California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[FinalHeart95]

Thank you California! I see no problem with giving gays the legal rights that straights get when they marry. Seriously, what is the problem, other than a massive hatred of homosexuals?

If the law forced churches to marry homosexuals, however, that would be wrong. Chruches have the right to marry whomever they want, even if it is morally ambiguous.

 

[Kryzantine]

Professor of genetics at NYU?

Trust me, if he was the prof of genetics at NYU, no wonder he still believes in this stuff.

I mean, on the most basic of all levels, homosexuality and heterosexuality are habits bred through social interaction. It's the same concept as Russians showing wariness of each other through subtle interactions like staring across the street or avoiding small talk. It isn't born in them. It's a habit influenced by their environment. There is no genetics in this, only psychology.

 

[Eiseth]

So.... lordbuxton... you say you're the only one here thinking logically? Then why are you the one that uses a very well known form of logical fallacy? Actually, you use more than one form of fallacy... Doesn't seem like you got your thingies together o.o

 

[lordbuxton]

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?

Im not narcisistic.

 

[MGlBlaze]

On the other hand, I have a major problem with legislation from the bench being used to overrule the voters. This is not the only issue that this happens on and in California this sort of thing happens constantly. Certainly there must be some better way we can bring everyone involved to the table and come to a reasonable compromise. I don't particularly agree with the outcome of the vote, but I agree less with judges creating law when their position is to interpret it. It pollutes the power of the people's vote. And that is really the only power that most of us have.

You have a point, but these are human beings we're talking about. Some of us can be ignorant egotistical fucks who will never admit fault. That and humans are social creatures so we have a habit of bunching with people we like or identify with and take their opinions as our own as well. If this sort of intervention never happened I think we'd be worse off for it. To quote Men in Black; "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals."

I'm sorry I don't understand your point. I disagree with the outcome of the law, but that is simply the will of the people at this time. Is it really fair that one man's voice has overruled that of millions of voices? I'm saying that there should be better ways to go about this. That people should be given to opportunity to hear and understand. And the sad part is, not everyone is going to agree. But that's simply the way humans are. You can't please everyone at once.

Sorry, I have a habit of not really making myself very clear. Let me try again.

Yes, the fact that one person can over-rule the opinions of so many does seem wrong, but I believe sometimes it is neccisary; such as in removing the Gay Marriage Ban, or back when slavery was first outlawed. The majority was against the change, but the acts of a few people made changes for the better even if it wasn't exactly popular at the time. It's not fair, but 'fair' doesn't always mean 'right'.

It would be nice to have better ways to go about things, but as you said, "And the sad part is, not everyone is going to agree. But that's simply the way humans are. You can't please everyone at once." There are a lot of people who will simply not allow their views to be changed; if they're prominent social figures, chances are a lot of other people are going to agree with them regardless. Humans... we can be quite stupid sometimes.

Basically;
Maybe the fact that one person over-ruled so many is wrong, but it led to a positive outcome versus if the majority won and gay marriage was still banned.

I really hope I've made myself a little clearer...

 

[ChazzBurger]

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?

Im not narcisistic.

So you're malignant then? That surely must be a genetic defect. Therefore by your logic, you must be destroyed for the good of humanity.

On the plus side, there will be cake

 

[Oilerfan92]

Sorry to be so blunt.

But if one guy wants to put his Johnson in another guys pooper, let him. There are way to many people as is, the last thing we need is every 2 people popping out 2-3 kids.

 

[lordbuxton]

Thank you California! I see no problem with giving gays the legal rights that straights get when they marry. Seriously, what is the problem, other than a massive hatred of homosexuals?

If the law forced churches to marry homosexuals, however, that would be wrong. Chruches have the right to marry whomever they want, even if it is morally ambiguous.

I will repeat, mabey some of you can sing along this time.

Genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

Also, point i should mention is when i say genetic disorders i mean bad ones, not ones that help us to survive, i thought that was pretty obvious.

Clue was in the word "disorder".

 

[esin]

Sorry to be so blunt.

But if one guy wants to put his Johnson in another guys pooper, let him. There are way to many people as is, the last thing we need is every 2 people popping out 2-3 kids.

This pretty much. Even if homosexuality could be 'cured' the cure would be worse than the disease down the line.

 

[lordbuxton]

Sorry to be so blunt.

But if one guy wants to put his Johnson in another guys pooper, let him. There are way to many people as is, the last thing we need is every 2 people popping out 2-3 kids.

This pretty much. Even if homosexuality could be 'cured' the cure would be worse than the disease down the line.

How so ?

 

[esin]

Encouraging overpopulation. Not to say it's not bad as it is, but there's tempting fate, and then there's giving it a lapdance.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Sorry to be so blunt.

But if one guy wants to put his Johnson in another guys pooper, let him. There are way to many people as is, the last thing we need is every 2 people popping out 2-3 kids.

FYI, homosexual males don't actually do anal much. To my understanding it takes a lot of preparation beforehand and is usually more trouble than it's worth.

I... think I read that somewhere on Cracked. I forget, actually.

Thank you California! I see no problem with giving gays the legal rights that straights get when they marry. Seriously, what is the problem, other than a massive hatred of homosexuals?

If the law forced churches to marry homosexuals, however, that would be wrong. Chruches have the right to marry whomever they want, even if it is morally ambiguous.

I will repeat, mabey some of you can sing along this time.

Genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

Also, point i should mention is when i say genetic disorders i mean bad ones, not ones that help us to survive, i thought that was pretty obvious.

Clue was in the word "disorder".

Okay, here's an idea. How about you tell us what exactly you class as a 'disorder'?

You are also going back on your word again. You just mentioned here "when i say genetic disorders i mean bad ones, not ones that help us to survive, i thought that was pretty obvious" yet beforehand you mentioned Autism as something that needed eradication. Beyond greatly offending me personally, it was also pointed out that Autism in fact did (and still does) play a role in human advancement.

I therefore conclude that many of your classifications of 'good' or 'bad' disorders is skewed and uninformed, and by extension is entirely unreliable.

 

[Oilerfan92]

Sorry to be so blunt.

But if one guy wants to put his Johnson in another guys pooper, let him. There are way to many people as is, the last thing we need is every 2 people popping out 2-3 kids.

This pretty much. Even if homosexuality could be 'cured' the cure would be worse than the disease down the line.

I mean. Maybe he's technically right about genetic disorders and whatever. But what's it hurting ? It's not like humans are just gonna stop breeding.

 

[AMMO Kid]

I'll just come right out with it. The founding fathers were, like it or not, Christians, and they would never have wanted this for our country. They would have shaken their head at it. So how is it unconstitutional? Now excuse me while I ready my defensive procedures.

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

 

[Matt_LRR]

Thank you California! I see no problem with giving gays the legal rights that straights get when they marry. Seriously, what is the problem, other than a massive hatred of homosexuals?

If the law forced churches to marry homosexuals, however, that would be wrong. Chruches have the right to marry whomever they want, even if it is morally ambiguous.

I will repeat, mabey some of you can sing along this time.

Genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

Also, point i should mention is when i say genetic disorders i mean bad ones, not ones that help us to survive, i thought that was pretty obvious.

1. We do not know conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, psychological, or some confluence of the two.

2. Regardless, homosexuals, are fully productive, capable members of society, who contribute equally to heterosexuals.

3. if a "cure" is found, then it should be offered openly to homosexuals, so they may choose whether they wish to be hetero or homosexual, (and offered to parents, if it is a form of pre-natal treatment).

4. until that time there is no justifiable purpose served by failing to extend equal rights to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike - their origins are irrelevant, they are here,and they should be included.

-m

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Thank you California! I see no problem with giving gays the legal rights that straights get when they marry. Seriously, what is the problem, other than a massive hatred of homosexuals?

If the law forced churches to marry homosexuals, however, that would be wrong. Chruches have the right to marry whomever they want, even if it is morally ambiguous.

I will repeat, mabey some of you can sing along this time.

Genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

Also, point i should mention is when i say genetic disorders i mean bad ones, not ones that help us to survive, i thought that was pretty obvious.

Clue was in the word "disorder".

How long are you planning on living? Not a threat or anything, I'm just wondering what good moving off the planet in about a hundred years and purging genetic abnormalities will do for you. Who cares about bettering the human race? You, and everyone genetically inferior person alive right now, will be dead before any of your dreams come to pass. Life is for the living, not the people who aren't even born yet. So no, we shouldn't kill off the genetically inferior or ban gays from marrying, because the people who are alive now are the ones whose lives and happiness matter.

 

[lordbuxton]

Encouraging overpopulation. Not to say it's not bad as it is, but there's tempting fate, and then there's giving it a lapdance.

The United States has a massive aging population. It needs a a large young population to pay for the soical security. So it's not a problem.

Mabey for third world nations but there wouldn't have access to the treatment anyway.

 

[Furious Styles]

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.

You keep saying I missed your point but you've totally missed mine, so I will reiterate.

Why even cure a disorder? It is illogical in an emotionless world, wherein the best course of action would be to simply eliminate the specimen. The only reason to cure is a desire not to kill, which is irrational according to you. Especially seeing as in such a world, people who would not have reproduced would be better able, increasing the population exponentially.

Also, I did not take you off topic. You brought it up when you proclaimed, in your infinite wisdom, that emotions are irrational and unnecessary. Such a proclamation naturally leads to the topic of child-rearing, which would, according to your logic, be best undertaken free of any love or support, possibly in a tube then by a series of machines for education and maintenance.

But seriously, dude, you're fairly messed up. What happened to you to make you this way? Did your parents not love you? Did the kids pick on you at school? Did they tease you? Well, you'll just have to wait to exact revenge upon their inferior minds until the lair is complete and your white cat is back from the grooming place.

Also, I've decided that I'm above even arguing with you (and its 3am here) as frankly I have better things to do than "debate" with an emotionally crippled narcissist.

Of course, you'll think you've won. You're welcome to because I know better...

 

[FreeDoM.]

They can call it whatever they want, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and will always be.