winning.

And you liberals are the ones full of shit.

All full of hypocritical morality.

Yeah... you say you're winning, but really that's only in your head isn't it?
This sort of delusional thought is a sure sign of a mental illness, clearly you have little or no grasp of the reality of what's going on right now and have a massively inflated self view.

Malignant narcissism or regular, which did the shrink your parents took you to diagnose?

 

[lordbuxton]

Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

If so then why try to cure? Why not simply kill, it would be less costly and more effective. The only reason to cure above kill is compassion, an emotion (or something approximating one).

Also, a world like the one you're proposing would be a hideous amalgam of 1984, equilibrium and Brave New World, where babies are born in tubes so as remove physical contact (because it is primitive, dirty and animal) and the basic bonds of society break down.

You are the worst person I've ever encountered.

It would be cheaper.

Besides, you missed my point, so i will re post it

genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

That is what i propose to do, no test tube babies, none of that.

Just simple gene therpy.

You realy did take me off topic.

 

[Oilerfan92]

I know far more on genetics than everyone else here.
Im sorry if your ego can't take that.

So you're what? A Doctor of genetics? A world leading expert on the subject? More knowledgeable than most of the eminent geneticists on earth? Professor of genetics at NYU? Stanford? Harvard? Yale? If so, professor, what are you doing losing and argument against a bunch of mostly teenage nerds on the internet?

You're so full of shit the Parisian sewage system couldn't deal with you effectively.

Im winning.

And you liberals are the ones full of shit.

All full of hypocritical morality.

How are you winning in any sense ?

Also. Just for reference. Do you like Sarah Palin ?

 

[lordbuxton]

I know far more on genetics than everyone else here.
Im sorry if your ego can't take that.

So you're what? A Doctor of genetics? A world leading expert on the subject? More knowledgeable than most of the eminent geneticists on earth? Professor of genetics at NYU? Stanford? Harvard? Yale? If so, professor, what are you doing losing and argument against a bunch of mostly teenage nerds on the internet?

You're so full of shit the Parisian sewage system couldn't deal with you effectively.

Im winning.

And you liberals are the ones full of shit.

All full of hypocritical morality.

How are you winning in any sense ?

Also. Just for reference. Do you like Sarah Palin ?

No.