/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Californians Pass Gay Marriage Ban



Amadeus85
11-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Californians Pass Gay Marriage Ban
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter


After weeks of prayer and intense campaigning on both sides, Californians passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


The measure overturns the state Supreme Court decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had claimed victory Tuesday night as numbers played out in their favor. But opponents said it was too soon to make the call as many votes remained uncounted.

As of Wednesday morning, however, Prop 8 passed 52 percent to 47.9 percent. Although with nearly 96 percent of the votes tallied, there are absentee and provisional ballots still uncounted, reports indicate the 5 percent margin will be difficult to overcome, according to The Mercury News.

"Just over a month ago, we were behind in the polls, and things did not look good for traditional marriage," said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego. "Then we began our 40 days of prayer and fasting, and began hosting rallies that were simulcast to churches all over the state, and we began to see the tide turn. Tonight, we are just grateful for this result, not just as evidence of the people’s decision on marriage, but as evidence of God’s will and plan for marriage and families."

Leading into the polls on Tuesday, a CBS News poll had shown the "Yes on 8" campaign leading only by a 48-45 percent margin and opponents had out-raised the amendment supporters in a last-minute fundraising blitz in Hollywood.

Christians and traditional marriage supporters, however, collected their spiritual strength and organized massive prayer rallies and 40-day campaigns in an effort to defend marriage as between one man and one woman. They also raised an impressive $40 million and the support of over 100,000 volunteers to the traditional marriage cause.

According to Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, the "Yes on 8" campaign was the "single largest, most powerful grassroots movement in the history of American ballot initiative campaigns."

"This is a great day for marriage," said Prentice. "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution. We are gratified that voters chose to protect traditional marriage and to enshrine its importance in the state constitution. We trust that this decision will be respected by all Californians."

Thousands of same-sex couples married since the May ruling. Whether their unions are still valid will be resolved in court, legal experts say.

One lesbian couple, who was the first to be married in Los Angeles County, plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the proposition is unconstitutional, according to The Mercury News.

While similar marriage amendments were being voted on in Arizona and Florida, California drew wide attention as many believed it would set a precedent for other states.

With Tuesday's win, Christians are optimistic.

"We were able to draw a line in the sand on this issue, and we hope this helps to protect the definition of marriage across the nation," said Garlow. "Personal and religious freedoms were at stake, as well as our children’s education, and we are grateful for all the prayers, volunteers and financial support from those who stood with us from outside the state of California."


http://www.christianpost.com/article...rriage-ban.htm
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Amadeus85
11-08-2008, 05:43 PM
I think that it is a good news, after democrats won last electons.
Reply

crayon
11-08-2008, 05:49 PM
Can people who support same sex marriage just suggest a new proposition (or whatever it's called) and oppose this one, going back to making sex marriage legal in Cali?
Reply

Keltoi
11-08-2008, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Can people who support same sex marriage just suggest a new proposition (or whatever it's called) and oppose this one, going back to making sex marriage legal in Cali?
I'm sure the homosexual lobby will appeal this to the state supreme court and then possibly to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is very liberal and likely to try to overturn the will of the people in this case. That will send it to the Supreme Court.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Amadeus85
11-08-2008, 06:24 PM
I hope that Obama won't involve in cultural war, and won't press on establishing liberal laws on family in USA.
Reply

nocturnal
11-08-2008, 07:11 PM
They wanted a vote in California on this issue didn't they? now when they've had a state plebiscite and the people roundly rejected it, all of a sudden they're not so "effeminate".
Reply

KAding
11-11-2008, 01:11 AM
Is this just symbolic in that it simply stops a legal gay partnership from being called "marriage"? Or does it do away with the whole gay partnership thing (which arranges stuff like inheritance and whatnot?)
Reply

Keltoi
11-11-2008, 01:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Is this just symbolic in that it simply stops a legal gay partnership from being called "marriage"? Or does it do away with the whole gay partnership thing (which arranges stuff like inheritance and whatnot?)
Largely symbolic, although the gay community sees it as more than that. They wish to be recognized as being "married". Civil partnerships that contain most if not all legal rights still exist. I could be mistaken, but I believe the proposition was simply about the definition of marriage.
Reply

Roxy8491
11-19-2008, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
I hope that Obama won't involve in cultural war, and won't press on establishing liberal laws on family in USA.
Obama is against gay marriage. So I think it is unlikely he will try to press for liberal family laws, at least in this case.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-22-2008, 01:36 PM
This won't go anywhere towards the goal of those who voted for it - to keep gays from marrying or to stop them from being openly couples. It may even backfire, it may cause gays to want to be more in your face about it, feeling oppressed etc.

To me this whole gay marriage issue highlights a far more important issue - separation of church and state. The state should have no business telling the church/mosque/temple who they must recognize as entering a sacred spiritual union. And the church has no business telling the state who it must give certain civil rights to (such as tax breaks, visitation, powers of personal care, etc).

The solution is simple but no politician seems to endorse it - get the state out of marriage altogether. Leave "marriage" as something churches/mosques declare people to be in. Different churches/mosques can then recognize a particular union or not and differ on it with other churches/mosques. And the state could afford completely non-spiritual "civil union" upon anybody who requests it.

What are your views on this solution?
Reply

Bittersteel
11-22-2008, 02:48 PM
Isn't Schwarzenegger still the California governor?this comes as a shock to me though I always imagined CA to be ...liberal.
Reply

Amadeus85
11-22-2008, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This won't go anywhere towards the goal of those who voted for it - to keep gays from marrying or to stop them from being openly couples. It may even backfire, it may cause gays to want to be more in your face about it, feeling oppressed etc.

To me this whole gay marriage issue highlights a far more important issue - separation of church and state. The state should have no business telling the church/mosque/temple who they must recognize as entering a sacred spiritual union. And the church has no business telling the state who it must give certain civil rights to (such as tax breaks, visitation, powers of personal care, etc).

The solution is simple but no politician seems to endorse it - get the state out of marriage altogether. Leave "marriage" as something churches/mosques declare people to be in. Different churches/mosques can then recognize a particular union or not and differ on it with other churches/mosques. And the state could afford completely non-spiritual "civil union" upon anybody who requests it.

What are your views on this solution?
I dont think that it is about separation of state and church. It is about telling that family is something between one man and one woman. Just like it was during the last thousands of years in the western world. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans didnt see family in different way, although that they sometimes practiced homosexuality.
If the state wants to recognize civil unions between two men or two women, it doesnt have right to prevent same rights to 3 men and 2 woman or one man and 4 women or one adult man and lets say 14 year old girl(who agrees to be in such civil union). If not, this is discrimination.
When we break the taboo of traditional family, we also open the possibilities of various bad and dangerous things, that we dont even aware.
And the children of nowadays gay activists just wait to liberate in future another discriminated minorities, with the same tendention to accuse their enemies as those who suffer from some "phobias".
It is really a war between good and evil, light and darkness, civilization od death and life. Guess on which side the gay activists are?
Reply

Keltoi
11-22-2008, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This won't go anywhere towards the goal of those who voted for it - to keep gays from marrying or to stop them from being openly couples. It may even backfire, it may cause gays to want to be more in your face about it, feeling oppressed etc.

To me this whole gay marriage issue highlights a far more important issue - separation of church and state. The state should have no business telling the church/mosque/temple who they must recognize as entering a sacred spiritual union. And the church has no business telling the state who it must give certain civil rights to (such as tax breaks, visitation, powers of personal care, etc).

The solution is simple but no politician seems to endorse it - get the state out of marriage altogether. Leave "marriage" as something churches/mosques declare people to be in. Different churches/mosques can then recognize a particular union or not and differ on it with other churches/mosques. And the state could afford completely non-spiritual "civil union" upon anybody who requests it.

What are your views on this solution?
The institution of marriage is directly tied to the state and the federal government. I don't see how you can separate that and leave marriage to religious institutions. Obviously there are tax reasons, but also the issue of legitimacy. If any religious institution could simply "marry" any combination of gender, number, etc, it creates a serious problem.

Separation of church and state is not even found in the Constitution. It is found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and a statement from John Adams, which really meant there would never be a "Church of the United States", meaning, for example, that no Protestant church supported and adopted as the official religion of the country could persecute minority faiths.

It was not about limiting the ability of religious peoples to voice their opinion and vote in representatives that reflect their worldview.
Reply

suffiyan007
11-22-2008, 06:04 PM
that's good...ban the gay marriage....cause in islam, gay marriage is Bi'dah...!
and is prohibited.
Reply

Muezzin
11-25-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm trying to imagine Governor Arnie saying 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'.
Reply

Saimah Ali
11-25-2008, 05:27 PM
How. Very. Silly. :muddlehea
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-26-2008, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
I dont think that it is about separation of state and church. It is about telling that family is something between one man and one woman. Just like it was during the last thousands of years in the western world. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans didnt see family in different way, although that they sometimes practiced homosexuality.
If the state wants to recognize civil unions between two men or two women, it doesnt have right to prevent same rights to 3 men and 2 woman or one man and 4 women or one adult man and lets say 14 year old girl(who agrees to be in such civil union). If not, this is discrimination.
When we break the taboo of traditional family, we also open the possibilities of various bad and dangerous things, that we dont even aware.
And the children of nowadays gay activists just wait to liberate in future another discriminated minorities, with the same tendention to accuse their enemies as those who suffer from some "phobias".
It is really a war between good and evil, light and darkness, civilization od death and life. Guess on which side the gay activists are?

Get it away from the religious context and look at if marriage has indeed always been between one man and one woman throughout human cultures (it hasn't) and examine why. Often it was because women were considered the weaker sex, in need of protection of a man. They were not permitted to do certain things in society so they needed the man as provider and protector. In other cultures women were even considered chattel, property, to be sold from father to husband. These ideas are out dated in western culture today.

I can see no reason outside of religious conviction, that is no secular reason, why homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same bonding rights in society as heterosexuals. I respect peoples' religions and I respect that Marriage has a lot of religious baggage, so I'm quite happy to give up the label to the church. The church can decide who to see as married and you religious people can have your church recognized union, while us heathens can simply sign a contract for the same civil benefits (visitation rights, powers of property and personal care, etc)
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-26-2008, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The institution of marriage is directly tied to the state and the federal government. I don't see how you can separate that and leave marriage to religious institutions. Obviously there are tax reasons, but also the issue of legitimacy. If any religious institution could simply "marry" any combination of gender, number, etc, it creates a serious problem.
Why? Marriage would carry with it no legal rights or implications. It would be purely a spiritual and reiligious thing, leaving the freedom for one church to recognize a given "marriage" and another not to. One church may recognize homosexual marriage, another not. One may recognize inter racial marriage, another not. There would be no legal implications and therefore nobody forcing their way on the others.

Separation of church and state is not even found in the Constitution.
So? Its still a fundamentally good idea. I for one don't want to live under a theocracy, and I don't think you do either - at least once you realize that it isn't your particular brand of your particular religion being forced upon all of us.

America, and indeed most of the west, has grown to embrace diversity and to value freedom of independent thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, etc. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from the other guy's religion.

I'm not saying that religious people shouldn't have a right to express their views in public, even if those views are hateful or bigotted. I am very much against hate speech laws. Let the people put their ideas into the marketplace of ideas. Just don't give them a government enforced monopoly.
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-26-2008, 10:24 PM
I think it is sad that a State, in the Land of the Free, would amend there constitution to deprive one group of people equal rights.
Reply

جوري
11-26-2008, 10:41 PM
Let's grant necrophiles, pederasts, exhibitionists, Coprophiliacs etc etc the rights to marry the object of their adoration.. after all it is the 21st century?
freedom of doesn't denote freedom from (morals/ or respect to majority rule)
that is in fact what democracy is--the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group-- most of the world are heteros and I'd dare say even staunch evolutionists are yet to find a way to fit homosexuality in the scheme of their dissertation..

Marriage is a union between man and woman.. that is the unit that is recognized by nature, by religion and by society at large!.. homos can do their thing on their private time.. a minority that goes to define itself by a sodomizing sexual act doesn't get to define the norm for the whole!
Reply

Amadeus85
11-26-2008, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Get it away from the religious context and look at if marriage has indeed always been between one man and one woman throughout human cultures (it hasn't) and examine why. Often it was because women were considered the weaker sex, in need of protection of a man. They were not permitted to do certain things in society so they needed the man as provider and protector. In other cultures women were even considered chattel, property, to be sold from father to husband. These ideas are out dated in western culture today.

I can see no reason outside of religious conviction, that is no secular reason, why homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same bonding rights in society as heterosexuals. I respect peoples' religions and I respect that Marriage has a lot of religious baggage, so I'm quite happy to give up the label to the church. The church can decide who to see as married and you religious people can have your church recognized union, while us heathens can simply sign a contract for the same civil benefits (visitation rights, powers of property and personal care, etc)
As I said before, if You want to allow two men or two women to live in civil union, so what kind of argument You will use to prevent same right to a couple of 2 men and 3 women or 1 man and 4 women or 1 adult man and one 13 year old girl(who agrees to live with him.Does she hurt anyone with this decision?).?
Sexual revolution gave us broken families, frustration, sex addiction, misery and phobias. Why You keep suggesting that breaking all taboos will be good for this society, why You think that the progress must be without question good and needed?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-26-2008, 11:16 PM
Get real people! Advocates of gay marriage have acknowledged that this is the first step in the the deconstruction of traditional marriage. THey have stated that there is no reason that polyamory or marriages of 3 people or more should not be possible too.


Noone is saying that they cant BE gay. Just don't force being gay to change marriage and start letting kids know that being gay is an OK alternative.


Seriously, these people who champion this gay crusade as one of "civil rights" are being foolish. Black people were NOT ALLOWED to vote, gay people are ALLOWED to be gay, jsut dont force the idea on other people by changing marriage.


Seriously, you guys will only stop promoting your liberal agendas when the consequences hit you in the face.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-26-2008, 11:22 PM
By the way, being homosexual is NOT ok.

Reasons?

1. Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease."

"70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."

2. organizations expect gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more

3. According to the CDC, in 2006 59 percent of new HIV infections were caused solely by male-to-male sexual contact, and 7 percent by both male-to-male contact and drug use. That means that homosexual men, who comprise approximately 2 percent of the population, accounted for 66 percent of new HIV cases two years ago.

4. Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

5. The Big One: THe netherlands. You have social scientists writing to their government to reconsider all these social experiments they are trying like gay marraige because at the same time as they started these "reforms", social problems have sky rocketed.

"This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births.* In 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent); by 2003, that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent)," dutch social scientists



See where deconstruction of traditional marriage gets you?
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 03:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Let's grant necrophiles, pederasts, exhibitionists, Coprophiliacs etc etc the rights to marry the object of their adoration.. after all it is the 21st century?
freedom of doesn't denote freedom from (morals/ or respect to majority rule)
that is in fact what democracy is--the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group-- most of the world are heteros and I'd dare say even staunch evolutionists are yet to find a way to fit homosexuality in the scheme of their dissertation..

Marriage is a union between man and woman.. that is the unit that is recognized by nature, by religion and by society at large!.. homos can do their thing on their private time.. a minority that goes to define itself by a sodomizing sexual act doesn't get to define the norm for the whole!
Obviously you have no understanding of the concept of consenting adults.
Marriage is a contract that creates a unity that incurs some legal rights and obligations.
Why should any two people be denied those rights and obligations?
Neither my Mother nor I are married, why shouldn’t we be able to enjoy the legal benefits that come with a marriage? Why does the contract need to assume sexual activity?
Last but not least, my father taught me not to hate.
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Get real people! Advocates of gay marriage have acknowledged that this is the first step in the the deconstruction of traditional marriage. THey have stated that there is no reason that polyamory or marriages of 3 people or more should not be possible too.


Noone is saying that they cant BE gay. Just don't force being gay to change marriage and start letting kids know that being gay is an OK alternative.


Seriously, these people who champion this gay crusade as one of "civil rights" are being foolish. Black people were NOT ALLOWED to vote, gay people are ALLOWED to be gay, jsut dont force the idea on other people by changing marriage.


Seriously, you guys will only stop promoting your liberal agendas when the consequences hit you in the face.
Gee I have never seen where "Advocates of gay marriage have acknowledged that this is the first step in the the deconstruction of traditional marriage."
Could you provide a link to such information?
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 03:14 PM
AntiKarateKid,
"being homosexual is NOT ok." You could come up with hundreds of things that are not OK.
Skin Cancer is not OK. Do we ban sun bathing?

Why do people have such a problem with homosexuality? It is a natural condition that occurs in many species.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-27-2008, 03:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
AntiKarateKid,
"being homosexual is NOT ok." You could come up with hundreds of things that are not OK.
Skin Cancer is not OK. Do we ban sun bathing?

Why do people have such a problem with homosexuality? It is a natural condition that occurs in many species.
Hello Wilma,

Is skin cancer a choice and an activity? Are people with skin cancer trying to change the definition of "disease" to make it seem like skin cancer is not hamrful?

By the way, I dont think you want to go the "natural" route. It is natural for some animals to eat their young, forcibly rape the other gender, kill a rival's offspring etc etc.

There is more to society's law than just the whims of people confused about their gender. Science has shown sodomy is harmful for the individual and society, whether than harm comes in the form of social problems when accepting it or as STDs spreading like wildfire.


Traditional marriage is the bulwark against polyamory and all kinds of other weird fetishes. Do you want your children learning, in the future, that it is alright to marry the same gender or be in a polyamorous marriage, etc etc?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-27-2008, 03:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
Gee I have never seen where "Advocates of gay marriage have acknowledged that this is the first step in the the deconstruction of traditional marriage."
Could you provide a link to such information?
Sure thing! Heres a snippet.

“Look, we’re going to level with you in a way that we haven’t up to now. We all support same-sex marriage, but for many — even most — of us, gay marriage isn’t an end in itself. It’s a way-station on the path to a post-marriage society. We want a wide range of diverse families — even ‘polyamorous’ groupings of three or more partners — to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples. In short, your worst fears are justified. The radical redefinition of marriage you’ve been worried about for so long is exactly what we want.

“Oh sure, some of us are more radical than others. But even the most committed and prominent mainstream advocates of same-sex marriage largely support a radical family agenda. A few advocates who back a ‘conservative’ interpretation of same-sex marriage may regularly engage you in debate, yet their views carry relatively little weight within the gay community. Some of these ‘conservative’ supporters of same-sex marriage have claimed that there is no significant political constituency for polygamy-polyamory, or for a general legal deconstruction of marriage. That’s just wrong. As gay marriage gains acceptance, we’re going to have a polygamy-polyamory debate in this country. And among those sponsoring that debate will be many of the very same people and groups who’ve already pushed for same-sex marriage.

“So why haven’t we told you all this before? Simple. We’ve been censoring ourselves for fear of scaring away public support for same-sex marriage. You see, it’s all about timing. Our plan is to establish same-sex marriage first, and then, as our next step, to demand that the rights and benefits of marriage be accorded to all types of families. After all, when the call for yet another radical redefinition of marriage comes from married same-sex couples, it’s going to be that much more persuasive. Up to now, truth to tell, if any same-sex marriage backers pushed this radical agenda in public, we pressured them to keep silent. But now we’re telling you the truth.

“You see, despite what you’ve heard about the ‘conservative case’ for same-sex marriage, the more radical argument that ‘love makes a family’ has played a huge role in the success of the drive for same-sex marriage. And the ‘love makes a family’ idea requires recognition, not only for gay couples, but also for polygamous and polyamorous families.

“And consider the complex families created when three or even four gay men and lesbians combine through, say, artificial insemination, to bear and raise children. We want recognition for these sorts of unconventional families too, even — or especially — if such recognition leads to legalized polyamory. Pretending that certain aspects of the gay community don’t exist only weakens our diverse families. The way we live is the way we live. Up to now, we’ve tried to hide it. But at last we’re ready to own up to reality, and to push for legal recognition for all types of families, even if that expands the definition of marriage until the very idea of marriage itself is stripped of meaning.”


For all practical purposes, this confession has already been offered. A good part of the substance of the above message was conveyed this past July, when hundreds of self-described lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers released a manifesto entitled, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.” Among other things, that statement called for recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”




Enjoy!
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 04:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Hello Wilma,

Is skin cancer a choice and an activity? Are people with skin cancer trying to change the definition of "disease" to make it seem like skin cancer is not hamrful?

By the way, I dont think you want to go the "natural" route. It is natural for some animals to eat their young, forcibly rape the other gender, kill a rival's offspring etc etc.

There is more to society's law than just the whims of people confused about their gender. Science has shown sodomy is harmful for the individual and society, whether than harm comes in the form of social problems when accepting it or as STDs spreading like wildfire.


Traditional marriage is the bulwark against polyamory and all kinds of other weird fetishes. Do you want your children learning, in the future, that it is alright to marry the same gender or be in a polyamorous marriage, etc etc?
Is skin cancer a choice and an activity?
You can choose to sun bath.
Assuming homosexuality is purely a choice is and error caused by lack of knowledge or bigotry.

"By the way, I dont think you want to go the "natural" route. It is natural for some animals to eat their young, forcibly rape the other gender, kill a rival's offspring etc etc. "
And what on this list don't humans do?

"There is more to society's law than just the whims of people confused about their gender."
Wow, you really don't understand the issue do you.

I just hope you enjoy your bigotery.
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 04:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Sure thing! Heres a snippet.

.........................
Enjoy!
Instesd of a snippet, how about a link?
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-27-2008, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
Is skin cancer a choice and an activity?
You can choose to sun bath.
Assuming homosexuality is purely a choice is and error caused by lack of knowledge or bigotry.

"By the way, I dont think you want to go the "natural" route. It is natural for some animals to eat their young, forcibly rape the other gender, kill a rival's offspring etc etc. "
And what on this list don't humans do?

"There is more to society's law than just the whims of people confused about their gender."
Wow, you really don't understand the issue do you.

I just hope you enjoy your bigotery.

I have just met you on this forum and already there is tension, which I regret. Progress can be made without aggression.

Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a bigot? That is pretty childish. Between you and me, I'll have more fun dismembering your "stance" than I will by being a bigot! :statisfie

Before we continue, dont twist my words please.

1. There may be a genetic componenet to homosexuality but there is mostcertainly a choice element too. A person can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, does that excuse his behavior? No, he has to make an active choice.

2. Being in the sun all the time, does not guarantee skin cancer. If that was the case, half my family would have it.

3. I dont understand your response to the "natural" comment I refuted. You said homosexuality was natural, I pointed out that there are plenty of natural things that are abhorrent, are they OK because they are natural?

4. I feel that you dont understand the issue. You have not responded to any of the facts I raised before. Bt yet "I dont really understand" the issue according to you.LOL.


Simply put, gay people can be gay without changing the rules for society. As I mentioned above, the case of the Netherlands shows the beginning effects of your "righteous social experiments".

Heres a link for you relating to the Dutch problems:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/...0406030910.asp

Anywhoo, heres the link for the previous one you requested.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...ZlMGMyNmUzZWE=

Have fun with your "beyond same sex marriage" manifesto. I would love hear your opinion on kindergartners being taught that liking another boy or girl, is ok. And when they become teenagers and learn about marriage, that weddings between ONLY 2 people is old fashioned. Not to mention the explosion of AIDs cases it will make. As I mentioned before, gay organizations admit that HIV is a gay disease. Cool?

Try not acting blindly self-righteous, and throwing words such as bigot around at people who disagree with you. Its almost as ridiculous as this new sexually confused society you envision.

Peace.:D
Reply

جوري
11-27-2008, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
Obviously you have no understanding of the concept of consenting adults.
Marriage is a contract that creates a unity that incurs some legal rights and obligations.
Why should any two people be denied those rights and obligations?
Neither my Mother nor I are married, why shouldn’t we be able to enjoy the legal benefits that come with a marriage? Why does the contract need to assume sexual activity?
Last but not least, my father taught me not to hate.
Perhaps you should define for us what a contract is and denotes when it comes to marriage?
you can have a business partnership to confer the same benefits that wouldn't violate the sanctity of marriage as is defined for us by nature and religion just the same--
now, who says that a priest and an alter boy do not consent to sex? Do you not see 13 year old pregnant and engaging in sex? are people not attracted to folks who are younger, older and in between? what makes one act a crime and the other a celebration that comes with a parade?..
and lastly where in my lines did you see me expressing hatred for gays?
a dislike for a sexual degeneracy doesn't mean hatred of individuals -- Homosexuality was and is an act of sexual deviance. I guarantee if homos kept it in their bedroom, no one will know about it.. they actually choose to define themselves as sodomites and march in celebration of their sexual sides..
normal folks don't usually go on wearing colorful thongs and march by cathedrals in celebration of sexual deviance.. Hey we are heteros, we like the missionary.
so pls spare me your moralistic rebuke al la mode of the last twenty years accompanied by sanctimony!

cheers
Reply

Wilma_Hum
11-27-2008, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Perhaps you should define for us what a contract is and denotes when it comes to marriage?
you can have a business partnership to confer the same benefits that wouldn't violate the sanctity of marriage as is defined for us by nature and religion just the same--
now, who says that a priest and an alter boy do not consent to sex? Do you not see 13 year old pregnant and engaging in sex? are people not attracted to folks who are younger, older and in between? what makes one act a crime and the other a celebration that comes with a parade?..
and lastly where in my lines did you see me expressing hatred for gays?
a dislike for a sexual degeneracy doesn't mean hatred of individuals -- Homosexuality was and is an act of sexual deviance. I guarantee if homos kept it in their bedroom, no one will know about it.. they actually choose to define themselves as sodomites and march in celebration of their sexual sides..
normal folks don't usually go on wearing colorful thongs and march by cathedrals in celebration of sexual deviance.. Hey we are heteros, we like the missionary.
so pls spare me your moralistic rebuke al la mode of the last twenty years accompanied by sanctimony!

cheers
Yes you are Grouchy!

Hate homosexuals, your problem.
I don't hate any one and I believe all should be equal before the law.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-27-2008, 04:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
Yes you are Grouchy!

Hate homosexuals, your problem.
I don't hate any one and I believe all should be equal before the law.
I kinda thought your response to me was grouchy, LOL.

I didnt say any hate in her post. Just opposition to your stance.

INTERESTING FACT #345

Pro-gay activists label their cause as one for "civil rights". Yet the African American community, the ones most painfully aware about inequality and repression overwhelmingly voted in favor of a ban. Latinos did too too!

I guess, homos must recognize civil inequality better than the African american community. :rollseyes
Reply

جوري
11-27-2008, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid

1. There may be a genetic componenet to homosexuality but there is mostcertainly a choice element too. A person can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism, does that excuse his behavior? No, he has to make an active choice.
There is NO genetic component to homosexuality..
Homosexuality was a part of the DSM-II as a 'sociopathic personality disturbance' one of several forms of sexual deviance

http://books.google.com/books?id=1of...um=6&ct=result

it has since been taken out only in the last thirty years or so, even in the 'industrialized' world like England it was punishable by imprisonment and largely recognized as a deviance no different from other sexual disturbances..
Most other sexual deviants aren't as organized as homosexuals to take themselves out of psychiatric books..

be that as it may, I guarantee you no genetic text book recognizes homosexuality as having a genetic component rather a psychological one as is the case with most of the other disorders..

any research done to prove the opposite, would have to be outside of academia to confer a leeway for this to be acceptable to the gullible and impressionable!
Reply

جوري
11-27-2008, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wilma_Hum
Yes you are Grouchy!

Hate homosexuals, your problem.
I don't hate any one and I believe all should be equal before the law.
You haven't addressed my q's.. this isn't about your subjective views, and has nothing whatsoever to do with hate or love...
try not to be so emotionally reactive and focus on the topic if you wish to loan your point of view some credence!


cheers
Reply

AntiKarateKid
11-27-2008, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
There is NO genetic component to homosexuality..
Homosexuality was a part of the DSM-II as a 'sociopathic personality disturbance' one of several forms of sexual deviance

http://books.google.com/books?id=1of...um=6&ct=result

it has since been taken out only in the last thirty years or so, even in the 'industrialized' world like England it was punishable by imprisonment and largely recognized as a deviance no different from other sexual disturbances..
Most other sexual deviants aren't as organized as homosexuals to take themselves out of psychiatric books..

be that as it may, I guarantee you no genetic text book recognizes homosexuality as having a genetic component rather a psychological one as is the case with most of the other disorders..

any research done to prove the opposite, would have to be outside of academia to confer a leeway for this to be acceptable to the gullible and impressionable!
Fair enough, I was just giving the benefit of the doubt. They need to know that genetics is a ridiculous way of defending it for said reasons and yours too.

BTW Wilma, what is your response to my post with the links?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 11:34 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-19-2009, 09:46 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 12:29 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 06:11 PM
  5. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 05:48 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!