California Overturns Gay Marriage

[senojekips]

I said other than their sex lives... No two people are exactly the same... You're nitpicking, Spike.

Not at all, it's just that you do not view it a seriously as I do. It's one hell of a difference.

Again, I bothered to read your post, and you DID call me insecure. You said and I directly QUOTE: "If I were insecure I would be like you..." Inferring that I am insecure. I bloody read it.

Lets put it this way then, I said if I were like you, it would make me insecure, no mention of you being insecure, I was alluding to the fact that your system of belief would make me insecure, I have no idea how it affects you. Obviously you can live with it.

It's 0530 here and getting close to my breakfast and that's all I have time for.

But given time I will debate any question you have that has not been covered before.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Not at all, it's just that you do not view it a seriously as I do. It's one hell of a difference.

So homosexuals are somehow a different type of human being than you or I?

Lets put it this way then, I said if I were like you, it would make me insecure, no mention of you being insecure, I was alluding to the fact that your system of belief would make me insecure, I have no idea how it affects you. Obviously you can live with it.

It's 0530 here and getting close to my breakfast and that's all I have time for.

But given time I will debate any question you have that has not been covered before.

But if you were like me, my beliefs would be your beliefs, and it wouldn't make you insecure.


Enjoy your breakfast.

 

[mmarsh]

Yes, but if they are actively and continuously encouraging our infants to become homosexual then they are hitting on us.

Del Boy

Not matter what the far right says, it is simply impossible to encourage someone to be homosexual, not even a impressionable child. Homosexuality isn't a religion or a football club you can join or quit. You are either born gay or streight thats it. Its simply genetics and therpy, prayer, education isnt going to teach anyone different than how their DNA is coded.

There is no "cure" to homosexuality like a disease because there is nothing wrong with the person to begin with. The idea that some can you can teach someone to be gay is like saying I can teach you to have blue eyes and blond hair.

 

[Chukpike]

No no, it's states that just because it's not SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Just because something isn't specifically said in the Constitution doesn't deny it to the people.

I think you are saying the right to decide belongs to the people.

But what I'm saying is the State has no right to give it to the people! Even if the people wanted something done, the States have no right to pass legislature either way.

Here you are saying the people have no right to decide. You also say the State has no right to do anything.

The right of the individual is what The United States is all about man... Freedom... Individuality... Anything ringing a bell here? Look, if this was ONE PERSON complaining about wanting to marry another person of the same sex, it probably wouldn't matter, but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population, we can either be stubborn old fools and not accept the inevitable; or we can learn to live with these people because other than their sex lives, THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT.

Here, I have not the slightest idea of what you are saying. I may be an old fool, but I do not have to accept this as inevitable.

I believe it was Voltaire who once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

To this I would like to add "I may not have the slightest idea what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever you just said, I think?"

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Could you give supporting documentation for this statement?

I think I will refrain from any further comments on this topic as I have expressed my reasons for supporting the gay marriage ban. I will continue to read for the entertainment value this topic provides. And to see the source of Rob's assertion that homosexuals are becoming a larger portion of the population.

 

[BritinBritain]

Just an observation.

A few shops away from mine was a hairdressers owned by two gays, all too often they get involved in a fight of some sort resulting in a lot of screaming, slapping and hair pulling in the street. If thats their lifestyle then fine, but keep it to themselves. It might be amusing to some, but I really don't want to witness such going's on.

The fact of the matter is, many heterosexuals are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

 

[MontyB]

A few shops away from mine was a hairdressers owned by two gays, all too often they get involved in a fight of some sort resulting in a lot of screaming, slapping and hair pulling in the street. If thats their lifestyle then fine, but keep it to themselves. It might be amusing to some, but I really don't want to witness such going's on.

The fact of the matter is, many heterosexuals are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

Of course people are uncomfortable with it, for many of us it was something we were raised to oppose (hell I went to a school where if it was even suspected you would have been beaten on a daily basis) but lets face it there are thousands of things other people do that we are uncomfortable with but at no stage should that be an excuse not to give them equal rights.

To a large degree we don't even have to tolerate it, if you don't want a gay hairdresser go elsewhere, if they live across the street don't go to the house warming but like it or not you have to accept that they are what they are, people with a different lifestyle to yours.

Trust me I know how uncomfortable it is, the wife still has hysterics about me helping a blind friend across a street, he grabbed my arm and apparently all the way across the street I was leaning as far away as possible and rigid as a board but this was my problem caused by my social conditioning that "guys don't generally touch each other in any way shape or form".

 

[Rob Henderson]

I think you are saying the right to decide belongs to the people.

Very good. The right to marry someone should not be up to the mass populous. It should be between the couple getting married.

Here you are saying the people have no right to decide. You also say the State has no right to do anything.

No, I'm saying the States cannot decide for the people. The States shouldn't be allowed to say anything in the matter, be it yay or nay. They shouldn't be allowed to give the authority to the MASS POPULOUS either.

Here, I have not the slightest idea of what you are saying. I may be an old fool, but I do not have to accept this as inevitable.

I believe it was Voltaire who once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

To this I would like to add "I may not have the slightest idea what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever you just said, I think?"

Well, homosexuals will forever exist, until there is a way to deprogram DNA... So it IS rather inevitable, so why not try and be open minded about it instead of just turning a blind eye to the happenings of the HERE and NOW.

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Could you give supporting documentation for this statement?

I think I will refrain from any further comments on this topic as I have expressed my reasons for supporting the gay marriage ban. I will continue to read for the entertainment value this topic provides. And to see the source of Rob's assertion that homosexuals are becoming a larger portion of the population.

Absolutely. There are no OFFICIAL figures, because the Census of 2000 didn't include any directly homosexual questions on it, so nothing was recorded officially, but "The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations. However, two questions were asked that allowed same-sex partnerships to be counted. The questionnaires asked the sex of each person in a household and they asked what the relationship was between each of the members of the household. Respondents could check "Husband/wife" or "unmarried partner" or a number of other relationships.[6][7] Responses were tabulated and the Census Bureau reported that there were more than 658,000 same-sex couples heading households in the United States. However, only about 25% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are in shared-household partnerships at any one time, according to non-Census surveys.[8] For every same-sex couple tallied in the census, there could be three to six more homosexual un-partnered individuals who wouldn't be counted as gay. The Census reported that same-sex male couples numbered 336,001 and female same-sex couples numbered 329,522.[9] Extrapolating from those figures and the surveyed partnering habits of homosexuals, as many as 4.3 million homosexual adults could have been living in the U.S. in 2000. The exact number can't be known because the Census didn't count them specifically. Bisexual and transgendered populations weren't counted, either, as there were no questions regarding this information. Missing, too, are data from additional couples living under the same roof as the first, though this lack applies as well to additional heterosexual couples under the same roof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000


And you'll notice that even though it IS Wikipedia, all the statements are cited.

 

[Chukpike]

Very good. The right to marry someone should not be up to the mass populous. It should be between the couple getting married.

Despite what you think should be. The simple truth is the mass population has the right to decide. Remember, "We the people"

No, I'm saying the States cannot decide for the people. The States shouldn't be allowed to say anything in the matter, be it yay or nay. They shouldn't be allowed to give the authority to the MASS POPULOUS either.

I agree the States cannot decide for the people. The State gives nothing to the people, they all ready have the authority. This is a Democracy.

Well, homosexuals will forever exist, until there is a way to deprogram DNA... So it IS rather inevitable, so why not try and be open minded about it instead of just turning a blind eye to the happenings of the HERE and NOW.
Absolutely. There are no OFFICIAL figures, because the Census of 2000 didn't include any directly homosexual questions on it, so nothing was recorded officially, but "The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations. However, two questions were asked that allowed same-sex partnerships to be counted. The questionnaires asked the sex of each person in a household and they asked what the relationship was between each of the members of the household. Respondents could check "Husband/wife" or "unmarried partner" or a number of other relationships.[6][7] Responses were tabulated and the Census Bureau reported that there were more than 658,000 same-sex couples heading households in the United States. However, only about 25% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are in shared-household partnerships at any one time, according to non-Census surveys.[8] For every same-sex couple tallied in the census, there could be three to six more homosexual un-partnered individuals who wouldn't be counted as gay. The Census reported that same-sex male couples numbered 336,001 and female same-sex couples numbered 329,522.[9] Extrapolating from those figures and the surveyed partnering habits of homosexuals, as many as 4.3 million homosexual adults could have been living in the U.S. in 2000. The exact number can't be known because the Census didn't count them specifically. Bisexual and transgendered populations weren't counted, either, as there were no questions regarding this information. Missing, too, are data from additional couples living under the same roof as the first, though this lack applies as well to additional heterosexual couples under the same roof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000


And you'll notice that even though it IS Wikipedia, all the statements are cited.

Thank you but this doesn't answer the statement you made:

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Where did the data come for this?

From the data you did give I found where the population in 2000 was 281.4 million people. The number of gay and lesbians was estimated at 4.3 million. That works out to 1.53% of the population. I would still like to see the data to support your statement "larger and larger portion of the population".

I was surprised at such a small percentage of the population being gay. I have seen data from Gay and lesbian organizations that imply a higher percentage. Apparently they are not above exaggeration.

 

[Del Boy]

Del Boy

Not matter what the far right says, it is simply impossible to encourage someone to be homosexual, not even a impressionable child. Homosexuality isn't a religion or a football club you can join or quit. You are either born gay or streight thats it. Its simply genetics and therpy, prayer, education isnt going to teach anyone different than how their DNA is coded.

There is no "cure" to homosexuality like a disease because there is nothing wrong with the person to begin with. The idea that some can you can teach someone to be gay is like saying I can teach you to have blue eyes and blond hair.

MM, I would like to direct this post to MontyB and to Rob Henderson as well as yourself.

Guys, try telling me something I don't know. These are not matters of right or left wing. I am speaking of the indoctrination of tiny kids, and if you insist that this does not amount to the promotion of homosexuality as a life-style then you are trying to avoid the issue. Of course this is teaching, and of course it encourages children in making choices, at an age which is unacceptable. This is political promotion by pink politics, diminishing the place of heterosexual marriage. These children are being introduced to homosexuality at a time when they should have no interest in such matters.

To say this is wrong is not to be homophobic; it is far more a question of denigration being applied to the position of partnership between a man and a woman in our society. It should be sufficient that children grow up knowing that homosexuals should not be persecuted or discriminated against.

It is not correct to say that homosexuality cannot be taught, encouraged, persuaded etc. It seems I have not presented sufficient evidence in support of my concerns .

 

[A Can of Man]

I see the pot is still calling the kettle black.

Actually I think I was always somewhere in the middle, willing to change my mind and such. But lately I've decided it's completely pointless because in any case, it's irrelevent whether or not my argument is valid or flawed, those who disagree will always disagree, no matter what.
So I've just decided to go back to what I normally believe in and stick to it, and not change my mind because no one else changes their mind anyways so since I realize the whole point is not seeing who's argument is valid and flawed, rather is simply a bitching contest in which the first to give up loses, I'd rather repeat myself and not lose.
Basically it goes down to this: before I used to change my mind and re-think my opinions based on discussions with others. Now I've decided not to do that anymore.

 

[MontyB]

Basically it goes down to this: before I used to change my mind and re-think my opinions based on discussions with others. Now I've decided not to do that anymore.

Well give it a few weeks and then let us know whether ignorance is really bliss.

The process of learning means that we have to listen and evaluate others opinions even if they are distasteful or poorly thought out because if we didn't the world would still be flat, we would be living in caves and stoning some guy for recommending fire and the wheel.

 

[senojekips]

So homosexuals are somehow a different type of human being than you or I?

Without a doubt, I just don't know whether it is the result of poor breeding, a mental problem or a poor choice of lifestyle.

But if you were like me, my beliefs would be your beliefs, and it wouldn't make you insecure.

All that proves is that I could never think like you in regard to this subject.

Enjoy your breakfast.

I did, and now I'm going to have a late lunch. I'll enjoy that too.

 

[A Can of Man]

Well give it a few weeks and then let us know whether ignorance is really bliss.

The process of learning means that we have to listen and evaluate others opinions even if they are distasteful or poorly thought out because if we didn't the world would still be flat, we would be living in caves and stoning some guy for recommending fire and the wheel.

Now this truly is the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. I'm Right, Even if I'm Wrong.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Despite what you think should be. The simple truth is the mass population has the right to decide. Remember, "We the people"

Yes, I know, but it doesn't define what the people have the right to decide... Do the people have the right to decide what clothes to wear? Do the people have the right to decide what type of car to drive? No. The people do not affect personal lives of one another. And this case should be no different. Homosexuals getting married would NOT affect anyone adversely, so there is no reason to be opposed to it. We the People is NOT the be all end all argument of law.

I agree the States cannot decide for the people. The State gives nothing to the people, they all ready have the authority. This is a Democracy.

Again, the States gave the right to the people when they put it up for a vote. Now, as far as the people already having the authority, the people do NOT have ultimate power in a democracy. Like I just said, they don't control other's personal affairs.

Thank you but this doesn't answer the statement you made:

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Where did the data come for this?

From the data you did give I found where the population in 2000 was 281.4 million people. The number of gay and lesbians was estimated at 4.3 million. That works out to 1.53% of the population. I would still like to see the data to support your statement "larger and larger portion of the population".

I was surprised at such a small percentage of the population being gay. I have seen data from Gay and lesbian organizations that imply a higher percentage. Apparently they are not above exaggeration.

So 4.3 million people isn't a lot? Tell me, how many died during the Holocaust?

By the way, if you read the quote in it's entirity, it says that not ALL the homosexuals in the country were counted, because they are only counting those heading a household... The 4.3 is merely an extrapolation... There could be more, there could be less... The Census does not ask any questions that define a person's sexuality distinctly, so we'll never know how large the population truly is...

"Census 2000 counted 601,209 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States. That is a 314 percent increase from 1990 when the census counted only 145,130 same-sex unmarried partner households."

http://www.urban.org/publications/1000491.html


...... I'd say 314% is a PRETTY big jump in size.....



To senojekips: Quite honestly, if you REALLY feel like homosexuals are somehow a different species, then maybe it's YOU with the mental problem... Homosexuals and heterosexuals, outside their sex lives, are the same type of people... They have the same needs, similar wants, the same basic humanistic traits... You cannot say that just because of a lifestyle choice that they are somehow different.

 

[senojekips]

To senojekips: Quite honestly, if you REALLY feel like homosexuals are somehow a different species, then maybe it's YOU with the mental problem... Homosexuals and heterosexuals, outside their sex lives, are the same type of people... They have the same needs, similar wants, the same basic humanistic traits... You cannot say that just because of a lifestyle choice that they are somehow different.

You are quite the master at misquoting,. Where might I ask did I say a different species?

This type of deliberate misrepresentation is not doing your argument any good at all, as everyone can see that you need to do it to build up an otherwise weak case. I'm bloody sure I can say that they are different, if I thought that I was anything like them I would neck myself,... as many of them do.

 

[Rob Henderson]

You said they are different human beings... All human beings are the same. If I took a picture of a naked homosexual man and a heterosexual man, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, would you?

 

[Chukpike]

Yes, I know, but it doesn't define what the people have the right to decide... Do the people have the right to decide what clothes to wear? Do the people have the right to decide what type of car to drive? No. The people do not affect personal lives of one another. And this case should be no different. Homosexuals getting married would NOT affect anyone adversely, so there is no reason to be opposed to it. We the People is NOT the be all end all argument of law.

Unfortunately you might be right if the California Supreme Court overrides the vote of the people again. Then I will know the American experiment is dead.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Abraham Lincoln

Again, the States gave the right to the people when they put it up for a vote. Now, as far as the people already having the authority, the people do NOT have ultimate power in a democracy. Like I just said, they don't control other's personal affairs.

No the state did not give the people the right to vote on the issue. The people signed a petition with enough signatures to have it placed on the ballot. And in the United States the people are supposed to have the ultimate authority.

So 4.3 million people isn't a lot? Tell me, how many died during the Holocaust?

I never said it was a small number, I only said it represented 1.53% of the population.

By the way, if you read the quote in it's entirety, it says that not ALL the homosexuals in the country were counted, because they are only counting those heading a household... The 4.3 is merely an extrapolation... There could be more, there could be less... The Census does not ask any questions that define a person's sexuality distinctly, so we'll never know how large the population truly is...

I did read it and that figure was the high end of the extrapolation. Seems you are very careful to not to use the part of the data that won't support your contention.

"Census 2000 counted 601,209 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States. That is a 314 percent increase from 1990 when the census counted only 145,130 same-sex unmarried partner households."

http://www.urban.org/publications/1000491.html


...... I'd say 314% is a PRETTY big jump in size.....

The U.S. Census Bureau maintains that the 1990 and 2000 censuses cannot be compared because of flaws in the way they classified such households in 1990.
The above statement was taken from the article Rob got his 314% from.

Once again Rob left out the data that would expose his contention as inaccurate.

There is an attitude growing in the US that supports an anything goes philosophy. Changes will come in the future. As long as people are allowed to vote I will continue to vote my values.

 

[senojekips]

You said they are different human beings... All human beings are the same. If I took a picture of a naked homosexual man and a heterosexual man, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, would you?

I say again, "where did I say a different species". You are deliberately trying to overstate my case, to make it look bad, but it does not work.

They are different, very much so, just as you are different to a certifiable lunatic or a pathological liar. If you were all in the raw I couldn't tell the difference? But don't even bother trying to tell me that you are "the same".

I can't tell if a power wire is live or dead by looking at it, but try touching it, you will soon notice the difference. Just because things may look the same has no bearing on this debate whatsoever.

 

[BritinBritain]

Trust me I know how uncomfortable it is, the wife still has hysterics about me helping a blind friend across a street, he grabbed my arm and apparently all the way across the street I was leaning as far away as possible and rigid as a board but this was my problem caused by my social conditioning that "guys don't generally touch each other in any way shape or form".

What, dont you even shake hands? lol

 

[Rob Henderson]

Unfortunately you might be right if the California Supreme Court overrides the vote of the people again. Then I will know the American experiment is dead.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Abraham Lincoln

I have a feeling that if this was on an issue you stood FOR, you would be all for the rights of the individual. I'm not saying that every issue should be up to an individual person.... That COULDN'T happen in the United States. But in matters such as these, I believe that the mass populous should have no say. It shouldn't be up to "the people" as to what goes on in a home.

No the state did not give the people the right to vote on the issue. The people signed a petition with enough signatures to have it placed on the ballot. And in the United States the people are supposed to have the ultimate authority.

Well, I can't argue with a petition... Only say that, once again, I don't think that should be the kind of thing put up to the majority. Tom has no right to say what should or should not go on in Steve's house, unless it is illegal activity.

I never said it was a small number, I only said it represented 1.53% of the population.

Then what did you mean by

I was surprised at such a small percentage of the population being gay.

That seems rather cut and dry as far as saying "small number"....

I did read it and that figure was the high end of the extrapolation. Seems you are very careful to not to use the part of the data that won't support your contention.

It's written in the section of the article I posted, same as the other figures, if you read it, then you know it... I didn't cut and paste....

The U.S. Census Bureau maintains that the 1990 and 2000 censuses cannot be compared because of flaws in the way they classified such households in 1990.
The above statement was taken from the article Rob got his 314% from.

Once again Rob left out the data that would expose his contention as inaccurate.

There is an attitude growing in the US that supports an anything goes philosophy. Changes will come in the future. As long as people are allowed to vote I will continue to vote my values.

Again, I did NOT leave out anything as seen HERE

"The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations.

AKA that figure could be COMPLETELY INACCURATE. But as there is NO official data on the subject until 2072 because of the privacy laws of a census, we won't know for sure until then.




To senojekips: I said they are human beings just like you and I. On a basic level, they are the same as me. They're the same as you too, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it. Granted, once we start layering the cake, they start to spread out, but you cannot deny that they are the same on a few levels. Spike, I asked you

So homosexuals are somehow a different type of human being than your or I?

And your responce was

Without a doubt, I just don't know whether it is the result of poor breeding, a mental problem or a poor choice of lifestyle.

Now, how can you say you DIDN'T say they were different types of HUMANS? They are certainly different types of people, sure. But not HUMANS. Human beings are all the same.