Working in favor of same-sex marriage ironically enough were the controversial decisions not only to lift the ban on same-sex marriage but to allow marriages to occur. Suddenly California voters dealt with same-sex marriage not only in principle but in fact. Perhaps that has enabled Californians to realize that allowing same-sex partners to wed was not the threat that some had made it out to be.
Regardless of that those initial evaluations, the opposition to Proposition 8 has only grown since then. Last week, the new Field Poll, the bellwether of California polling organizations, found a strong increase in opposition to the ballot measure. In this poll, 55 percent oppose Proposition 8 and only 38 support.
The question now is whether or not the measure is doomed. Neither side of course is willing to concede. Indeed the Yes on Proposition 8 has according to reports this week outraised the No side $15 million to $12 million. However, both sides have ample money for the stretch run and money does not appear likely to be deciding the factor.
Both sides downplayed the significance of the poll.
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which supports gay rights said:
“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue. We do believe that if we can get our message out at least equal to the other side, we will win, but that’s a fund-raising issue.”
Jennifer Kerns a spokeswoman for the “Yes on 8” campaign said:
“That was certainly something we expected to see. Historically, the Field Poll has underestimated support for traditional marriage.”
However, the director of the Field Poll, Mark DiCamillo agrees with my assessment.
“Initiatives that are trailing, either at the initial measurement or in subsequent measures, rarely pass. History is working against passage.”
Moreover, opinions on issues such as same-sex marriage do not tend to fluctuate dramatically.
Two weeks ago, the Davis City Council unanimously endorsed a resolution opposing the measure in a resolution. The measure brought out a number of citizens on both sides of the issue, however, the No on Proposition 8 side had the majority of the speakers.
As I mentioned a few months ago and again at the onset to this article, I think Proposition 8 is doomed. And I think a key factor to it is that people were able to wed back in June. That action took away part of the wedge issue that opponents of same-sex marriage usually employ. People simply are not going to run in fear of what will happen if same-sex couples are able to wed because they have already wed and most people would never know the difference. The fear of the unknown has been taken away, it has also been humanized. Watching happy same-sex couples, overjoyed in being able to final share their love for each other is a powerful antidote to fear.
I have long suspected that same-sex marriage was an idea whose time was going to arrive. Demographically speaking, the younger generation, people my age and younger, have grown up in an openly gay society. We have gay friends, gay relatives, gay colleagues. Everyone knows at least some gay couples. There is a level of acceptance and a level of comfort that did not exist in prior generations.
That said I would never have guessed that at least in California the time would be now. It seems like just yesterday it was February 14, and I was once again in Freddie Oakley’s office watching her giving out certificates to same-sex couples and wishing for the day she could legally marry them. This day seemed so far way on that day. Who knew that only four months she would be doing those ceremonies for real and that in November we would in fact be certifying and formalizing that Supreme Court decision.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
I read a news article (Sacbee?) connected w/ the recent Field Poll that suggested that because A.G. Jerry Brown changed the wording of the Prop. to indicate that this would be a right that will be taken away with this proposition, that some support for it may have diminished.
I read a news article (Sacbee?) connected w/ the recent Field Poll that suggested that because A.G. Jerry Brown changed the wording of the Prop. to indicate that this would be a right that will be taken away with this proposition, that some support for it may have diminished.
I read a news article (Sacbee?) connected w/ the recent Field Poll that suggested that because A.G. Jerry Brown changed the wording of the Prop. to indicate that this would be a right that will be taken away with this proposition, that some support for it may have diminished.
I read a news article (Sacbee?) connected w/ the recent Field Poll that suggested that because A.G. Jerry Brown changed the wording of the Prop. to indicate that this would be a right that will be taken away with this proposition, that some support for it may have diminished.
“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue….”
It is almost a political maxim that the majority of undecided voters at this juncture in a campaign choose the status-quo rather than change; the cultural status-quo being the historic definition of marriage and NOT the recent decision of 5 of the 9 CA supreme court judges,
“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue….”
It is almost a political maxim that the majority of undecided voters at this juncture in a campaign choose the status-quo rather than change; the cultural status-quo being the historic definition of marriage and NOT the recent decision of 5 of the 9 CA supreme court judges,
“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue….”
It is almost a political maxim that the majority of undecided voters at this juncture in a campaign choose the status-quo rather than change; the cultural status-quo being the historic definition of marriage and NOT the recent decision of 5 of the 9 CA supreme court judges,
“We think there’s 15 to 20 percent that are still undecided on this issue….”
It is almost a political maxim that the majority of undecided voters at this juncture in a campaign choose the status-quo rather than change; the cultural status-quo being the historic definition of marriage and NOT the recent decision of 5 of the 9 CA supreme court judges,
“Initiatives that are trailing, either at the initial measurement or in subsequent measures, rarely pass. History is working against passage.”
Intiatives are put foward to CHANGE the status-quo. The undecided voter will determine the fate of Prop 8; the initiative analogy does not apply to Prop 8. It will ultimately be very close and could go either way.
“Initiatives that are trailing, either at the initial measurement or in subsequent measures, rarely pass. History is working against passage.”
Intiatives are put foward to CHANGE the status-quo. The undecided voter will determine the fate of Prop 8; the initiative analogy does not apply to Prop 8. It will ultimately be very close and could go either way.
“Initiatives that are trailing, either at the initial measurement or in subsequent measures, rarely pass. History is working against passage.”
Intiatives are put foward to CHANGE the status-quo. The undecided voter will determine the fate of Prop 8; the initiative analogy does not apply to Prop 8. It will ultimately be very close and could go either way.
“Initiatives that are trailing, either at the initial measurement or in subsequent measures, rarely pass. History is working against passage.”
Intiatives are put foward to CHANGE the status-quo. The undecided voter will determine the fate of Prop 8; the initiative analogy does not apply to Prop 8. It will ultimately be very close and could go either way.
Voter confusion that a No vote on Prop 8 actually means Yes on gay marriage could be a factor in the outcome.
Voter confusion that a No vote on Prop 8 actually means Yes on gay marriage could be a factor in the outcome.
Voter confusion that a No vote on Prop 8 actually means Yes on gay marriage could be a factor in the outcome.
Voter confusion that a No vote on Prop 8 actually means Yes on gay marriage could be a factor in the outcome.
it was interesting, the other day I heard a long rambling argument that gay marriage was “not something he opposed” but the speaker was opposed to them changing the law for gays. When I pointed out that gay marriage was the current law and that the proposition was going to change the laws the speaker went silent…
it was interesting, the other day I heard a long rambling argument that gay marriage was “not something he opposed” but the speaker was opposed to them changing the law for gays. When I pointed out that gay marriage was the current law and that the proposition was going to change the laws the speaker went silent…
it was interesting, the other day I heard a long rambling argument that gay marriage was “not something he opposed” but the speaker was opposed to them changing the law for gays. When I pointed out that gay marriage was the current law and that the proposition was going to change the laws the speaker went silent…
it was interesting, the other day I heard a long rambling argument that gay marriage was “not something he opposed” but the speaker was opposed to them changing the law for gays. When I pointed out that gay marriage was the current law and that the proposition was going to change the laws the speaker went silent…
In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples. The status quo can not be changed based on personal opinion.
As DPD mentioned, since the status quo changed, earlier this year, no wheels have fallen off. Nobody has personally lost anything and some people have gained a significant element of joy.
In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples. The status quo can not be changed based on personal opinion.
As DPD mentioned, since the status quo changed, earlier this year, no wheels have fallen off. Nobody has personally lost anything and some people have gained a significant element of joy.
In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples. The status quo can not be changed based on personal opinion.
As DPD mentioned, since the status quo changed, earlier this year, no wheels have fallen off. Nobody has personally lost anything and some people have gained a significant element of joy.
In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples. The status quo can not be changed based on personal opinion.
As DPD mentioned, since the status quo changed, earlier this year, no wheels have fallen off. Nobody has personally lost anything and some people have gained a significant element of joy.
Support marriage, vote NO on prop 8!
Some of my good friends have been married recently who have a child together and have been together for over 15 years. Only now are they able to marry, based on the supreme court decision. Their marriage affects no one but themselves and helps to provide legal support for their relationship and their daughter.
Support marriage, vote NO on prop 8!
Some of my good friends have been married recently who have a child together and have been together for over 15 years. Only now are they able to marry, based on the supreme court decision. Their marriage affects no one but themselves and helps to provide legal support for their relationship and their daughter.
Support marriage, vote NO on prop 8!
Some of my good friends have been married recently who have a child together and have been together for over 15 years. Only now are they able to marry, based on the supreme court decision. Their marriage affects no one but themselves and helps to provide legal support for their relationship and their daughter.
Support marriage, vote NO on prop 8!
Some of my good friends have been married recently who have a child together and have been together for over 15 years. Only now are they able to marry, based on the supreme court decision. Their marriage affects no one but themselves and helps to provide legal support for their relationship and their daughter.
“…no wheels have fallen off. “
The potential unraveling of interstate recognition of marriage status can be described as “wheels falling off”. States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state. The constitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ultimately(and appropriately)be decided by the US Supreme Court.
“…no wheels have fallen off. “
The potential unraveling of interstate recognition of marriage status can be described as “wheels falling off”. States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state. The constitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ultimately(and appropriately)be decided by the US Supreme Court.
“…no wheels have fallen off. “
The potential unraveling of interstate recognition of marriage status can be described as “wheels falling off”. States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state. The constitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ultimately(and appropriately)be decided by the US Supreme Court.
“…no wheels have fallen off. “
The potential unraveling of interstate recognition of marriage status can be described as “wheels falling off”. States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state. The constitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a woman will ultimately(and appropriately)be decided by the US Supreme Court.
If marriage laws are state based, how can the decision ultimately go to the US Supreme Court?
If marriage laws are state based, how can the decision ultimately go to the US Supreme Court?
If marriage laws are state based, how can the decision ultimately go to the US Supreme Court?
If marriage laws are state based, how can the decision ultimately go to the US Supreme Court?
Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?
Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?
Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?
Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?
DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
“In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples…”
Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?
“In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples…”
Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?
“In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples…”
Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?
“In fact the status quo (existing state of affairs) is that
Gay couples are being married as are other couples…”
Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?
“States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state.”
So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? Nobody has shown much interest in my marrriage status for the past 32 years and I doubt much will change after this proposition is shot down.
“States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state.”
So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? Nobody has shown much interest in my marrriage status for the past 32 years and I doubt much will change after this proposition is shot down.
“States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state.”
So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? Nobody has shown much interest in my marrriage status for the past 32 years and I doubt much will change after this proposition is shot down.
“States that have constitutional bans on gay marriage cannot recognize a gay CA marriage. Other states with legislatures that do not support gay marriage will also pass legislation denying the legality of CA gay marriages in their state.”
So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? Nobody has shown much interest in my marrriage status for the past 32 years and I doubt much will change after this proposition is shot down.
Prop. 8 will be defeated. Probably another large state or two (NY) will step in and recognize gay marriage. The rest will eventually follow suit, until only Utah is left.
This trend is inevitable. It happens from time to time.
Prop. 8 will be defeated. Probably another large state or two (NY) will step in and recognize gay marriage. The rest will eventually follow suit, until only Utah is left.
This trend is inevitable. It happens from time to time.
Prop. 8 will be defeated. Probably another large state or two (NY) will step in and recognize gay marriage. The rest will eventually follow suit, until only Utah is left.
This trend is inevitable. It happens from time to time.
Prop. 8 will be defeated. Probably another large state or two (NY) will step in and recognize gay marriage. The rest will eventually follow suit, until only Utah is left.
This trend is inevitable. It happens from time to time.
“Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?”
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I would argue that it’s not unchallengeable, but it has changed the landscape somewhat and taken away a powerful fear of the unknown factor that could have been played before.
“Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?”
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I would argue that it’s not unchallengeable, but it has changed the landscape somewhat and taken away a powerful fear of the unknown factor that could have been played before.
“Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?”
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I would argue that it’s not unchallengeable, but it has changed the landscape somewhat and taken away a powerful fear of the unknown factor that could have been played before.
“Are you really arguing that 4 months of a new LEGAL definition of marriage, resulting from a one vote majority(5-4 CA Supreme Court decision),has created an unchallengeable new status-quo, trumping the traditional(as far back as you care to go) societal/cultural definition of marriage?”
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I would argue that it’s not unchallengeable, but it has changed the landscape somewhat and taken away a powerful fear of the unknown factor that could have been played before.
“the new Field Poll, the bellwether of California polling organizations, found a strong increase in opposition to the ballot measure. In this poll, 55 percent oppose Proposition 8 and only 38 support.”
I don’t know if Field accounts for this, but I think turnout could skew the result. If younger voters — say under 40 — turn out in high percentages, then I suspect Prop 8 will fail. However, it is usually the case that older voters — say over 60 — turn out in much higher percentages, and it is the older voters who are most strongly prejudiced against gays and gay marriage.
I think the fact that we have now had gay marriage in California for a few months and nothing has changed — as a straight guy, I can’t say I have noticed any difference in my life — should make people who are not passionate about this issue, one way or the other, realize that gay marriage is something they can live with.
“the new Field Poll, the bellwether of California polling organizations, found a strong increase in opposition to the ballot measure. In this poll, 55 percent oppose Proposition 8 and only 38 support.”
I don’t know if Field accounts for this, but I think turnout could skew the result. If younger voters — say under 40 — turn out in high percentages, then I suspect Prop 8 will fail. However, it is usually the case that older voters — say over 60 — turn out in much higher percentages, and it is the older voters who are most strongly prejudiced against gays and gay marriage.
I think the fact that we have now had gay marriage in California for a few months and nothing has changed — as a straight guy, I can’t say I have noticed any difference in my life — should make people who are not passionate about this issue, one way or the other, realize that gay marriage is something they can live with.
“the new Field Poll, the bellwether of California polling organizations, found a strong increase in opposition to the ballot measure. In this poll, 55 percent oppose Proposition 8 and only 38 support.”
I don’t know if Field accounts for this, but I think turnout could skew the result. If younger voters — say under 40 — turn out in high percentages, then I suspect Prop 8 will fail. However, it is usually the case that older voters — say over 60 — turn out in much higher percentages, and it is the older voters who are most strongly prejudiced against gays and gay marriage.
I think the fact that we have now had gay marriage in California for a few months and nothing has changed — as a straight guy, I can’t say I have noticed any difference in my life — should make people who are not passionate about this issue, one way or the other, realize that gay marriage is something they can live with.
“the new Field Poll, the bellwether of California polling organizations, found a strong increase in opposition to the ballot measure. In this poll, 55 percent oppose Proposition 8 and only 38 support.”
I don’t know if Field accounts for this, but I think turnout could skew the result. If younger voters — say under 40 — turn out in high percentages, then I suspect Prop 8 will fail. However, it is usually the case that older voters — say over 60 — turn out in much higher percentages, and it is the older voters who are most strongly prejudiced against gays and gay marriage.
I think the fact that we have now had gay marriage in California for a few months and nothing has changed — as a straight guy, I can’t say I have noticed any difference in my life — should make people who are not passionate about this issue, one way or the other, realize that gay marriage is something they can live with.
“DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Where is that a federal question in the US Constitution? In case you don’t have a copy handy, that is not a federal question.
However, what might be, and perhaps already is in the federal courts, is the question of how states which don’t recognize homosexual marriages must treat these unions involving matters of law. For example, if a gay married couple from California were involved in a criminal case outside of California, say in Oregon, and one of the partners was subpoenaed to testify against the other, would the federal court prohibit that violation of their spousal rights? Similar issues might be raised in cases of spousal visitation or other familial rights in the case of out-of-state hospitalization or burials and so on.
“DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Where is that a federal question in the US Constitution? In case you don’t have a copy handy, that is not a federal question.
However, what might be, and perhaps already is in the federal courts, is the question of how states which don’t recognize homosexual marriages must treat these unions involving matters of law. For example, if a gay married couple from California were involved in a criminal case outside of California, say in Oregon, and one of the partners was subpoenaed to testify against the other, would the federal court prohibit that violation of their spousal rights? Similar issues might be raised in cases of spousal visitation or other familial rights in the case of out-of-state hospitalization or burials and so on.
“DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Where is that a federal question in the US Constitution? In case you don’t have a copy handy, that is not a federal question.
However, what might be, and perhaps already is in the federal courts, is the question of how states which don’t recognize homosexual marriages must treat these unions involving matters of law. For example, if a gay married couple from California were involved in a criminal case outside of California, say in Oregon, and one of the partners was subpoenaed to testify against the other, would the federal court prohibit that violation of their spousal rights? Similar issues might be raised in cases of spousal visitation or other familial rights in the case of out-of-state hospitalization or burials and so on.
“DPD: the issue before the US Supreme Court would be the constitutionality of a state constitutional amendment or legislative act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Where is that a federal question in the US Constitution? In case you don’t have a copy handy, that is not a federal question.
However, what might be, and perhaps already is in the federal courts, is the question of how states which don’t recognize homosexual marriages must treat these unions involving matters of law. For example, if a gay married couple from California were involved in a criminal case outside of California, say in Oregon, and one of the partners was subpoenaed to testify against the other, would the federal court prohibit that violation of their spousal rights? Similar issues might be raised in cases of spousal visitation or other familial rights in the case of out-of-state hospitalization or burials and so on.
One correction: You wrote that “the Davis City Council unanimously endorsed the measure in a resolution.”
The council unanimously endorsed a resolution _opposing_ Prop 8.
In any case: Yes, Prop will fail — but only if we remain on guard and thoroughly engaged in the battle every waking hour.
Thank you for keeping the issue out there with your reasoned coverage.
(Sign me: Married, Legally, as of August 9, 2008)
One correction: You wrote that “the Davis City Council unanimously endorsed the measure in a resolution.”
The council unanimously endorsed a resolution _opposing_ Prop 8.
In any case: Yes, Prop will fail — but only if we remain on guard and thoroughly engaged in the battle every waking hour.
Thank you for keeping the issue out there with your reasoned coverage.
(Sign me: Married, Legally, as of August 9, 2008)
One correction: You wrote that “the Davis City Council unanimously endorsed the measure in a resolution.”
The council unanimously endorsed a resolution _opposing_ Prop 8.
In any case: Yes, Prop will fail — but only if we remain on guard and thoroughly engaged in the battle every waking hour.
Thank you for keeping the issue out there with your reasoned coverage.
(Sign me: Married, Legally, as of August 9, 2008)
One correction: You wrote that “the Davis City Council unanimously endorsed the measure in a resolution.”
The council unanimously endorsed a resolution _opposing_ Prop 8.
In any case: Yes, Prop will fail — but only if we remain on guard and thoroughly engaged in the battle every waking hour.
Thank you for keeping the issue out there with your reasoned coverage.
(Sign me: Married, Legally, as of August 9, 2008)
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?
“So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? “
NO.. but, as Rich Rifkin suggests, as soon as you attempt to claim certain legal rights that are reserved for those with a Nevada-recognized marital status, you will most likely have to seek resolution in the courts, probably all the way to the US Supreme Court.
“So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? “
NO.. but, as Rich Rifkin suggests, as soon as you attempt to claim certain legal rights that are reserved for those with a Nevada-recognized marital status, you will most likely have to seek resolution in the courts, probably all the way to the US Supreme Court.
“So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? “
NO.. but, as Rich Rifkin suggests, as soon as you attempt to claim certain legal rights that are reserved for those with a Nevada-recognized marital status, you will most likely have to seek resolution in the courts, probably all the way to the US Supreme Court.
“So does that mean I have something to worry about the next time I go to Reno, or elsewhere? “
NO.. but, as Rich Rifkin suggests, as soon as you attempt to claim certain legal rights that are reserved for those with a Nevada-recognized marital status, you will most likely have to seek resolution in the courts, probably all the way to the US Supreme Court.
I believe that California, unlike Mass., is allowing same-sex marriages for out-of-state people. They will then return to their home state where their demand for legal marital status may very well be contrary to established law in that state.
I believe that California, unlike Mass., is allowing same-sex marriages for out-of-state people. They will then return to their home state where their demand for legal marital status may very well be contrary to established law in that state.
I believe that California, unlike Mass., is allowing same-sex marriages for out-of-state people. They will then return to their home state where their demand for legal marital status may very well be contrary to established law in that state.
I believe that California, unlike Mass., is allowing same-sex marriages for out-of-state people. They will then return to their home state where their demand for legal marital status may very well be contrary to established law in that state.
“Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?..”
Abortion is also not mentioned in the constitution. The constitutional issue, like abortion, will be framed around whether SUBSTANTIATIVE constitutional rights are being denied.
“Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?..”
Abortion is also not mentioned in the constitution. The constitutional issue, like abortion, will be framed around whether SUBSTANTIATIVE constitutional rights are being denied.
“Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?..”
Abortion is also not mentioned in the constitution. The constitutional issue, like abortion, will be framed around whether SUBSTANTIATIVE constitutional rights are being denied.
“Where in the constitution does it define marriage as being between a man and woman?..”
Abortion is also not mentioned in the constitution. The constitutional issue, like abortion, will be framed around whether SUBSTANTIATIVE constitutional rights are being denied.
The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.
Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?
Notice how the organizations as soon as the first gay “marriages” happened they immediately got spread all over the press, like some big fruity spectacle. Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.
Rights my foot.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the voter’s unwillingness to change the constitution does not necessarily translate into support for gay marriage.
The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.
Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?
Notice how the organizations as soon as the first gay “marriages” happened they immediately got spread all over the press, like some big fruity spectacle. Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.
Rights my foot.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the voter’s unwillingness to change the constitution does not necessarily translate into support for gay marriage.
The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.
Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?
Notice how the organizations as soon as the first gay “marriages” happened they immediately got spread all over the press, like some big fruity spectacle. Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.
Rights my foot.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the voter’s unwillingness to change the constitution does not necessarily translate into support for gay marriage.
The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.
Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?
Notice how the organizations as soon as the first gay “marriages” happened they immediately got spread all over the press, like some big fruity spectacle. Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.
Rights my foot.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that the voter’s unwillingness to change the constitution does not necessarily translate into support for gay marriage.
“The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.”
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
“The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.”
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
“The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.”
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
“The court overturned the will of the voters when they legalized gay marriage. Let us not forget that. They decided to get done in court what they couldn’t get done at the ballot box.”
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
No. If the voters fail to put it into the constitution, that does not mean that they approved of the courts decision to overturn the earlier proposition.
Proposition 8 and the courts decision are two seperate issues?
The first issue:
should a ban on gay “marriage” be written in as part of the constitution
the second issue:
did the court make the right decision when it voted to overturn a prior proposition banning gay marriage.
I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.
Do not draw false conclusions about the electorate.
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
No. If the voters fail to put it into the constitution, that does not mean that they approved of the courts decision to overturn the earlier proposition.
Proposition 8 and the courts decision are two seperate issues?
The first issue:
should a ban on gay “marriage” be written in as part of the constitution
the second issue:
did the court make the right decision when it voted to overturn a prior proposition banning gay marriage.
I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.
Do not draw false conclusions about the electorate.
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
No. If the voters fail to put it into the constitution, that does not mean that they approved of the courts decision to overturn the earlier proposition.
Proposition 8 and the courts decision are two seperate issues?
The first issue:
should a ban on gay “marriage” be written in as part of the constitution
the second issue:
did the court make the right decision when it voted to overturn a prior proposition banning gay marriage.
I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.
Do not draw false conclusions about the electorate.
Looks like the court’s action will prevail at the ballot box, no?
No. If the voters fail to put it into the constitution, that does not mean that they approved of the courts decision to overturn the earlier proposition.
Proposition 8 and the courts decision are two seperate issues?
The first issue:
should a ban on gay “marriage” be written in as part of the constitution
the second issue:
did the court make the right decision when it voted to overturn a prior proposition banning gay marriage.
I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.
Do not draw false conclusions about the electorate.
“Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?”
Often people take their rights for granted. It’s only when rights are taken away that people will suddenly clamor over it. Prop. 8 will take away a fundamental right.
“Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?”
Often people take their rights for granted. It’s only when rights are taken away that people will suddenly clamor over it. Prop. 8 will take away a fundamental right.
“Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?”
Often people take their rights for granted. It’s only when rights are taken away that people will suddenly clamor over it. Prop. 8 will take away a fundamental right.
“Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that hetersexual couples don’t seem to care to get married, yet gay couples are clamoring for it?”
Often people take their rights for granted. It’s only when rights are taken away that people will suddenly clamor over it. Prop. 8 will take away a fundamental right.
“I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.”
Perhaps, but most people will vote against proposition 8 because it is fundamentally a bad idea and there is nothing to be gained by voting for it.
“I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.”
Perhaps, but most people will vote against proposition 8 because it is fundamentally a bad idea and there is nothing to be gained by voting for it.
“I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.”
Perhaps, but most people will vote against proposition 8 because it is fundamentally a bad idea and there is nothing to be gained by voting for it.
“I can picture someone voting against measure 8, but opposing gay marriage.”
Perhaps, but most people will vote against proposition 8 because it is fundamentally a bad idea and there is nothing to be gained by voting for it.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
What that translates into Mr. Harrington is “anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is a hating bigot.” Which quite frankly makes you a bigot.
Bigot: definition
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Read it Mr. Harrington. Then look in the mirror.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
What that translates into Mr. Harrington is “anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is a hating bigot.” Which quite frankly makes you a bigot.
Bigot: definition
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Read it Mr. Harrington. Then look in the mirror.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
What that translates into Mr. Harrington is “anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is a hating bigot.” Which quite frankly makes you a bigot.
Bigot: definition
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Read it Mr. Harrington. Then look in the mirror.
Anyone who thinks that consenting single adults should not be free to marry is a hating bigot. Period. There is absolutely no excuse for that bigotry. Prop 8 is going down.
What that translates into Mr. Harrington is “anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is a hating bigot.” Which quite frankly makes you a bigot.
Bigot: definition
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Read it Mr. Harrington. Then look in the mirror.
I like to think of myself as a very tolerant person. The only thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance.
I like to think of myself as a very tolerant person. The only thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance.
I like to think of myself as a very tolerant person. The only thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance.
I like to think of myself as a very tolerant person. The only thing I can’t tolerate is intolerance.
The trajectory of this societal issue will be that other states will institute civil union provisions that offer the same LEGAL rights as marriage status. It will ultimately be up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether they agree with the 5-4 decision in CA that civil union SUBSTANTIATIVE rights, even if fully equal, still do not offer civil unions the same WORTH and VALUE(my words) as marriage in the minds of the people and therefore calls for judicial intervention(read the CA Chief Justice’s explanation of his decision). This 5-4 decision. that the court are empowered not only to protect SUBSTANTIATIVE rights but also to shape society’s value-system,in this case by changing the traditional definition of marriage, is judicial over-reaching in MHO.
The trajectory of this societal issue will be that other states will institute civil union provisions that offer the same LEGAL rights as marriage status. It will ultimately be up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether they agree with the 5-4 decision in CA that civil union SUBSTANTIATIVE rights, even if fully equal, still do not offer civil unions the same WORTH and VALUE(my words) as marriage in the minds of the people and therefore calls for judicial intervention(read the CA Chief Justice’s explanation of his decision). This 5-4 decision. that the court are empowered not only to protect SUBSTANTIATIVE rights but also to shape society’s value-system,in this case by changing the traditional definition of marriage, is judicial over-reaching in MHO.
The trajectory of this societal issue will be that other states will institute civil union provisions that offer the same LEGAL rights as marriage status. It will ultimately be up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether they agree with the 5-4 decision in CA that civil union SUBSTANTIATIVE rights, even if fully equal, still do not offer civil unions the same WORTH and VALUE(my words) as marriage in the minds of the people and therefore calls for judicial intervention(read the CA Chief Justice’s explanation of his decision). This 5-4 decision. that the court are empowered not only to protect SUBSTANTIATIVE rights but also to shape society’s value-system,in this case by changing the traditional definition of marriage, is judicial over-reaching in MHO.
The trajectory of this societal issue will be that other states will institute civil union provisions that offer the same LEGAL rights as marriage status. It will ultimately be up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether they agree with the 5-4 decision in CA that civil union SUBSTANTIATIVE rights, even if fully equal, still do not offer civil unions the same WORTH and VALUE(my words) as marriage in the minds of the people and therefore calls for judicial intervention(read the CA Chief Justice’s explanation of his decision). This 5-4 decision. that the court are empowered not only to protect SUBSTANTIATIVE rights but also to shape society’s value-system,in this case by changing the traditional definition of marriage, is judicial over-reaching in MHO.
“Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.”
I’m going to ignore your “fruity” slur and concentrate on the above statement.
How is two people who love each other getting married “pushing behavior on society”?
No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married. All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.
By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex. I want others to have the same rights I do.
Yes, it IS about rights.
“Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.”
I’m going to ignore your “fruity” slur and concentrate on the above statement.
How is two people who love each other getting married “pushing behavior on society”?
No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married. All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.
By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex. I want others to have the same rights I do.
Yes, it IS about rights.
“Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.”
I’m going to ignore your “fruity” slur and concentrate on the above statement.
How is two people who love each other getting married “pushing behavior on society”?
No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married. All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.
By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex. I want others to have the same rights I do.
Yes, it IS about rights.
“Because of this, the agenda appears to push homosexual behaviour on society, to mainstream it, rather than some “concern” for rights.”
I’m going to ignore your “fruity” slur and concentrate on the above statement.
How is two people who love each other getting married “pushing behavior on society”?
No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married. All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.
By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex. I want others to have the same rights I do.
Yes, it IS about rights.
Rights… I’m afraid that your argument belies the facts. The CA Supreme Court could have said that the legislature has to improve Civil Union “rights” to exactly equal those of a marriage; the current Civil Union “rights” now are almost equal in all respects. Instead, the 5-4 decision claimed the avenue of strict scrutiny, which allows subjective judgements rather than finding SUBSTANTITIVE rights denied. The 5 also rejected consideration of the balancing “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage. The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..
Rights… I’m afraid that your argument belies the facts. The CA Supreme Court could have said that the legislature has to improve Civil Union “rights” to exactly equal those of a marriage; the current Civil Union “rights” now are almost equal in all respects. Instead, the 5-4 decision claimed the avenue of strict scrutiny, which allows subjective judgements rather than finding SUBSTANTITIVE rights denied. The 5 also rejected consideration of the balancing “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage. The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..
Rights… I’m afraid that your argument belies the facts. The CA Supreme Court could have said that the legislature has to improve Civil Union “rights” to exactly equal those of a marriage; the current Civil Union “rights” now are almost equal in all respects. Instead, the 5-4 decision claimed the avenue of strict scrutiny, which allows subjective judgements rather than finding SUBSTANTITIVE rights denied. The 5 also rejected consideration of the balancing “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage. The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..
Rights… I’m afraid that your argument belies the facts. The CA Supreme Court could have said that the legislature has to improve Civil Union “rights” to exactly equal those of a marriage; the current Civil Union “rights” now are almost equal in all respects. Instead, the 5-4 decision claimed the avenue of strict scrutiny, which allows subjective judgements rather than finding SUBSTANTITIVE rights denied. The 5 also rejected consideration of the balancing “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage. The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..
Why is a separate-but-equal “civil union” preferable to just having marriage for everyone?
Marriage is marriage. It is silly and unnecessary to have two different terms depending on whom you are marrying.
Why is a separate-but-equal “civil union” preferable to just having marriage for everyone?
Marriage is marriage. It is silly and unnecessary to have two different terms depending on whom you are marrying.
Why is a separate-but-equal “civil union” preferable to just having marriage for everyone?
Marriage is marriage. It is silly and unnecessary to have two different terms depending on whom you are marrying.
Why is a separate-but-equal “civil union” preferable to just having marriage for everyone?
Marriage is marriage. It is silly and unnecessary to have two different terms depending on whom you are marrying.
11:49AM
What do you gain if the proposition passes?
The tradition of marriage has changed over time and it will continue to change. I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know.
We got past allowing women to vote and we got past allowing people to sit anywhere they want to on the bus. We will get past this also.
11:49AM
What do you gain if the proposition passes?
The tradition of marriage has changed over time and it will continue to change. I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know.
We got past allowing women to vote and we got past allowing people to sit anywhere they want to on the bus. We will get past this also.
11:49AM
What do you gain if the proposition passes?
The tradition of marriage has changed over time and it will continue to change. I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know.
We got past allowing women to vote and we got past allowing people to sit anywhere they want to on the bus. We will get past this also.
11:49AM
What do you gain if the proposition passes?
The tradition of marriage has changed over time and it will continue to change. I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know.
We got past allowing women to vote and we got past allowing people to sit anywhere they want to on the bus. We will get past this also.
“Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?”
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
My understanding — based on both my life experience and common sense — is that a person’s sexual orientation is a product of biology. I presume you know that, too. Exposure to gays does not make a person gay any more than exposure to Southpaws makes someone left-handed.
The idea that you would want gays to live outside of the mainstream makes no more sense than you would want left-handed people to live outside the mainstream.
Insofar as religious fundamentalists believe homosexuality is some kind of evil, based on the words of ignoramouses who lived thousands of years ago, ought we base public policy on that superstition? Of course not.
The burden of proof is on you: on what reasonable basis do you think it sensible to exclude gays from the mainstream?
“Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?”
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
My understanding — based on both my life experience and common sense — is that a person’s sexual orientation is a product of biology. I presume you know that, too. Exposure to gays does not make a person gay any more than exposure to Southpaws makes someone left-handed.
The idea that you would want gays to live outside of the mainstream makes no more sense than you would want left-handed people to live outside the mainstream.
Insofar as religious fundamentalists believe homosexuality is some kind of evil, based on the words of ignoramouses who lived thousands of years ago, ought we base public policy on that superstition? Of course not.
The burden of proof is on you: on what reasonable basis do you think it sensible to exclude gays from the mainstream?
“Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?”
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
My understanding — based on both my life experience and common sense — is that a person’s sexual orientation is a product of biology. I presume you know that, too. Exposure to gays does not make a person gay any more than exposure to Southpaws makes someone left-handed.
The idea that you would want gays to live outside of the mainstream makes no more sense than you would want left-handed people to live outside the mainstream.
Insofar as religious fundamentalists believe homosexuality is some kind of evil, based on the words of ignoramouses who lived thousands of years ago, ought we base public policy on that superstition? Of course not.
The burden of proof is on you: on what reasonable basis do you think it sensible to exclude gays from the mainstream?
“Second, I really question the intent behind gay marriage. Is it there to afford rights to people or is it really there to mainstream homosexuality?”
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
My understanding — based on both my life experience and common sense — is that a person’s sexual orientation is a product of biology. I presume you know that, too. Exposure to gays does not make a person gay any more than exposure to Southpaws makes someone left-handed.
The idea that you would want gays to live outside of the mainstream makes no more sense than you would want left-handed people to live outside the mainstream.
Insofar as religious fundamentalists believe homosexuality is some kind of evil, based on the words of ignoramouses who lived thousands of years ago, ought we base public policy on that superstition? Of course not.
The burden of proof is on you: on what reasonable basis do you think it sensible to exclude gays from the mainstream?
“I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know….”
This is the fundamental fallacy in this argument. It is not about what YOU believe and YOUR personal group of like-minded people. It is about PROCESS, the manner in which a whole society operates to maintain tolerance and social cohesion. Comparing this to Brown vs. The Board of Education or Women’s sufferage is fallacious as these issues denied SUBSTANTITIVE rights. Brown vs The Board of Education’s separate but equal issue was actual physical separation and demonstrable inequality in buildings,education quality, supplies and fiscal support. The issue here is having two different names(marriage and civil union) ,with potential equal legal rights, reflecting traditionally defined differences.
“I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know….”
This is the fundamental fallacy in this argument. It is not about what YOU believe and YOUR personal group of like-minded people. It is about PROCESS, the manner in which a whole society operates to maintain tolerance and social cohesion. Comparing this to Brown vs. The Board of Education or Women’s sufferage is fallacious as these issues denied SUBSTANTITIVE rights. Brown vs The Board of Education’s separate but equal issue was actual physical separation and demonstrable inequality in buildings,education quality, supplies and fiscal support. The issue here is having two different names(marriage and civil union) ,with potential equal legal rights, reflecting traditionally defined differences.
“I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know….”
This is the fundamental fallacy in this argument. It is not about what YOU believe and YOUR personal group of like-minded people. It is about PROCESS, the manner in which a whole society operates to maintain tolerance and social cohesion. Comparing this to Brown vs. The Board of Education or Women’s sufferage is fallacious as these issues denied SUBSTANTITIVE rights. Brown vs The Board of Education’s separate but equal issue was actual physical separation and demonstrable inequality in buildings,education quality, supplies and fiscal support. The issue here is having two different names(marriage and civil union) ,with potential equal legal rights, reflecting traditionally defined differences.
“I simply do not see how the concept of same sex marriage will have any negative impact on my life – or my childrens lives or anybody else I know….”
This is the fundamental fallacy in this argument. It is not about what YOU believe and YOUR personal group of like-minded people. It is about PROCESS, the manner in which a whole society operates to maintain tolerance and social cohesion. Comparing this to Brown vs. The Board of Education or Women’s sufferage is fallacious as these issues denied SUBSTANTITIVE rights. Brown vs The Board of Education’s separate but equal issue was actual physical separation and demonstrable inequality in buildings,education quality, supplies and fiscal support. The issue here is having two different names(marriage and civil union) ,with potential equal legal rights, reflecting traditionally defined differences.
“No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married.”
not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.
“All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.”
Wrong. If you are referring to the so-called “homosexual advocates” they want to get on TV and create a circus that has nothing to do with “gay rights”
And btw who is they? You don’t know all homosexuals or what they want. Not every homosexual necessarily believes in gay marriage either.
“By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex.”
I could give a crap I suppose.
“I want others to have the same rights I do.”
Yes, it IS about rights.
Just because you’ve said it ten times doesn’t make it any truer than the first time.
“No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married.”
not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.
“All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.”
Wrong. If you are referring to the so-called “homosexual advocates” they want to get on TV and create a circus that has nothing to do with “gay rights”
And btw who is they? You don’t know all homosexuals or what they want. Not every homosexual necessarily believes in gay marriage either.
“By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex.”
I could give a crap I suppose.
“I want others to have the same rights I do.”
Yes, it IS about rights.
Just because you’ve said it ten times doesn’t make it any truer than the first time.
“No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married.”
not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.
“All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.”
Wrong. If you are referring to the so-called “homosexual advocates” they want to get on TV and create a circus that has nothing to do with “gay rights”
And btw who is they? You don’t know all homosexuals or what they want. Not every homosexual necessarily believes in gay marriage either.
“By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex.”
I could give a crap I suppose.
“I want others to have the same rights I do.”
Yes, it IS about rights.
Just because you’ve said it ten times doesn’t make it any truer than the first time.
“No one said you have to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. It DOES NOT AFFECT YOU if they want to get married.”
not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.
“All they want is the same rights that you already have if you marry someone of the opposite sex – rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, and all the other rights that a married person enjoys by virtue of having that contract.”
Wrong. If you are referring to the so-called “homosexual advocates” they want to get on TV and create a circus that has nothing to do with “gay rights”
And btw who is they? You don’t know all homosexuals or what they want. Not every homosexual necessarily believes in gay marriage either.
“By the way, I am married to someone of the opposite sex.”
I could give a crap I suppose.
“I want others to have the same rights I do.”
Yes, it IS about rights.
Just because you’ve said it ten times doesn’t make it any truer than the first time.
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
he didn’t say gays he said homosexuality. That means he doesn’t want their behavior mainstreamed or preached about. Difference.
the rest of your points follow from your false assumption.
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
he didn’t say gays he said homosexuality. That means he doesn’t want their behavior mainstreamed or preached about. Difference.
the rest of your points follow from your false assumption.
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
he didn’t say gays he said homosexuality. That means he doesn’t want their behavior mainstreamed or preached about. Difference.
the rest of your points follow from your false assumption.
Of course it is to do the first, for those who want it; but the second is a very interesting question: why would you or anyone want gays excluded from “the mainstream”?
he didn’t say gays he said homosexuality. That means he doesn’t want their behavior mainstreamed or preached about. Difference.
the rest of your points follow from your false assumption.
“not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.”
This social pressure argument that you present has already gone on long before the same-sex marriage issue came up.
Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic.
It has been a common experience for homosexuals to feel confused about their sexuality, growing up, because all they see is a heterosexual culture. They don’t relate. Some eventually end up in a heterosexual marriage that doesn’t feel right, and people get hurt, all because a vocal majority is willing to declare homosexuality a perversion and immoral. That is like calling lefties perverse and immoral. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then let them get married if they want to.
The hypothetical child you present could grow up to be homosexual or heterosexual based on biological processes that have nothing to do with watching same-sex couples in society. Regardless of sexual orientation, you would want your child to grow up feeling accepted.
Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.
“not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.”
This social pressure argument that you present has already gone on long before the same-sex marriage issue came up.
Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic.
It has been a common experience for homosexuals to feel confused about their sexuality, growing up, because all they see is a heterosexual culture. They don’t relate. Some eventually end up in a heterosexual marriage that doesn’t feel right, and people get hurt, all because a vocal majority is willing to declare homosexuality a perversion and immoral. That is like calling lefties perverse and immoral. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then let them get married if they want to.
The hypothetical child you present could grow up to be homosexual or heterosexual based on biological processes that have nothing to do with watching same-sex couples in society. Regardless of sexual orientation, you would want your child to grow up feeling accepted.
Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.
“not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.”
This social pressure argument that you present has already gone on long before the same-sex marriage issue came up.
Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic.
It has been a common experience for homosexuals to feel confused about their sexuality, growing up, because all they see is a heterosexual culture. They don’t relate. Some eventually end up in a heterosexual marriage that doesn’t feel right, and people get hurt, all because a vocal majority is willing to declare homosexuality a perversion and immoral. That is like calling lefties perverse and immoral. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then let them get married if they want to.
The hypothetical child you present could grow up to be homosexual or heterosexual based on biological processes that have nothing to do with watching same-sex couples in society. Regardless of sexual orientation, you would want your child to grow up feeling accepted.
Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.
“not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a “homosexual” in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called “marriage.” That is selfish.”
This social pressure argument that you present has already gone on long before the same-sex marriage issue came up.
Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic.
It has been a common experience for homosexuals to feel confused about their sexuality, growing up, because all they see is a heterosexual culture. They don’t relate. Some eventually end up in a heterosexual marriage that doesn’t feel right, and people get hurt, all because a vocal majority is willing to declare homosexuality a perversion and immoral. That is like calling lefties perverse and immoral. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then let them get married if they want to.
The hypothetical child you present could grow up to be homosexual or heterosexual based on biological processes that have nothing to do with watching same-sex couples in society. Regardless of sexual orientation, you would want your child to grow up feeling accepted.
Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.
“If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her.”
This really depends on what age your child is. If he is 5 or 6 years old, of course he is confused about “sexuality.” It hasn’t developed and the concept is a complete mystery to him. If he is 12 years old, it’s possible that he doesn’t yet understand his newly acquired biological instincts. (In most cases, he does. But I can imagine some being slower.) If he is 17, he knows what he is: gay or straight or bi. He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology.
His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.
“If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her.”
This really depends on what age your child is. If he is 5 or 6 years old, of course he is confused about “sexuality.” It hasn’t developed and the concept is a complete mystery to him. If he is 12 years old, it’s possible that he doesn’t yet understand his newly acquired biological instincts. (In most cases, he does. But I can imagine some being slower.) If he is 17, he knows what he is: gay or straight or bi. He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology.
His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.
“If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her.”
This really depends on what age your child is. If he is 5 or 6 years old, of course he is confused about “sexuality.” It hasn’t developed and the concept is a complete mystery to him. If he is 12 years old, it’s possible that he doesn’t yet understand his newly acquired biological instincts. (In most cases, he does. But I can imagine some being slower.) If he is 17, he knows what he is: gay or straight or bi. He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology.
His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.
“If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her.”
This really depends on what age your child is. If he is 5 or 6 years old, of course he is confused about “sexuality.” It hasn’t developed and the concept is a complete mystery to him. If he is 12 years old, it’s possible that he doesn’t yet understand his newly acquired biological instincts. (In most cases, he does. But I can imagine some being slower.) If he is 17, he knows what he is: gay or straight or bi. He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology.
His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.
“Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.
“Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.
“Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.
“Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.
‘He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology…”
The conclusion that because an individual’s desires and behavior are extremely resistant to conscious choice, it MUST be biologically based is not supported by any hard scientific evidence.
‘He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology…”
The conclusion that because an individual’s desires and behavior are extremely resistant to conscious choice, it MUST be biologically based is not supported by any hard scientific evidence.
‘He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology…”
The conclusion that because an individual’s desires and behavior are extremely resistant to conscious choice, it MUST be biologically based is not supported by any hard scientific evidence.
‘He would have had no choice in that: it’s all biology…”
The conclusion that because an individual’s desires and behavior are extremely resistant to conscious choice, it MUST be biologically based is not supported by any hard scientific evidence.
“I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
I’m not a biologist, so I’ll stay away from arguing the science. However, get real: of course sexual orientation is biologically determined.
I am straight. No one ever told me to be attracted to women. My biology determined that. I have a gay cousin. He didn’t choose to be gay: it was his biology which made him attracted to males.
Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are)? Of course not. That’s impossible. You cannot make a straight person gay or vice versa. It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. Even Ted Haggerty knows that.
“I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
I’m not a biologist, so I’ll stay away from arguing the science. However, get real: of course sexual orientation is biologically determined.
I am straight. No one ever told me to be attracted to women. My biology determined that. I have a gay cousin. He didn’t choose to be gay: it was his biology which made him attracted to males.
Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are)? Of course not. That’s impossible. You cannot make a straight person gay or vice versa. It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. Even Ted Haggerty knows that.
“I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
I’m not a biologist, so I’ll stay away from arguing the science. However, get real: of course sexual orientation is biologically determined.
I am straight. No one ever told me to be attracted to women. My biology determined that. I have a gay cousin. He didn’t choose to be gay: it was his biology which made him attracted to males.
Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are)? Of course not. That’s impossible. You cannot make a straight person gay or vice versa. It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. Even Ted Haggerty knows that.
“I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
I’m not a biologist, so I’ll stay away from arguing the science. However, get real: of course sexual orientation is biologically determined.
I am straight. No one ever told me to be attracted to women. My biology determined that. I have a gay cousin. He didn’t choose to be gay: it was his biology which made him attracted to males.
Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are)? Of course not. That’s impossible. You cannot make a straight person gay or vice versa. It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. Even Ted Haggerty knows that.
I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?
I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?
I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?
I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?
“It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. :
There are no significant hormone differences between homosexual and hetersexual human beings.
“Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are).”
The summation of nature and nuture(experiences)begins shaping who you ARE in the first 18 months of life and continues. There is no conscious awareness of “teaching”.
“I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?….”
Humans do exhibit sexually polymorphous behavior,seen particularly during the early adolescent years.
“It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. :
There are no significant hormone differences between homosexual and hetersexual human beings.
“Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are).”
The summation of nature and nuture(experiences)begins shaping who you ARE in the first 18 months of life and continues. There is no conscious awareness of “teaching”.
“I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?….”
Humans do exhibit sexually polymorphous behavior,seen particularly during the early adolescent years.
“It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. :
There are no significant hormone differences between homosexual and hetersexual human beings.
“Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are).”
The summation of nature and nuture(experiences)begins shaping who you ARE in the first 18 months of life and continues. There is no conscious awareness of “teaching”.
“I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?….”
Humans do exhibit sexually polymorphous behavior,seen particularly during the early adolescent years.
“It’s all in the hormones and every human being knows that. :
There are no significant hormone differences between homosexual and hetersexual human beings.
“Consider your own experience: did someone teach you to be straight (or gay, if that’s what you are).”
The summation of nature and nuture(experiences)begins shaping who you ARE in the first 18 months of life and continues. There is no conscious awareness of “teaching”.
“I’ve read about primates and other species exhibiting homosexual behavior. Why should it be unusual for humans?….”
Humans do exhibit sexually polymorphous behavior,seen particularly during the early adolescent years.
“Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
Gay penguins:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
More gay animals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
Some gay rams whose souls may also need saving (if sheep have souls, that is):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
When I read reports like this, it strongly suggests to me that homosexuality has some biological basis.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?
“Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
Gay penguins:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
More gay animals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
Some gay rams whose souls may also need saving (if sheep have souls, that is):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
When I read reports like this, it strongly suggests to me that homosexuality has some biological basis.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?
“Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
Gay penguins:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
More gay animals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
Some gay rams whose souls may also need saving (if sheep have souls, that is):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
When I read reports like this, it strongly suggests to me that homosexuality has some biological basis.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?
“Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
Gay penguins:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
More gay animals:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
Some gay rams whose souls may also need saving (if sheep have souls, that is):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
When I read reports like this, it strongly suggests to me that homosexuality has some biological basis.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
"What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
“”Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
James Dobson’s post above indicates that there is no more or less convincing evidence that HETEROSEXUALITY is biologically determined than is homosexuality.
Just that most people experience little sense of choice in the matter, whether it is homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Let’s reject Prop. 8.
“”Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
James Dobson’s post above indicates that there is no more or less convincing evidence that HETEROSEXUALITY is biologically determined than is homosexuality.
Just that most people experience little sense of choice in the matter, whether it is homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Let’s reject Prop. 8.
“”Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
James Dobson’s post above indicates that there is no more or less convincing evidence that HETEROSEXUALITY is biologically determined than is homosexuality.
Just that most people experience little sense of choice in the matter, whether it is homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Let’s reject Prop. 8.
“”Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to have a biological basis, perhaps including genetic…”
Please give scientific references to support this statement. I know of NO convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality is biologically determined.”
James Dobson’s post above indicates that there is no more or less convincing evidence that HETEROSEXUALITY is biologically determined than is homosexuality.
Just that most people experience little sense of choice in the matter, whether it is homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Let’s reject Prop. 8.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?”
I think the poor animals have been confused by fruity spectacle of the gay community.
Let’s just leave them all alone and vote no on Prop. 8.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?”
I think the poor animals have been confused by fruity spectacle of the gay community.
Let’s just leave them all alone and vote no on Prop. 8.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?”
I think the poor animals have been confused by fruity spectacle of the gay community.
Let’s just leave them all alone and vote no on Prop. 8.
Of course someone else may reply that these animals have been confused by the “fruity spectacle” (words used by straight thinker at 6:58 PM) that the human gay community has been pushing.
What do you think?”
I think the poor animals have been confused by fruity spectacle of the gay community.
Let’s just leave them all alone and vote no on Prop. 8.
george w. bush jr. says:
"not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a "homosexual" in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called "marriage." That is selfish."
Maybe another very important question is (after you finish blaming everyone else for your child's homosexuality) what would be your reaction as a parent to your child coming out?
More text from
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whataboutsex
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?
"For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion. When these young people receive the support of parents and others, they are often able to live satisfying and healthy lives and move through the usual process of adolescent development. The younger a person is when she or he acknowledges a nonheterosexual identity, the fewer internal and external resources she or he is likely to have. Therefore, youths who come out early are particularly in need of support from parents and others."
george w. bush jr. says:
"not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a "homosexual" in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called "marriage." That is selfish."
Maybe another very important question is (after you finish blaming everyone else for your child's homosexuality) what would be your reaction as a parent to your child coming out?
More text from
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whataboutsex
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?
"For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion. When these young people receive the support of parents and others, they are often able to live satisfying and healthy lives and move through the usual process of adolescent development. The younger a person is when she or he acknowledges a nonheterosexual identity, the fewer internal and external resources she or he is likely to have. Therefore, youths who come out early are particularly in need of support from parents and others."
george w. bush jr. says:
"not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a "homosexual" in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called "marriage." That is selfish."
Maybe another very important question is (after you finish blaming everyone else for your child's homosexuality) what would be your reaction as a parent to your child coming out?
More text from
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whataboutsex
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?
"For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion. When these young people receive the support of parents and others, they are often able to live satisfying and healthy lives and move through the usual process of adolescent development. The younger a person is when she or he acknowledges a nonheterosexual identity, the fewer internal and external resources she or he is likely to have. Therefore, youths who come out early are particularly in need of support from parents and others."
george w. bush jr. says:
"not quite. If I have child who grows up and gets confused about his sexual preference at a young age because he sees homosexuals getting married on national television, that affects him/her. If that translates into him/her coming out as a "homosexual" in our schools and he/she gets teased b/c of it, problems are created for that child because YOU HAD TO CREATE A NATIONAL SPECTACLE with your so-called "marriage." That is selfish."
Maybe another very important question is (after you finish blaming everyone else for your child's homosexuality) what would be your reaction as a parent to your child coming out?
More text from
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whataboutsex
What about sexual orientation and coming out during adolescence?
"For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity. For some, acknowledging this identity can bring an end to confusion. When these young people receive the support of parents and others, they are often able to live satisfying and healthy lives and move through the usual process of adolescent development. The younger a person is when she or he acknowledges a nonheterosexual identity, the fewer internal and external resources she or he is likely to have. Therefore, youths who come out early are particularly in need of support from parents and others."
This is good stuff!
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatisnature
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples."
Wow! Homosexuals are not so different from heterosexuals in their relationships!
This is good stuff!
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatisnature
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples."
Wow! Homosexuals are not so different from heterosexuals in their relationships!
This is good stuff!
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatisnature
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples."
Wow! Homosexuals are not so different from heterosexuals in their relationships!
This is good stuff!
American Psychological Association:
Answers to Your Questions
For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatisnature
"A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships. For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years. It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
A third common misconception is that the goals and values of lesbian and gay couples are different from those of heterosexual couples. In fact, research has found that the factors that influence relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability are remarkably similar for both same-sex cohabiting couples and heterosexual married couples."
Wow! Homosexuals are not so different from heterosexuals in their relationships!
“What do you think?…”
Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.
“What do you think?…”
Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.
“What do you think?…”
Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.
“What do you think?…”
Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.”
Right. I forgot. So humans are not animals? in spite of the fact that my college biology textbook says that humans evolved from other animal species?
But then James Dobson, above, shows some literature from the American Psychological Association, which summarizes conclusions of peer-reviewed literature.
That’s some pretty compelling text.
But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.”
Right. I forgot. So humans are not animals? in spite of the fact that my college biology textbook says that humans evolved from other animal species?
But then James Dobson, above, shows some literature from the American Psychological Association, which summarizes conclusions of peer-reviewed literature.
That’s some pretty compelling text.
But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.”
Right. I forgot. So humans are not animals? in spite of the fact that my college biology textbook says that humans evolved from other animal species?
But then James Dobson, above, shows some literature from the American Psychological Association, which summarizes conclusions of peer-reviewed literature.
That’s some pretty compelling text.
But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information. These media articles are fashioned to grab the attention of the reader and sell newspapers and/or advertising space,not to transmit the best possible scientific understanding.
Don’t compare animal sexual BEHAVIOR with the much more complex human concept of sexual identity.”
Right. I forgot. So humans are not animals? in spite of the fact that my college biology textbook says that humans evolved from other animal species?
But then James Dobson, above, shows some literature from the American Psychological Association, which summarizes conclusions of peer-reviewed literature.
That’s some pretty compelling text.
But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?
“For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity.
which is not healthy. I thought it was “all biological?” and not learned?
“For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity.
which is not healthy. I thought it was “all biological?” and not learned?
“For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity.
which is not healthy. I thought it was “all biological?” and not learned?
“For some young people, this process of exploring same-sex attractions leads to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity.
which is not healthy. I thought it was “all biological?” and not learned?
“But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?…”
I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.
“But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?…”
I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.
“But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?…”
I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.
“But I’m sure you will straighten me out on that?…”
I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information.”
Help! Now I found a peer-reviewed science article indicating a genetic connection to same-sex attraction in fruit flies!
Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qhw6cwn7rdcqlk94/
How do I dismiss this one? Is it that they are animals? that they are mutants? that they are *fruit* flies?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information.”
Help! Now I found a peer-reviewed science article indicating a genetic connection to same-sex attraction in fruit flies!
Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qhw6cwn7rdcqlk94/
How do I dismiss this one? Is it that they are animals? that they are mutants? that they are *fruit* flies?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information.”
Help! Now I found a peer-reviewed science article indicating a genetic connection to same-sex attraction in fruit flies!
Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qhw6cwn7rdcqlk94/
How do I dismiss this one? Is it that they are animals? that they are mutants? that they are *fruit* flies?
“Several points in reply…do not confuse “pop science” media articles with peer-reviewed scientific information.”
Help! Now I found a peer-reviewed science article indicating a genetic connection to same-sex attraction in fruit flies!
Sexual behavior mutants revisited: molecular and cellular basis of Drosophila mating
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qhw6cwn7rdcqlk94/
How do I dismiss this one? Is it that they are animals? that they are mutants? that they are *fruit* flies?
bill clinton said:
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??
bill clinton said:
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??
bill clinton said:
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??
bill clinton said:
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??
“I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.”
Yeah, but this passage makes me think:
“most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
I take it to mean that a person can’t help feeling gay or straight. You’re saying that it’s learned behavior, as if it’s a conscious choice.
I’m thinking that if I can’t help prefering one sex over another, then there must be some biology going on in my head that’s making that happen.
And then there’s this other quote from the APA site:
” Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
So if lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding, then it seems like there shouldn’t be this issue over banning same-sex marriages.
But also, it was this passage that I found interesting:
“It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.”
I am thinking of opposing Prop 8 because I want to see same-sex couples have enhanced stability in their relationships, and because the APA says that same-sex relationships are a normal for of human bonding.
I’m glad to get some reassuring conclusions. What I’m getting from all those science posts listed above is that the jury is still out on exactly what causes homosexuality, but it strongly points to some biological thing going on. And that homosexuality is normal and definitely isn’t a mental disorder. What a relief!
“I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.”
Yeah, but this passage makes me think:
“most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
I take it to mean that a person can’t help feeling gay or straight. You’re saying that it’s learned behavior, as if it’s a conscious choice.
I’m thinking that if I can’t help prefering one sex over another, then there must be some biology going on in my head that’s making that happen.
And then there’s this other quote from the APA site:
” Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
So if lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding, then it seems like there shouldn’t be this issue over banning same-sex marriages.
But also, it was this passage that I found interesting:
“It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.”
I am thinking of opposing Prop 8 because I want to see same-sex couples have enhanced stability in their relationships, and because the APA says that same-sex relationships are a normal for of human bonding.
I’m glad to get some reassuring conclusions. What I’m getting from all those science posts listed above is that the jury is still out on exactly what causes homosexuality, but it strongly points to some biological thing going on. And that homosexuality is normal and definitely isn’t a mental disorder. What a relief!
“I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.”
Yeah, but this passage makes me think:
“most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
I take it to mean that a person can’t help feeling gay or straight. You’re saying that it’s learned behavior, as if it’s a conscious choice.
I’m thinking that if I can’t help prefering one sex over another, then there must be some biology going on in my head that’s making that happen.
And then there’s this other quote from the APA site:
” Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
So if lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding, then it seems like there shouldn’t be this issue over banning same-sex marriages.
But also, it was this passage that I found interesting:
“It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.”
I am thinking of opposing Prop 8 because I want to see same-sex couples have enhanced stability in their relationships, and because the APA says that same-sex relationships are a normal for of human bonding.
I’m glad to get some reassuring conclusions. What I’m getting from all those science posts listed above is that the jury is still out on exactly what causes homosexuality, but it strongly points to some biological thing going on. And that homosexuality is normal and definitely isn’t a mental disorder. What a relief!
“I’m confused by your posting. The Psychological Association’s literature that is offered DOES NOT affirm that homosexuality is biologically determined. Jim Dobson’s posting appears to be in sync with my observations.”
Yeah, but this passage makes me think:
“most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
I take it to mean that a person can’t help feeling gay or straight. You’re saying that it’s learned behavior, as if it’s a conscious choice.
I’m thinking that if I can’t help prefering one sex over another, then there must be some biology going on in my head that’s making that happen.
And then there’s this other quote from the APA site:
” Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”
So if lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding, then it seems like there shouldn’t be this issue over banning same-sex marriages.
But also, it was this passage that I found interesting:
“It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.”
I am thinking of opposing Prop 8 because I want to see same-sex couples have enhanced stability in their relationships, and because the APA says that same-sex relationships are a normal for of human bonding.
I’m glad to get some reassuring conclusions. What I’m getting from all those science posts listed above is that the jury is still out on exactly what causes homosexuality, but it strongly points to some biological thing going on. And that homosexuality is normal and definitely isn’t a mental disorder. What a relief!
“Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??”
Oh! Do you mean we should be pursuing a “separate but equal” strategy?
Do you think that is legally sound?
“Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??”
Oh! Do you mean we should be pursuing a “separate but equal” strategy?
Do you think that is legally sound?
“Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??”
Oh! Do you mean we should be pursuing a “separate but equal” strategy?
Do you think that is legally sound?
“Is this, rather than guaranteeing that SUBSTANTITIVE rights are equal for civil-union and marriage status, the appropriate role for our CA Supreme Court??”
Oh! Do you mean we should be pursuing a “separate but equal” strategy?
Do you think that is legally sound?
Yes, George Bush likes the old separate but equal doctrine. He feels revulsion when he sees happy people getting married on TV because they are getting married to someone he thinks is the wrong gender for them. He doesn’t want his children seeing it on TV because watching that might turn them gay. The threat of that happening is of greater importance than the rights we deny them by not allowing them to marry the person they want to marry.
Yes, George Bush likes the old separate but equal doctrine. He feels revulsion when he sees happy people getting married on TV because they are getting married to someone he thinks is the wrong gender for them. He doesn’t want his children seeing it on TV because watching that might turn them gay. The threat of that happening is of greater importance than the rights we deny them by not allowing them to marry the person they want to marry.
Yes, George Bush likes the old separate but equal doctrine. He feels revulsion when he sees happy people getting married on TV because they are getting married to someone he thinks is the wrong gender for them. He doesn’t want his children seeing it on TV because watching that might turn them gay. The threat of that happening is of greater importance than the rights we deny them by not allowing them to marry the person they want to marry.
Yes, George Bush likes the old separate but equal doctrine. He feels revulsion when he sees happy people getting married on TV because they are getting married to someone he thinks is the wrong gender for them. He doesn’t want his children seeing it on TV because watching that might turn them gay. The threat of that happening is of greater importance than the rights we deny them by not allowing them to marry the person they want to marry.
“How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.
“How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.
“How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.
“How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.
“”How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.”
Ah-ha.
So, because we see a biological thing going on to promote same-sex attraction in insects, it is inappropriate to speculate that something similar could also be going on in other animals, er, I mean, humans?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
“”How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.”
Ah-ha.
So, because we see a biological thing going on to promote same-sex attraction in insects, it is inappropriate to speculate that something similar could also be going on in other animals, er, I mean, humans?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
“”How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.”
Ah-ha.
So, because we see a biological thing going on to promote same-sex attraction in insects, it is inappropriate to speculate that something similar could also be going on in other animals, er, I mean, humans?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
“”How do I dismiss this one? “
Difficult…. if you do not recognize that there is a difference between the brain of a fruit fly and human. The instinctive phemerone attraction of insects bears no relationship to human homosexuality.”
Ah-ha.
So, because we see a biological thing going on to promote same-sex attraction in insects, it is inappropriate to speculate that something similar could also be going on in other animals, er, I mean, humans?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
Do you think that is legally sound?
Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.
Do you think that is legally sound?
Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.
Do you think that is legally sound?
Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.
Do you think that is legally sound?
Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.
“Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.”
A carefuly parsing of the language.
That will be a tough thing to explain to the public. Believe me. I know from experience…
“Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.”
A carefuly parsing of the language.
That will be a tough thing to explain to the public. Believe me. I know from experience…
“Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.”
A carefuly parsing of the language.
That will be a tough thing to explain to the public. Believe me. I know from experience…
“Separate but equal referred to physical separation, not using two terms to describe two distinguishable things.
The courts have been increasingly vigilant in protecting equal rights for both men and women without having to substitute a single term to describe both.”
A carefuly parsing of the language.
That will be a tough thing to explain to the public. Believe me. I know from experience…
George,
Suppose science DID prove without a doubt that homosexuality is biological and individuals don’t have a choice in their orientation. Would you then support same sex marriage?
The point is, it really doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is inherent or not. The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union – one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
I do not know what causes homosexuality but surmise that it is a human behavior, like others, that is the result of the complex interaction of nature,nurture and the positive and negative experiences that fate offers us. Morality is not a consideration.
The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.
George,
Suppose science DID prove without a doubt that homosexuality is biological and individuals don’t have a choice in their orientation. Would you then support same sex marriage?
The point is, it really doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is inherent or not. The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union – one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
I do not know what causes homosexuality but surmise that it is a human behavior, like others, that is the result of the complex interaction of nature,nurture and the positive and negative experiences that fate offers us. Morality is not a consideration.
The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.
George,
Suppose science DID prove without a doubt that homosexuality is biological and individuals don’t have a choice in their orientation. Would you then support same sex marriage?
The point is, it really doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is inherent or not. The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union – one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
I do not know what causes homosexuality but surmise that it is a human behavior, like others, that is the result of the complex interaction of nature,nurture and the positive and negative experiences that fate offers us. Morality is not a consideration.
The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.
George,
Suppose science DID prove without a doubt that homosexuality is biological and individuals don’t have a choice in their orientation. Would you then support same sex marriage?
The point is, it really doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is inherent or not. The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union – one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals?
What do you think causes human homosexuality?
Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
I do not know what causes homosexuality but surmise that it is a human behavior, like others, that is the result of the complex interaction of nature,nurture and the positive and negative experiences that fate offers us. Morality is not a consideration.
The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.
“The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.”
I don’t think that most California voters will be thinking about Prop 8 in terms of whether the CA Supreme Court’s ruling was appropriate or not.
They will more likely be thinking, is same-sex marriage okay with me or not?
That will be a very important political measure (and maybe legal measure in some way) of how California society feels about this issue.
Right now, passage of Prop. 8 looks rather dim.
“The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.”
I don’t think that most California voters will be thinking about Prop 8 in terms of whether the CA Supreme Court’s ruling was appropriate or not.
They will more likely be thinking, is same-sex marriage okay with me or not?
That will be a very important political measure (and maybe legal measure in some way) of how California society feels about this issue.
Right now, passage of Prop. 8 looks rather dim.
“The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.”
I don’t think that most California voters will be thinking about Prop 8 in terms of whether the CA Supreme Court’s ruling was appropriate or not.
They will more likely be thinking, is same-sex marriage okay with me or not?
That will be a very important political measure (and maybe legal measure in some way) of how California society feels about this issue.
Right now, passage of Prop. 8 looks rather dim.
“The pertinent question is whether the CA Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision here was appropriate and if one feels strongly that it was not, then the only legal recourse at this time to reverse it is to vote Yes on 8.”
I don’t think that most California voters will be thinking about Prop 8 in terms of whether the CA Supreme Court’s ruling was appropriate or not.
They will more likely be thinking, is same-sex marriage okay with me or not?
That will be a very important political measure (and maybe legal measure in some way) of how California society feels about this issue.
Right now, passage of Prop. 8 looks rather dim.
Couple of other things. My bottom line:
I don’t want homosexuals to feel threatened or fear violence. I don’t want them to think that I want to change them.
But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to go that far.
If you care so goddamned much about rights then get civil unions and shut up.
So I’ll say it again. This has nothing to do with rights. And just because someone says it does doesn’t make it true.
This is about hey look at me, I’m on TV! This gay marriage has about as much maturity attached to it as the Jerry Springer TV show.
Couple of other things. My bottom line:
I don’t want homosexuals to feel threatened or fear violence. I don’t want them to think that I want to change them.
But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to go that far.
If you care so goddamned much about rights then get civil unions and shut up.
So I’ll say it again. This has nothing to do with rights. And just because someone says it does doesn’t make it true.
This is about hey look at me, I’m on TV! This gay marriage has about as much maturity attached to it as the Jerry Springer TV show.
Couple of other things. My bottom line:
I don’t want homosexuals to feel threatened or fear violence. I don’t want them to think that I want to change them.
But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to go that far.
If you care so goddamned much about rights then get civil unions and shut up.
So I’ll say it again. This has nothing to do with rights. And just because someone says it does doesn’t make it true.
This is about hey look at me, I’m on TV! This gay marriage has about as much maturity attached to it as the Jerry Springer TV show.
Couple of other things. My bottom line:
I don’t want homosexuals to feel threatened or fear violence. I don’t want them to think that I want to change them.
But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to go that far.
If you care so goddamned much about rights then get civil unions and shut up.
So I’ll say it again. This has nothing to do with rights. And just because someone says it does doesn’t make it true.
This is about hey look at me, I’m on TV! This gay marriage has about as much maturity attached to it as the Jerry Springer TV show.
“The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union”
Society is not maintaining two separate forms, they exist, and are distinguishable when considered in light of society’s traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The CA Supreme Court majority rejected the legal weight of society’s traditional definition of marriage in their decision. Whether this “weight” carries the day in the minds of the CA voters will be revealed on Nov. 4
“The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union”
Society is not maintaining two separate forms, they exist, and are distinguishable when considered in light of society’s traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The CA Supreme Court majority rejected the legal weight of society’s traditional definition of marriage in their decision. Whether this “weight” carries the day in the minds of the CA voters will be revealed on Nov. 4
“The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union”
Society is not maintaining two separate forms, they exist, and are distinguishable when considered in light of society’s traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The CA Supreme Court majority rejected the legal weight of society’s traditional definition of marriage in their decision. Whether this “weight” carries the day in the minds of the CA voters will be revealed on Nov. 4
“The legal question is why does society have an interest in maintaining two separate forms of union”
Society is not maintaining two separate forms, they exist, and are distinguishable when considered in light of society’s traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The CA Supreme Court majority rejected the legal weight of society’s traditional definition of marriage in their decision. Whether this “weight” carries the day in the minds of the CA voters will be revealed on Nov. 4
Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?
Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?
Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?
Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?
“Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?”
I believe I have answered it, but I’ll break it down further.
Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.
I do not believe it has anything to do with rights, or if it does, it is a side benefit and not the underlying reason.
clear enough?
“Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?”
I believe I have answered it, but I’ll break it down further.
Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.
I do not believe it has anything to do with rights, or if it does, it is a side benefit and not the underlying reason.
clear enough?
“Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?”
I believe I have answered it, but I’ll break it down further.
Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.
I do not believe it has anything to do with rights, or if it does, it is a side benefit and not the underlying reason.
clear enough?
“Stop dancing!
Why are you opposed to same sex marriages? How do they negatively impact you?
Do you have the ability to answer the question?”
I believe I have answered it, but I’ll break it down further.
Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.
I do not believe it has anything to do with rights, or if it does, it is a side benefit and not the underlying reason.
clear enough?
“But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.””
I don’t get that message. The message I get is that some celebrities just want to put out the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
That a young person with homosexual preferences does not have to personally repress those feelings, or develop a negative self image because everyone else thinks homosexuality is a perversion.
Once same-sex marriage is supported, I doubt that any subsequent news about a celebrity coming out will be newsworthy. The only reason that Ellen Degeneres created such a stir was that homosexuality was (and still is, to a certain degree) publicly taboo.
As for Davis and the Enterprise, well, Davis has long been a more supportive community for same-sex couples compared to many other central valley communities. So I’m not surprised.
I don’t think homosexuals are out to spread their way of life. I think they are just trying to make things a little more comfortable for themselves, sort of like the way it is for heterosexuals.
“But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.””
I don’t get that message. The message I get is that some celebrities just want to put out the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
That a young person with homosexual preferences does not have to personally repress those feelings, or develop a negative self image because everyone else thinks homosexuality is a perversion.
Once same-sex marriage is supported, I doubt that any subsequent news about a celebrity coming out will be newsworthy. The only reason that Ellen Degeneres created such a stir was that homosexuality was (and still is, to a certain degree) publicly taboo.
As for Davis and the Enterprise, well, Davis has long been a more supportive community for same-sex couples compared to many other central valley communities. So I’m not surprised.
I don’t think homosexuals are out to spread their way of life. I think they are just trying to make things a little more comfortable for themselves, sort of like the way it is for heterosexuals.
“But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.””
I don’t get that message. The message I get is that some celebrities just want to put out the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
That a young person with homosexual preferences does not have to personally repress those feelings, or develop a negative self image because everyone else thinks homosexuality is a perversion.
Once same-sex marriage is supported, I doubt that any subsequent news about a celebrity coming out will be newsworthy. The only reason that Ellen Degeneres created such a stir was that homosexuality was (and still is, to a certain degree) publicly taboo.
As for Davis and the Enterprise, well, Davis has long been a more supportive community for same-sex couples compared to many other central valley communities. So I’m not surprised.
I don’t think homosexuals are out to spread their way of life. I think they are just trying to make things a little more comfortable for themselves, sort of like the way it is for heterosexuals.
“But I also don’t want them getting on TV with messages “kids, it’s cool to be gay. Look at me.”
That is exactly what these advocates appear to desire with their circus on TV. They cannot wait to get in front of the camera and say “look at me!” Ellen Degeneres was printed on the front page of a magazine saying “Yep, I’m gay” as if everyone should know this.
As soon as the court ruling came down, various homosexual couples “came out” right in front of TV
Notice how the woman who just responded to me decided that I had to know she was a homosexual, to make her homosexuality my business. To make sure that she promotes her homosexuality. Next, she’ll want to get invited into schools to promote herself to little kids in an assembly.
The davis Enterprise just promoted homosexual marriage in yesterday’s paper. They want to make sure homosexuality is “popluar.””
I don’t get that message. The message I get is that some celebrities just want to put out the message that homosexuality is acceptable.
That a young person with homosexual preferences does not have to personally repress those feelings, or develop a negative self image because everyone else thinks homosexuality is a perversion.
Once same-sex marriage is supported, I doubt that any subsequent news about a celebrity coming out will be newsworthy. The only reason that Ellen Degeneres created such a stir was that homosexuality was (and still is, to a certain degree) publicly taboo.
As for Davis and the Enterprise, well, Davis has long been a more supportive community for same-sex couples compared to many other central valley communities. So I’m not surprised.
I don’t think homosexuals are out to spread their way of life. I think they are just trying to make things a little more comfortable for themselves, sort of like the way it is for heterosexuals.
On making homosexual behavior “popular”:
You believe that a popular conception of homosexuality as “OK” is going to lead to more homosexual behavior.
Would you go out and have sex with men if it seemed “cool” to do so? Why do you think others might change their orientation, if you wouldn’t? I don’t think people’s orientation is as fluid as you seem to think.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement here about what causes sexual attraction, whether homosexuality is a problem or not, and what role the government should play.
On making homosexual behavior “popular”:
You believe that a popular conception of homosexuality as “OK” is going to lead to more homosexual behavior.
Would you go out and have sex with men if it seemed “cool” to do so? Why do you think others might change their orientation, if you wouldn’t? I don’t think people’s orientation is as fluid as you seem to think.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement here about what causes sexual attraction, whether homosexuality is a problem or not, and what role the government should play.
On making homosexual behavior “popular”:
You believe that a popular conception of homosexuality as “OK” is going to lead to more homosexual behavior.
Would you go out and have sex with men if it seemed “cool” to do so? Why do you think others might change their orientation, if you wouldn’t? I don’t think people’s orientation is as fluid as you seem to think.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement here about what causes sexual attraction, whether homosexuality is a problem or not, and what role the government should play.
On making homosexual behavior “popular”:
You believe that a popular conception of homosexuality as “OK” is going to lead to more homosexual behavior.
Would you go out and have sex with men if it seemed “cool” to do so? Why do you think others might change their orientation, if you wouldn’t? I don’t think people’s orientation is as fluid as you seem to think.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement here about what causes sexual attraction, whether homosexuality is a problem or not, and what role the government should play.
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
I suppose that may be true, but on a very small scale. In Yolo county there may be 1 or 2 coouples out of each 100 that may desire to do what you are worried about. So you want to deny to right to the entire group because you are annoyed by 1% of 2% of the group.
You have a very narrow view of the world – you should consider getting out and meeting more people.
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
I suppose that may be true, but on a very small scale. In Yolo county there may be 1 or 2 coouples out of each 100 that may desire to do what you are worried about. So you want to deny to right to the entire group because you are annoyed by 1% of 2% of the group.
You have a very narrow view of the world – you should consider getting out and meeting more people.
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
I suppose that may be true, but on a very small scale. In Yolo county there may be 1 or 2 coouples out of each 100 that may desire to do what you are worried about. So you want to deny to right to the entire group because you are annoyed by 1% of 2% of the group.
You have a very narrow view of the world – you should consider getting out and meeting more people.
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
I suppose that may be true, but on a very small scale. In Yolo county there may be 1 or 2 coouples out of each 100 that may desire to do what you are worried about. So you want to deny to right to the entire group because you are annoyed by 1% of 2% of the group.
You have a very narrow view of the world – you should consider getting out and meeting more people.
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
Really?
So is this all the carefully orchestrated work of some powerful politicos?
Why would anyone want to do that? That’s a pretty dumb scheme. Do you think your life would change if same-sex marriage were upheld?
What do you imagine happening? 70% of US couples becoming same sex?
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
Really?
So is this all the carefully orchestrated work of some powerful politicos?
Why would anyone want to do that? That’s a pretty dumb scheme. Do you think your life would change if same-sex marriage were upheld?
What do you imagine happening? 70% of US couples becoming same sex?
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
Really?
So is this all the carefully orchestrated work of some powerful politicos?
Why would anyone want to do that? That’s a pretty dumb scheme. Do you think your life would change if same-sex marriage were upheld?
What do you imagine happening? 70% of US couples becoming same sex?
“Homosexual marriages is the vehicle that is being used to make homosexual behavior popular to the rest of society.”
Really?
So is this all the carefully orchestrated work of some powerful politicos?
Why would anyone want to do that? That’s a pretty dumb scheme. Do you think your life would change if same-sex marriage were upheld?
What do you imagine happening? 70% of US couples becoming same sex?
I’m surprised (maybe relieved) that no one has quoted Bible verse at us in this blog.
I’m surprised (maybe relieved) that no one has quoted Bible verse at us in this blog.
I’m surprised (maybe relieved) that no one has quoted Bible verse at us in this blog.
I’m surprised (maybe relieved) that no one has quoted Bible verse at us in this blog.
“stop dancing!”
George w Bush JR… I think that the poster was perhaps directing this comment to me..
I am not opposed to same-sex civil-unions with the identical state rights as marriage status but do not agree that the CA Supreme Court’s decision to change my society’s traditional definition of marriage. There were other remedies that could address any
SUBSTANITIVE rights concerns in civil-union relationships. I see my voter civic responsibility as trying to vote for what I think is best as a member of the greater CA electorate rather than how I am personally impacted.
“stop dancing!”
George w Bush JR… I think that the poster was perhaps directing this comment to me..
I am not opposed to same-sex civil-unions with the identical state rights as marriage status but do not agree that the CA Supreme Court’s decision to change my society’s traditional definition of marriage. There were other remedies that could address any
SUBSTANITIVE rights concerns in civil-union relationships. I see my voter civic responsibility as trying to vote for what I think is best as a member of the greater CA electorate rather than how I am personally impacted.
“stop dancing!”
George w Bush JR… I think that the poster was perhaps directing this comment to me..
I am not opposed to same-sex civil-unions with the identical state rights as marriage status but do not agree that the CA Supreme Court’s decision to change my society’s traditional definition of marriage. There were other remedies that could address any
SUBSTANITIVE rights concerns in civil-union relationships. I see my voter civic responsibility as trying to vote for what I think is best as a member of the greater CA electorate rather than how I am personally impacted.
“stop dancing!”
George w Bush JR… I think that the poster was perhaps directing this comment to me..
I am not opposed to same-sex civil-unions with the identical state rights as marriage status but do not agree that the CA Supreme Court’s decision to change my society’s traditional definition of marriage. There were other remedies that could address any
SUBSTANITIVE rights concerns in civil-union relationships. I see my voter civic responsibility as trying to vote for what I think is best as a member of the greater CA electorate rather than how I am personally impacted.
As a heterosexual I think that having sex with the same gender is REVOLTING. But If that is what they want to do, it is up to them. Let gay people marry and have the same rights as others.
As a heterosexual I think that having sex with the same gender is REVOLTING. But If that is what they want to do, it is up to them. Let gay people marry and have the same rights as others.
As a heterosexual I think that having sex with the same gender is REVOLTING. But If that is what they want to do, it is up to them. Let gay people marry and have the same rights as others.
As a heterosexual I think that having sex with the same gender is REVOLTING. But If that is what they want to do, it is up to them. Let gay people marry and have the same rights as others.
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.
“”Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.”
What’s wrong with that?
The APA materials on homosexuality that James Dobson referenced above in multiple posts point out that homosexuality is a normal form of human bonding. That it isn’t a mental disorder. That there is no conscious choice that the individual feels in the matter. That personal and relationship stress for homosexuals would be minimized if there were greater social acceptance (including same-sex marriage).
Taken as a whole, this, to me, is a legitimate scientific conclusion that could be used to justify a position to support same-sex marriage, even in the courts. Why should the legal system ignore that kind of science?
Relying on finer points of legal procedure as a basis for supporting Prop 8, when scientific consensus shows another basis for opposing Prop 8, seems just a little too clever for a lot of voters to grasp easily.
By the way, up until the early-/mid- 70’s, homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder by psychologists and psychiatrists. That was, in part, a basis for society calling homosexuality a perversion. It has just taken a long time for society to catch up in its understanding that it isn’t a perversion.
“”Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.”
What’s wrong with that?
The APA materials on homosexuality that James Dobson referenced above in multiple posts point out that homosexuality is a normal form of human bonding. That it isn’t a mental disorder. That there is no conscious choice that the individual feels in the matter. That personal and relationship stress for homosexuals would be minimized if there were greater social acceptance (including same-sex marriage).
Taken as a whole, this, to me, is a legitimate scientific conclusion that could be used to justify a position to support same-sex marriage, even in the courts. Why should the legal system ignore that kind of science?
Relying on finer points of legal procedure as a basis for supporting Prop 8, when scientific consensus shows another basis for opposing Prop 8, seems just a little too clever for a lot of voters to grasp easily.
By the way, up until the early-/mid- 70’s, homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder by psychologists and psychiatrists. That was, in part, a basis for society calling homosexuality a perversion. It has just taken a long time for society to catch up in its understanding that it isn’t a perversion.
“”Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.”
What’s wrong with that?
The APA materials on homosexuality that James Dobson referenced above in multiple posts point out that homosexuality is a normal form of human bonding. That it isn’t a mental disorder. That there is no conscious choice that the individual feels in the matter. That personal and relationship stress for homosexuals would be minimized if there were greater social acceptance (including same-sex marriage).
Taken as a whole, this, to me, is a legitimate scientific conclusion that could be used to justify a position to support same-sex marriage, even in the courts. Why should the legal system ignore that kind of science?
Relying on finer points of legal procedure as a basis for supporting Prop 8, when scientific consensus shows another basis for opposing Prop 8, seems just a little too clever for a lot of voters to grasp easily.
By the way, up until the early-/mid- 70’s, homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder by psychologists and psychiatrists. That was, in part, a basis for society calling homosexuality a perversion. It has just taken a long time for society to catch up in its understanding that it isn’t a perversion.
“”Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted…”
The CA Supreme Court Chief Justice’s discussion of his reasoning essentially made the above same point(it is to be found by googling the recent CA Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage). I found this description of his non-legal reasoning that brought him to craft the 5-4 majority’s legal argument in favor of changing the state-definition of marriage revealing and beyond the scope of the legitimate role of the CA Supreme Court.”
What’s wrong with that?
The APA materials on homosexuality that James Dobson referenced above in multiple posts point out that homosexuality is a normal form of human bonding. That it isn’t a mental disorder. That there is no conscious choice that the individual feels in the matter. That personal and relationship stress for homosexuals would be minimized if there were greater social acceptance (including same-sex marriage).
Taken as a whole, this, to me, is a legitimate scientific conclusion that could be used to justify a position to support same-sex marriage, even in the courts. Why should the legal system ignore that kind of science?
Relying on finer points of legal procedure as a basis for supporting Prop 8, when scientific consensus shows another basis for opposing Prop 8, seems just a little too clever for a lot of voters to grasp easily.
By the way, up until the early-/mid- 70’s, homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder by psychologists and psychiatrists. That was, in part, a basis for society calling homosexuality a perversion. It has just taken a long time for society to catch up in its understanding that it isn’t a perversion.
I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.
I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.
I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.
I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.
“I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.”
A somewhat odd misconception in play, here.
Heterosexual couples can and do often have non-sexual relationships. Heterosexual pairs can also engage in sexual behavior that would probably make a heterosexual throw up (me, for instance).
A certain segment of the objecting public can’t get beyond some sort of lurid image of homosexual sex when considering homosexuality.
A number of people can’t get over imagining what goes on in bed when they see Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. I doubt so many people wonder what goes on in bed when they see George and Laura Bush standing together. In truth, whatever it is that goes on, whomever it is, it is private behavior between consenting adults.
“I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.”
A somewhat odd misconception in play, here.
Heterosexual couples can and do often have non-sexual relationships. Heterosexual pairs can also engage in sexual behavior that would probably make a heterosexual throw up (me, for instance).
A certain segment of the objecting public can’t get beyond some sort of lurid image of homosexual sex when considering homosexuality.
A number of people can’t get over imagining what goes on in bed when they see Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. I doubt so many people wonder what goes on in bed when they see George and Laura Bush standing together. In truth, whatever it is that goes on, whomever it is, it is private behavior between consenting adults.
“I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.”
A somewhat odd misconception in play, here.
Heterosexual couples can and do often have non-sexual relationships. Heterosexual pairs can also engage in sexual behavior that would probably make a heterosexual throw up (me, for instance).
A certain segment of the objecting public can’t get beyond some sort of lurid image of homosexual sex when considering homosexuality.
A number of people can’t get over imagining what goes on in bed when they see Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. I doubt so many people wonder what goes on in bed when they see George and Laura Bush standing together. In truth, whatever it is that goes on, whomever it is, it is private behavior between consenting adults.
“I agree, it is not a perversion. But is it the norm? When you have 10% or so of the population engaging in a behavior that the rest don’t engage in, there’s always going to be an issue.
In my own thinking I absolutely could not engage in that type of activity. Even thinking about that type of behavior makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
However if that is what a minority of people wish to do, it is their choice.”
A somewhat odd misconception in play, here.
Heterosexual couples can and do often have non-sexual relationships. Heterosexual pairs can also engage in sexual behavior that would probably make a heterosexual throw up (me, for instance).
A certain segment of the objecting public can’t get beyond some sort of lurid image of homosexual sex when considering homosexuality.
A number of people can’t get over imagining what goes on in bed when they see Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. I doubt so many people wonder what goes on in bed when they see George and Laura Bush standing together. In truth, whatever it is that goes on, whomever it is, it is private behavior between consenting adults.
Our society has a definition of marriage as far back in human history as we can know.
The burden of proof for the court to change the meaning of the word marriage should therefore be exceedingly great(especially since the CA voters decided just a few years ago exactly what they wanted the word marriage to mean). The court presented no pressing need to change the definition of marriage; the court can create remedies that give civil-unions full and equal rights without changing the definition of the word MARRIAGE.
Our society has a definition of marriage as far back in human history as we can know.
The burden of proof for the court to change the meaning of the word marriage should therefore be exceedingly great(especially since the CA voters decided just a few years ago exactly what they wanted the word marriage to mean). The court presented no pressing need to change the definition of marriage; the court can create remedies that give civil-unions full and equal rights without changing the definition of the word MARRIAGE.
Our society has a definition of marriage as far back in human history as we can know.
The burden of proof for the court to change the meaning of the word marriage should therefore be exceedingly great(especially since the CA voters decided just a few years ago exactly what they wanted the word marriage to mean). The court presented no pressing need to change the definition of marriage; the court can create remedies that give civil-unions full and equal rights without changing the definition of the word MARRIAGE.
Our society has a definition of marriage as far back in human history as we can know.
The burden of proof for the court to change the meaning of the word marriage should therefore be exceedingly great(especially since the CA voters decided just a few years ago exactly what they wanted the word marriage to mean). The court presented no pressing need to change the definition of marriage; the court can create remedies that give civil-unions full and equal rights without changing the definition of the word MARRIAGE.
When challenged concerning how their decision impacted the fact that polygmay cannot be a valid marriage, the majority answered that in this case, the traditional meaning of marriage as between two people would prevail.. a totally arbitrary position, that the definition of marriage concerning gender can be discarded but not the 2 people part. Every argument presented to support the definition change to include same sex relationships can be made to include polygamous ones.
When challenged concerning how their decision impacted the fact that polygmay cannot be a valid marriage, the majority answered that in this case, the traditional meaning of marriage as between two people would prevail.. a totally arbitrary position, that the definition of marriage concerning gender can be discarded but not the 2 people part. Every argument presented to support the definition change to include same sex relationships can be made to include polygamous ones.
When challenged concerning how their decision impacted the fact that polygmay cannot be a valid marriage, the majority answered that in this case, the traditional meaning of marriage as between two people would prevail.. a totally arbitrary position, that the definition of marriage concerning gender can be discarded but not the 2 people part. Every argument presented to support the definition change to include same sex relationships can be made to include polygamous ones.
When challenged concerning how their decision impacted the fact that polygmay cannot be a valid marriage, the majority answered that in this case, the traditional meaning of marriage as between two people would prevail.. a totally arbitrary position, that the definition of marriage concerning gender can be discarded but not the 2 people part. Every argument presented to support the definition change to include same sex relationships can be made to include polygamous ones.
The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.
The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.
The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.
The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.
“The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.”
… which up until now, the State did not give legal status precisely because it recognized marriage only as between a man and a woman. To argue that the State does not have to now discard the traditional definition of marriage needs no counterargument as it fails on its own.
“The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.”
… which up until now, the State did not give legal status precisely because it recognized marriage only as between a man and a woman. To argue that the State does not have to now discard the traditional definition of marriage needs no counterargument as it fails on its own.
“The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.”
… which up until now, the State did not give legal status precisely because it recognized marriage only as between a man and a woman. To argue that the State does not have to now discard the traditional definition of marriage needs no counterargument as it fails on its own.
“The meaning of the word marriage is not being changed, what is being changed is the state recognized legal status.”
… which up until now, the State did not give legal status precisely because it recognized marriage only as between a man and a woman. To argue that the State does not have to now discard the traditional definition of marriage needs no counterargument as it fails on its own.
“The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..”
Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.
This entire changing the def’n of marriage is a slippery slope we as a country are going down. Traditional family values are slowly being dangerously eroded. Fringe lifestyles are becoming acceptable.
This is not about equal rights, it never was. Civil unions could give equal rights, w/o changing the traditional def’n of marriage. This is about legitimizing a lifestyle.
Problem is, in doing so, the will of the people was done away w by a court stepping outside its legal bounds. Well, be careful what you wish for. The next time they attempt to overturn the will of the people, it may not agree with your view of the world, and you may find yourself outside looking in.
A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences. Only time will tell if my prediction is correct, but I will bet my bottom dollar I will be right. Hope not!
“The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..”
Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.
This entire changing the def’n of marriage is a slippery slope we as a country are going down. Traditional family values are slowly being dangerously eroded. Fringe lifestyles are becoming acceptable.
This is not about equal rights, it never was. Civil unions could give equal rights, w/o changing the traditional def’n of marriage. This is about legitimizing a lifestyle.
Problem is, in doing so, the will of the people was done away w by a court stepping outside its legal bounds. Well, be careful what you wish for. The next time they attempt to overturn the will of the people, it may not agree with your view of the world, and you may find yourself outside looking in.
A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences. Only time will tell if my prediction is correct, but I will bet my bottom dollar I will be right. Hope not!
“The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..”
Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.
This entire changing the def’n of marriage is a slippery slope we as a country are going down. Traditional family values are slowly being dangerously eroded. Fringe lifestyles are becoming acceptable.
This is not about equal rights, it never was. Civil unions could give equal rights, w/o changing the traditional def’n of marriage. This is about legitimizing a lifestyle.
Problem is, in doing so, the will of the people was done away w by a court stepping outside its legal bounds. Well, be careful what you wish for. The next time they attempt to overturn the will of the people, it may not agree with your view of the world, and you may find yourself outside looking in.
A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences. Only time will tell if my prediction is correct, but I will bet my bottom dollar I will be right. Hope not!
“The majority opinion offered the opinion, however, that on the issue of the status of polygamy, the “weight” of the traditional definition of marriage as being between 2 people would carry significant weight..”
Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.
This entire changing the def’n of marriage is a slippery slope we as a country are going down. Traditional family values are slowly being dangerously eroded. Fringe lifestyles are becoming acceptable.
This is not about equal rights, it never was. Civil unions could give equal rights, w/o changing the traditional def’n of marriage. This is about legitimizing a lifestyle.
Problem is, in doing so, the will of the people was done away w by a court stepping outside its legal bounds. Well, be careful what you wish for. The next time they attempt to overturn the will of the people, it may not agree with your view of the world, and you may find yourself outside looking in.
A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences. Only time will tell if my prediction is correct, but I will bet my bottom dollar I will be right. Hope not!
“Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.”
I see the movement going against polygamy not in favor of it.
“Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.”
I see the movement going against polygamy not in favor of it.
“Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.”
I see the movement going against polygamy not in favor of it.
“Not for long. Wait until the courts of Utah decide polygamists should have equal rights too…fact of the matter is in Utah polygamy is tacitly supported by many in power.”
I see the movement going against polygamy not in favor of it.
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.”
Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle. It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.
Some religions do not believe young teens should be taught how to use condoms (I agree). Some religions do not believe woman should wear shorts in public (I don’t agree), but should be covered up. Yet the gay community and the rest of liberal America is intolerant of those views as too conservative for their taste.
Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum. Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.
If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.”
Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle. It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.
Some religions do not believe young teens should be taught how to use condoms (I agree). Some religions do not believe woman should wear shorts in public (I don’t agree), but should be covered up. Yet the gay community and the rest of liberal America is intolerant of those views as too conservative for their taste.
Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum. Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.
If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.”
Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle. It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.
Some religions do not believe young teens should be taught how to use condoms (I agree). Some religions do not believe woman should wear shorts in public (I don’t agree), but should be covered up. Yet the gay community and the rest of liberal America is intolerant of those views as too conservative for their taste.
Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum. Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.
If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!
“Same sex marriage allows homosexuals to feel accepted.”
Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle. It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.
Some religions do not believe young teens should be taught how to use condoms (I agree). Some religions do not believe woman should wear shorts in public (I don’t agree), but should be covered up. Yet the gay community and the rest of liberal America is intolerant of those views as too conservative for their taste.
Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum. Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.
If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!
“His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.”
In other words, religious fundamentalists are not allowed to have their opinion? Who died and made you Darth Vadar? I’m being somewhat facetious, but the point is still the same. Many Muslims believe woman should be loosely clothed from head to foot. Why are they not entitled to bring up their children as they see fit? Why do we have to have homosexuality shoved in our face as normal? Why can’t we believe marriage should remain traditional, between a man and a woman, but make darned sure civil unions give equal rights to gays? Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD. Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?
“His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.”
In other words, religious fundamentalists are not allowed to have their opinion? Who died and made you Darth Vadar? I’m being somewhat facetious, but the point is still the same. Many Muslims believe woman should be loosely clothed from head to foot. Why are they not entitled to bring up their children as they see fit? Why do we have to have homosexuality shoved in our face as normal? Why can’t we believe marriage should remain traditional, between a man and a woman, but make darned sure civil unions give equal rights to gays? Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD. Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?
“His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.”
In other words, religious fundamentalists are not allowed to have their opinion? Who died and made you Darth Vadar? I’m being somewhat facetious, but the point is still the same. Many Muslims believe woman should be loosely clothed from head to foot. Why are they not entitled to bring up their children as they see fit? Why do we have to have homosexuality shoved in our face as normal? Why can’t we believe marriage should remain traditional, between a man and a woman, but make darned sure civil unions give equal rights to gays? Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD. Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?
“His only “confusion” at 17 would be how to tell his parents, especially if they are religious fundamentalists who hate homosexuals and think their son’s biology is a sin.”
In other words, religious fundamentalists are not allowed to have their opinion? Who died and made you Darth Vadar? I’m being somewhat facetious, but the point is still the same. Many Muslims believe woman should be loosely clothed from head to foot. Why are they not entitled to bring up their children as they see fit? Why do we have to have homosexuality shoved in our face as normal? Why can’t we believe marriage should remain traditional, between a man and a woman, but make darned sure civil unions give equal rights to gays? Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD. Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?
“Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle.”
Is it? I think you’re just making that up!! This is the first time I’ve heard of this kind of conspiracy agenda. Who’s saying that?? Is there some sort of manifesto driving this thing?
To me it sounds like a Harold Hill scheme from The Music Man (There’s trouble right here in River City!!)
“It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.”
So is left-handedness. As a left-hander, I’m just glad there are no legal restrictions on what I can and can’t do because of it. In each case my left-handedness doesn’t negatively on right-handers, and same-sex marriages, as far as I’ve heard, haven’t infringed on anyone’s heterosexual marriage.
“Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum.”
Liberal America? It hardly feels that way to me, and especially as seen from overseas. America looks rather conservative in the world. And “fiscal conservatism” has put us in an economic mess!
“Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.”
You’re absolutely entitled to think anything you want about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, or whomever. But you’re not entitled to infringe on their rights, or let your children infringe upon their rights.
“If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!”
I agree. Sex education in the schools is so weak that, liberal or conservative, I think most parents would probably want to opt out. Sexual practice is so laden with moral opinion that you can’t say anything w/o offending someone, no matter who you are. So now they don’t teach much more than basic plumbing, which I could have learned out of my Sunset home repair manual.
“Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle.”
Is it? I think you’re just making that up!! This is the first time I’ve heard of this kind of conspiracy agenda. Who’s saying that?? Is there some sort of manifesto driving this thing?
To me it sounds like a Harold Hill scheme from The Music Man (There’s trouble right here in River City!!)
“It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.”
So is left-handedness. As a left-hander, I’m just glad there are no legal restrictions on what I can and can’t do because of it. In each case my left-handedness doesn’t negatively on right-handers, and same-sex marriages, as far as I’ve heard, haven’t infringed on anyone’s heterosexual marriage.
“Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum.”
Liberal America? It hardly feels that way to me, and especially as seen from overseas. America looks rather conservative in the world. And “fiscal conservatism” has put us in an economic mess!
“Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.”
You’re absolutely entitled to think anything you want about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, or whomever. But you’re not entitled to infringe on their rights, or let your children infringe upon their rights.
“If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!”
I agree. Sex education in the schools is so weak that, liberal or conservative, I think most parents would probably want to opt out. Sexual practice is so laden with moral opinion that you can’t say anything w/o offending someone, no matter who you are. So now they don’t teach much more than basic plumbing, which I could have learned out of my Sunset home repair manual.
“Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle.”
Is it? I think you’re just making that up!! This is the first time I’ve heard of this kind of conspiracy agenda. Who’s saying that?? Is there some sort of manifesto driving this thing?
To me it sounds like a Harold Hill scheme from The Music Man (There’s trouble right here in River City!!)
“It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.”
So is left-handedness. As a left-hander, I’m just glad there are no legal restrictions on what I can and can’t do because of it. In each case my left-handedness doesn’t negatively on right-handers, and same-sex marriages, as far as I’ve heard, haven’t infringed on anyone’s heterosexual marriage.
“Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum.”
Liberal America? It hardly feels that way to me, and especially as seen from overseas. America looks rather conservative in the world. And “fiscal conservatism” has put us in an economic mess!
“Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.”
You’re absolutely entitled to think anything you want about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, or whomever. But you’re not entitled to infringe on their rights, or let your children infringe upon their rights.
“If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!”
I agree. Sex education in the schools is so weak that, liberal or conservative, I think most parents would probably want to opt out. Sexual practice is so laden with moral opinion that you can’t say anything w/o offending someone, no matter who you are. So now they don’t teach much more than basic plumbing, which I could have learned out of my Sunset home repair manual.
“Bullhockey! Gay rights activists want their lifestyle taught in kindergarten. I don’t want sexuality taught to any five year old period. They are not ready for that sort of conversation yet. Not only that, it disallows parents to have differing religious opinions on the subject. It is an attempt to indoctrinate youngsters that homosexuality is a perfectly normal lifestyle.”
Is it? I think you’re just making that up!! This is the first time I’ve heard of this kind of conspiracy agenda. Who’s saying that?? Is there some sort of manifesto driving this thing?
To me it sounds like a Harold Hill scheme from The Music Man (There’s trouble right here in River City!!)
“It is not normal, but a normal anomaly (assuming one believes that homosexuality is of genetic origin, which I do). There is a difference.”
So is left-handedness. As a left-hander, I’m just glad there are no legal restrictions on what I can and can’t do because of it. In each case my left-handedness doesn’t negatively on right-handers, and same-sex marriages, as far as I’ve heard, haven’t infringed on anyone’s heterosexual marriage.
“Well liberal America is what is eroding our traditional values, mainstreaming porn, having children w/o benefit of marriage, promiscuity, a hatred of America as a warmongering nation, etc. ad nauseum.”
Liberal America? It hardly feels that way to me, and especially as seen from overseas. America looks rather conservative in the world. And “fiscal conservatism” has put us in an economic mess!
“Some of us don’t think that way, are entitled to our differing views, and entitled to raise our children to believe that differing views are OK to have.”
You’re absolutely entitled to think anything you want about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, or whomever. But you’re not entitled to infringe on their rights, or let your children infringe upon their rights.
“If I had a child in school today, after what my children were taught in the Davis public schools, I would have them opt out of sex education. What is being taught these days is nothing more than a how to have sex class and any type of sex goes, w not much in the way of morals or ethics to go along w it. Count me and my children out!”
I agree. Sex education in the schools is so weak that, liberal or conservative, I think most parents would probably want to opt out. Sexual practice is so laden with moral opinion that you can’t say anything w/o offending someone, no matter who you are. So now they don’t teach much more than basic plumbing, which I could have learned out of my Sunset home repair manual.
“Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD.”
Don’t worry, dear. This, too, shall pass. Did you ever hear about Bush v. Gore?
“Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?”
Last time I counted, the U.S. Supreme Court was 5-4 conservative. And the four “liberal” votes are probably better described as moderate, especially when compared to the Warren Court.
If liberalism is on the ascendancy, you’ve got to make a stronger case.
Ultimately I’m sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy will find an excuse to legislate from the bench, as they have before.
“Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD.”
Don’t worry, dear. This, too, shall pass. Did you ever hear about Bush v. Gore?
“Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?”
Last time I counted, the U.S. Supreme Court was 5-4 conservative. And the four “liberal” votes are probably better described as moderate, especially when compared to the Warren Court.
If liberalism is on the ascendancy, you’ve got to make a stronger case.
Ultimately I’m sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy will find an excuse to legislate from the bench, as they have before.
“Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD.”
Don’t worry, dear. This, too, shall pass. Did you ever hear about Bush v. Gore?
“Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?”
Last time I counted, the U.S. Supreme Court was 5-4 conservative. And the four “liberal” votes are probably better described as moderate, especially when compared to the Warren Court.
If liberalism is on the ascendancy, you’ve got to make a stronger case.
Ultimately I’m sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy will find an excuse to legislate from the bench, as they have before.
“Because the Supreme Court overrode the electorate, and decided for us. In other words, they legislated from the bench. NOT GOOD.”
Don’t worry, dear. This, too, shall pass. Did you ever hear about Bush v. Gore?
“Liberalism is in the ascendency for now. Would you feel the same way if conservatism were in the ascendency and the conservative Supreme Court was legislating from the bench that marriage is to be between only and man and a woman, and it will be taught homosexuality is a sin in our schools?”
Last time I counted, the U.S. Supreme Court was 5-4 conservative. And the four “liberal” votes are probably better described as moderate, especially when compared to the Warren Court.
If liberalism is on the ascendancy, you’ve got to make a stronger case.
Ultimately I’m sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy will find an excuse to legislate from the bench, as they have before.
“A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences…”
Courts can redefine the meaning of words to be excluding as well. An historic example was the German courts in the 1930’s that made fully legal the persecution of German Jews by summarily taking away their German citizenship. This was done in an exacting and carefully constructed (stereotypically German) redefinition of meaning of the legal term… German citizen .
“A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences…”
Courts can redefine the meaning of words to be excluding as well. An historic example was the German courts in the 1930’s that made fully legal the persecution of German Jews by summarily taking away their German citizenship. This was done in an exacting and carefully constructed (stereotypically German) redefinition of meaning of the legal term… German citizen .
“A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences…”
Courts can redefine the meaning of words to be excluding as well. An historic example was the German courts in the 1930’s that made fully legal the persecution of German Jews by summarily taking away their German citizenship. This was done in an exacting and carefully constructed (stereotypically German) redefinition of meaning of the legal term… German citizen .
“A dangerous precedent was set here, w far reaching consequences…”
Courts can redefine the meaning of words to be excluding as well. An historic example was the German courts in the 1930’s that made fully legal the persecution of German Jews by summarily taking away their German citizenship. This was done in an exacting and carefully constructed (stereotypically German) redefinition of meaning of the legal term… German citizen .
What is unfortunate in many states is that one person in a same sex couple has to opt for a sex change in order to get legally married where only a man and a woman can get married.
Why should a sex change be necessary? Why not allow same sex couples to skip the expense of a sex change and let them get married as they are? Why force couples to be what they probably don’t want to be in order to get married?
What is unfortunate in many states is that one person in a same sex couple has to opt for a sex change in order to get legally married where only a man and a woman can get married.
Why should a sex change be necessary? Why not allow same sex couples to skip the expense of a sex change and let them get married as they are? Why force couples to be what they probably don’t want to be in order to get married?
What is unfortunate in many states is that one person in a same sex couple has to opt for a sex change in order to get legally married where only a man and a woman can get married.
Why should a sex change be necessary? Why not allow same sex couples to skip the expense of a sex change and let them get married as they are? Why force couples to be what they probably don’t want to be in order to get married?
What is unfortunate in many states is that one person in a same sex couple has to opt for a sex change in order to get legally married where only a man and a woman can get married.
Why should a sex change be necessary? Why not allow same sex couples to skip the expense of a sex change and let them get married as they are? Why force couples to be what they probably don’t want to be in order to get married?
The recent 4-3 Conn. Supreme Court decision was an even more egregiously overreaching than the CA decision. Conn. has laws alrady in place that guaranteed exactly the same rights for civil unions as for traditional marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The 4-3 Conn. Supreme Courts decision rests solely on their subjective decision that there is a denial of equal rights because the societal value system invests less worth in a same-sex civil union than a traditional marriage.These 4 justices have decided that it is their responsibility and that they have the power to alter this societal belief irregardless of whether any real rights are being denied. ..This decision will be extremely difficult to overturn in Conn. because they do not have the populist citizen initiative history that exists in California.
The recent 4-3 Conn. Supreme Court decision was an even more egregiously overreaching than the CA decision. Conn. has laws alrady in place that guaranteed exactly the same rights for civil unions as for traditional marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The 4-3 Conn. Supreme Courts decision rests solely on their subjective decision that there is a denial of equal rights because the societal value system invests less worth in a same-sex civil union than a traditional marriage.These 4 justices have decided that it is their responsibility and that they have the power to alter this societal belief irregardless of whether any real rights are being denied. ..This decision will be extremely difficult to overturn in Conn. because they do not have the populist citizen initiative history that exists in California.
The recent 4-3 Conn. Supreme Court decision was an even more egregiously overreaching than the CA decision. Conn. has laws alrady in place that guaranteed exactly the same rights for civil unions as for traditional marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The 4-3 Conn. Supreme Courts decision rests solely on their subjective decision that there is a denial of equal rights because the societal value system invests less worth in a same-sex civil union than a traditional marriage.These 4 justices have decided that it is their responsibility and that they have the power to alter this societal belief irregardless of whether any real rights are being denied. ..This decision will be extremely difficult to overturn in Conn. because they do not have the populist citizen initiative history that exists in California.
The recent 4-3 Conn. Supreme Court decision was an even more egregiously overreaching than the CA decision. Conn. has laws alrady in place that guaranteed exactly the same rights for civil unions as for traditional marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The 4-3 Conn. Supreme Courts decision rests solely on their subjective decision that there is a denial of equal rights because the societal value system invests less worth in a same-sex civil union than a traditional marriage.These 4 justices have decided that it is their responsibility and that they have the power to alter this societal belief irregardless of whether any real rights are being denied. ..This decision will be extremely difficult to overturn in Conn. because they do not have the populist citizen initiative history that exists in California.
From the UK newspaper, The Independent,Friday,Oct.17:
“Recent polls, which had for months been tilted in favour of gay marriages, are now showing that 47 per cent of respondents are backing the amendment outlawing such unions, with 42 per cent opposed and the rest undecided.”
From the UK newspaper, The Independent,Friday,Oct.17:
“Recent polls, which had for months been tilted in favour of gay marriages, are now showing that 47 per cent of respondents are backing the amendment outlawing such unions, with 42 per cent opposed and the rest undecided.”
From the UK newspaper, The Independent,Friday,Oct.17:
“Recent polls, which had for months been tilted in favour of gay marriages, are now showing that 47 per cent of respondents are backing the amendment outlawing such unions, with 42 per cent opposed and the rest undecided.”
From the UK newspaper, The Independent,Friday,Oct.17:
“Recent polls, which had for months been tilted in favour of gay marriages, are now showing that 47 per cent of respondents are backing the amendment outlawing such unions, with 42 per cent opposed and the rest undecided.”