California Overturns Gay Marriage

I don't agree with homosexual marriages or children being brought up in a homosexual relationship. As for homosexuals being allowed to adopt, that really makes my skin crawl. Young children are very impressionable, they could see a homosexual relationship as being normal and heterosexual relationships as abnormal. What a homosexual couple do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them, I don't like their sexuality rammed in my face, and children should not be subjected to it.

I don't like homosexuality, I never have and I never will.
 
But once again I will ask is your opinion based on fact or preconditioning?

I strongly suspect that for most of us (myself included it is based on preconditioning) most of us grew up with the set of rules that determined how you act as a "Man" and in many parts of the world New Zealand being one if you did not meet that standard you generally had a life time of arse kickings at school but the problem is that for the most part that conditioning was based less on fact and more on religious dogma and old wives tales.

At some point though we have to put aside our own dislikes and just make a decision based on fact.

I don't like homosexuality, I never have and I never will.
Click to expand...
Neither do I but I am prepared to accept my views are based on nothing more than societal conditioning and old wives tales and it is this same conditioning that lead us to burn people at the stake for heresy and lock up the likes of Galileo because they said and did things that did not suit elements of society.
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out earlier, it is societal conditioning that makes us believe that picking one's nose and eating it is, anti social.

So even if a dislike of homosexuality it is societal conditioning, that does not make it incorrect.
 
I don't see what heresy, Galileo, religious teachings or anything else for that matter has to do with homosexuality. I am totally against children being brought up in a homosexual relationship, a child's mind is far too fragile and too impressionable to take the risk. There is no evidence (as far as I am aware) to suggest that children brought up in such a relationship end up as balanced and secure adults. However, there is plenty of evidence that children brought up in a safe and secure heterosexual relationship do.

Just because its legal, doesnt make it right.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
As I pointed out earlier, it is societal conditioning that makes us believe that picking one's nose and eating it is, anti social.

So even if a dislike of homosexuality it is societal conditioning, that does not make it incorrect.
Click to expand...
for over 100 years blacks were considered 2nd class citizens here in the US. The reason they were considered 2nd class was social conditioning.

Did that make it right?
 
The Other Guy said:
for over 100 years blacks were considered 2nd class citizens here in the US. The reason they were considered 2nd class was social conditioning.

Did that make it right?
Click to expand...
You have missed the point completely. My answer was to demonstrate that Social conditioning can be wrong , but it's not necessarily always wrong. So really it plays no part in the debate except as a diversion.

Do you pick your nose and eat it in public? I don't care what you do in private, just so long as you don't try to tell me that it's socially acceptable.
 
senojekips said:
You have missed the point completely. My answer was to demonstrate that Social conditioning can be wrong , but it's not necessarily always wrong. So really it plays no part in the debate except as a diversion.

Do you pick your nose and eat it in public?
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll give you this much: PDA (Public Display of Affection) is PDA, and pride parades are rediculous. BUT, that should not affect in any way the rights of these people to marry, as marriage isn't something overly offensive or in any way a faux pas.
 
The Other Guy said:
Okay, I'll give you this much: PDA (Public Display of Affection) is PDA, and pride parades are rediculous. BUT, that should not affect in any way the rights* of these people to marry, as marriage isn't something overly offensive or in any way a faux pas.
Click to expand...
I dunno about the USA, but here in Australia, with the way the laws are framed at the moment, that would entitle them to all of the monetary benefits designed to assist those having children, and I don't like free loaders.... ANY freeloaders.

As for Homosexuals rearing children, I don't believe it should be allowed as it is an anti social act/relationship, and as such gives the child a distorted view of social expectations in the wider community.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
​

*Rights, Under the law as administered in Australia, and I suspect in the USA. As there is no law specifically stating that homosexuals have this as a right in law, (a statute), so what you are talking of, is what is defined as an imperfect right, (there is no law specifically forbidding it) or to be more precise is is actually an "expectation", which means, so long as society resists it or until is is legislated for, it carries no legal or moral weight (Null). i strongly suspect that this means that they have no "Right" Which would make it a Privelege, I'm not even going to start reading the definition of Privelege as it is longer than Rights. If you wish to, it is found under "Law of Torts"

The example given in Butterworth's Law is that of a person begging for money. That individual is allowed to ask for money except where specifically denied by law, however they have no legal backing as it is only an expectation based on the goodwill of the person being asked.

I'll leave it at that because it runs to three pages of very small print, nearly all of which is nothing to do with our subject. Book provided by Justin, an LLB (Hons) Melb.

I'm no Lawyer, but I reckon I've got the guts of it right, and it's already wasted 2 hours of my time.... Interesting though.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
I don't agree with homosexual marriages or children being brought up in a homosexual relationship. As for homosexuals being allowed to adopt, that really makes my skin crawl. Young children are very impressionable, they could see a homosexual relationship as being normal and heterosexual relationships as abnormal. What a homosexual couple do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them, I don't like their sexuality rammed in my face, and children should not be subjected to it.

I don't like homosexuality, I never have and I never will.
Click to expand...

What is the wrong thing in seeing that a homosexual relationship is normal?! Dont you really think that a child can't see that it's just as normal as a heterosexual relationship?! It's because of your kind of statements that make children unable to see this two kinds of relationship as normal. If adults go around saying that something is unnormal the child will see it this way, and I promisse you that most of the homosexuals that get children will explain that a heterosexual relationship is as normal as the homosexual, because they know how it is to be called unnormal!
And don't you think that if there where a bit more homosexuals with heterosexuals in the children movies or tv shows the kids would see it as just as normal as heterosexual relationships?

And when it comes to your post about children in homosexsual relationships not becoming balanced adults is just wrong. Then if thats the case I dont think christian or other really religious people cant be parents, because I know that some kids with really religious parents that haven't become balanced or secure adults. And if the kids from homosexual relationships dont become secure adults its most likely because of pople all the time calling their parents unnormal! And there has beein scientist that's beein looking into homosexsuals as parents and come to the conclusion that they're one of the best kinds of parents!

If you get to choose a kid to go into a heterosexual family where it gets beaten all the time or into a homosexual family, would you really pic the heterosexuals then? I think we today think much more about what we think, instead of whats best for the child. Because who is to tell whats normal and unnormal, and for you people who say that it's unnormal because of the fact that homosexuals cant hace children then normal way, then why should we let women wich cant have children with a man adopt, because thats just as unnormal the naturale way.....

I'm so proud of Norway letting homosexuals get married and adopt!
 
Kavesk09 said:
What is the wrong thing in seeing that a homosexual relationship is normal?
Click to expand...

I'll try to explain.

1 homosexual + 1 homosexual = Whoopee
1 lesbian + 1 lesbian = Whoopee

From the movie Young Frankenstein. Here is a brain. Jar marked ABnormal.

1 heterosexual male + 1 heterosexual female = children and years and years of protection, worry, and possible Heart Break if they don't grow up to be President.

This would be normal.

1 homosexual + 1 homosexual + 1 adoption = children and playing house, trying to act normal.
1 lesbian + 1 lesbian + 1 test tube = children and playing house, trying to act normal.

Still ABnormal.

Numbers of gays and lesbians as a guess less than 4% of the population. Does not sound like a very "normal" amount of the population.

Sexual preference is not a right it is a preference. Have lesbians and homosexuals sought treatment for biological or mental disorders that have caused their preference? If not, they have made a choice regarding their current status.

Should tolerance be shown to them for their choice. Since it does not effect me, why not. Should "special treatment" be granted to them because of their choice, I think not. Should I somehow have their beliefs forced on me, in the words of the homosexual Mayor of San Fransisco,"whether they like it or not.", I don't think so.

Is being Lesbian or homosexual a right under the Constitution of the US? I have read it, and find no reference that sexual preference is a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

The biggest reason lesbians and homosexuals do not want cases involving sexual preferences to be taken to the Supreme Court. They would lose.

Women's equal rights not granted until the Constitution was amended in 1920 to allow equal rights based on sex. If lesbians and gays believe that sexual preference is a right, why don't they seek an Amendment to the Constitution as women did?
 
Last edited:
Kavesk09 said:
I'm so proud of Norway letting homosexuals get married and adopt!
Click to expand...
I think that you have missed the debate, homosexuality has been shown to be no more than an antisocial habit. "Normal" couples are physically able to breed, without medical and social intervention, so that in itself makes homosexuality "abnormal".
 
Chukpike said:
I'll try to explain.

1 homosexual + 1 homosexual = Whoopee
1 lesbian + 1 lesbian = Whoopee

From the movie Young Frankenstein. Here is a brain. Jar marked ABnormal.

1 heterosexual male + 1 heterosexual female = children and years and years of protection, worry, and possible Heart Break if they don't grow up to be President.

This would be normal.

1 homosexual + 1 homosexual + 1 adoption = children and playing house, trying to act normal.
1 lesbian + 1 lesbian + 1 test tube = children and playing house, trying to act normal.

Still ABnormal.

Numbers of gays and lesbians as a guess less than 4% of the population. Does not sound like a very "normal" amount of the population.

Sexual preference is not a right it is a preference. Have lesbians and homosexuals sought treatment for biological or mental disorders that have caused their preference? If not, they have made a choice regarding their current status.

Should tolerance be shown to them for their choice. Since it does not effect me, why not. Should "special treatment" be granted to them because of their choice, I think not. Should I somehow have their beliefs forced on me, in the words of the homosexual Mayor of San Fransisco,"whether they like it or not.", I don't think so.

Is being Lesbian or homosexual a right under the Constitution of the US? I have read it, and find no reference that sexual preference is a right guaranteed under the Constitution.

The biggest reason lesbians and homosexuals do not want cases involving sexual preferences to be taken to the Supreme Court. They would lose.

Women's equal rights not granted until the Constitution was amended in 1920 to allow equal rights based on sex. If lesbians and gays believe that sexual preference is a right, why don't they seek an Amendment to the Constitution as women did?
Click to expand...
Do remember that it took the women's lib movement 80 years to gain voting rights, from where it started.

Are they asking for special treatment, or asking to be treated like everyone else who can legally marry? If you ask me, not letting them marry and shutting them out of everything is "special treatment."

Are they forcing you as a straight person to become homosexual? No. Therefore, the matter doesn't really affect you in the least.
 
Chukpike said:
No, do you remember?:-?

I wouldn't mind if it took 80 years for gays and lesbians to get an amendment through. Are they better than women?
Click to expand...
Started picking up speed after the Civil War.

I was using that to show just how stubborn the American people are about something as degenerative as sexism, and how long it took us to change last time. This time I was thinking that we could throw the old guard behind for a while and take bold steps forward.
 
senojekips said:
I think that you have missed the debate, homosexuality has been shown to be no more than an antisocial habit. "Normal" couples are physically able to breed, without medical and social intervention, so that in itself makes homosexuality "abnormal".
Click to expand...

So you think that heterosexual coupples that can't breed normally is abnormal? And don't you think they shold be able to get kids?
Think about it; decades ago it was abnormal for black women and men to live normal lives and it was abnormal to think that women could work and vote. We're just repeating history and i promisse in some years, maby manny, peole will think of homosexuals as normal.
 
To go completely off at a tangent, I was sitting in the airman's mess in Singapore, the discussion somehow came around to paying for sex.

A married chap stated, “I never pay for sex, I'm married.”

I replied, “If your married mate, you pay, and you pay through the nose.”
 
Kavesk09 said:
So you think that heterosexual coupples that can't breed normally is abnormal? And don't you think they shold be able to get kids?
Think about it; decades ago it was abnormal for black women and men to live normal lives and it was abnormal to think that women could work and vote. We're just repeating history and i promisse in some years, maby manny, peole will think of homosexuals as normal.
Click to expand...
Your promise is worth nothing when reality is involved. I notice you say, "Maybe" Yeah,... well I say, "and maybe they will see the truth and see it for what it is worth, men making out they are women and women making out they are men".
 
senojekips said:
I think that you have missed the debate, homosexuality has been shown to be no more than an antisocial habit. "Normal" couples are physically able to breed, without medical and social intervention, so that in itself makes homosexuality "abnormal".
Click to expand...

Oh come on mate, what is antisocial about homosexuality? And who has shown this to be so? And Kavesk has a good point: what if a man or woman is infertile? Does this make him abnormal too?

What is it to you or me if two guys want to vow their eternal love to one another in an official ceremony? If they want to give their love to just one another and monogamy is their game... Does it really come down to the ability to breed? Christ, I thought we left the Dark Ages behind us. Putting a child in this world is a gift to some. Some that have kids shouldn't and some that can't should. But I really like to think my life is more than seeking a partner and reproduce. And what if my fiance and I decide not to have kids, does that make us abnormal or antisocial too?
an·ti·so·cial adj.
1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

an
lprime.gif
ti·so
prime.gif
cial·ly adv.
Click to expand...
 
Ted said:
And Kavesk has a good point: what if a man or woman is infertile? Does this make him abnormal too?

Actually, it does. Infertility is not normal.

Being lesbian or homosexual is also abnormal. The only real purpose for sexual contact is reproduction. Sex was made pleasurable so men, women and animals will want to reproduce.

Because lesbians or homosexuals cannot, do not wish to, relate to the opposite sex for the purpose of reproduction that is abnormal.

These are undeniable facts.

If you want to the diminish marraige to two persons and make it less about family then say so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top