California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i. dont. care.

until it starts to have some sort of fallout that involves my money/lifestyle/etc, people can marry trees as far as im concerned.

people, STRAIGHT PEOPLE, marry just for money, status, so their kids will look a certain way, green cards, revenge, pressure from family, etc. if two people who arent straight find TRUE LOVE, and are doing it for the rest of their lives, who am i to judge whether they can do it or not? i do agree that perhaps it should be called something else other than a marriage (union works just fine for me) but if not, i really am not going to take time out to be judgmental against two people truly in love. i dont care how "unnatural" people think it is. it isnt my soul, its not my life. do with your life what you please, and i appreciate it if you let me do the same!

I agree, let people do what they want. Except that here, people who have never met the definition of something are now trying to fit the mold. I think I should be able to get Medicare, but I don't fit the requirements.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

From the genomics point of view, there is no benefit to the species to maintain a same sex relationship.

Like I've said this 15 pages ago......

Does it benefit the species when a retarded child is born? What should we do with people who are sterile?

I see where you are going with your argument, but for the central basis of what is good for the species is to be the rule of the day- then what about the many non-gay people out there who are unable to benefit the future of our species?

And what does that argument imply should be done? It is not just a matter of using this argument to say gays should not get married- I would think the ultimate resolution of this viewpoint is that society should bear no financial burden for anyone who is unable to reproduce or who could pass on genetic faults to children.

Maybe I am reading this wrong- but if the whole point is that it is unnatural for people to not reproduce for the benefit of the species, then a whole lot of people beyond the world of homosexuality fall under that umbrella of "unnatural."

And if they are unnatural, what is to be done with them?

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I agree, let people do what they want. Except that here, people who have never met the definition of something are now trying to fit the mold. I think I should be able to get Medicare, but I don't fit the requirements.

that is true. you are going to all of a sudden have people fake being homosexual just to gain things. i know that sounds mean, but people joke all the time about that! i told my best friend if she needed health insurance when i was at my old job, she'd just have to pretend to be my life partner.

however, and i know this is slightly off course, id rather give it to two americans abusing the system than two illegals...

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Why not? Polygamist think differently on this issue.

I am coming at this from a societal perspective.

Same sex unions are about giving couples certain legal protections that married couples enjoy. It is about facilitating couples buying homes and comingling their finances without having to spend a fortune on legal documents to protect their assets from blood heirs in the event of death- many of whom may well loathe and detest their relative's lifestyle.

It is about someone being able to visit his/her partner in the hospital or carry out that person's medical wishes when that partner's family wants to perhaps do something entirely different.

I have been shocked to see how some gay friends of mine have been treated by their significant others' family- especially in times of emergency. The sheer hatred and ignorance of some people can even overcome their love for their own children or siblings.

This is where I think the debate has to come from- and there are two sides to it- since hard facts and realities can be looked at in light of what is best for a society's citizens and society at large.

But my contention is that certain key protections are offered to many citizens without being detrimental to society at large. On the contrary, it encourages and promotes more stability- financial and otherwise- in the gay community.

I would argue polygamy is a different story. By nature, humans are a species that tend to be monogamous. Sure a lot of people play around, but we are not generally a polygamous species. And polygamy would very much disrupt how our society is structured- especially in the area of marital law.

And history certainly shows that polygamy lends itself to more of a property arrangement. One need only look at certain fanantical branches of the Mormon Church. Polygamy goes hand in hand with statutory rape, the abuse and expulsion of younger men who would be competition for wives and the ultimate result is a few powerful men with all the money, all the women and a scary kind of domination over an entire community.

It is on those grounds that I would argue society should never endorse or permit polygamous unions. While I am sure there are cases where a handful of people would be perfectly happy and mature about a polygamous union, any benefit or fairness their from the perspective of society at large is outweighed by the very real fact that such unions would, in many cases, be abused to create legalized nightmares such as I have outlined which already exist in more than a few instances even though illegal.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Does it benefit the species when a retarded child is born?

From a purely genomics point of view, actually, it does not. We as humans have decided to maintain these individuals in our society.

What should we do with people who are sterile?

Nothing. But we've also been through this argument before, like 7 pages back...

I see where you are going with your argument, but for the central basis of what is good for the species is to be the rule of the day- then what about the many non-gay people out there who are unable to benefit the future of our species?

But they still have the potential to do so. Whether they actually do so or not, is up to them.

And what does that argument imply should be done? It is not just a matter of using this argument to say gays should not get married- I would think the ultimate resolution of this viewpoint is that society should bear no financial burden for anyone who is unable to reproduce or who could pass on genetic faults to children.

Actually, society benefits from those that do not have kids. I mean I don't have any yet and darn it I pay higher taxes than those couples with kids...

Genetic screening has been and is becoming a very hot issue. People can select the type of child they want.

Maybe I am reading this wrong- but if the whole point is that it is unnatural for people to not reproduce for the benefit of the species, then a whole lot of people beyond the world of homosexuality fall under that umbrella of "unnatural."

Yes, you are reading it wrong. While there may be those of us who have either not reproduced, cannot reproduce or choose not to is fine, yet they may still have the chance to do so.

For those in a committed relationship where there is *no possible way* for them to even have a remote chance of reproducing I feel is unnatural. Which again, we covered this about 8 pages back...

And if they are unnatural, what is to be done with them?

Then we can stay out late at night and party, party, party. We are single and can mingle and we ain't gonna hurt nobody!!!

All in all, I see your point. Like I said, I feel just as justified in my view point as you do in yours.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

From the genomics point of view, there is no benefit to the species to maintain a same sex relationship.

Like I've said this 15 pages ago......

But at the same time, you don't think that sterile people should be prohibited from marriage. Either marriage is strictly for procreation or it is not. Make up your mind!!!!

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by kstar

But at the same time, you don't think that sterile people should be prohibited from marriage. Either marriage is strictly for procreation or it is not. Make up your mind!!!!

*I* never did say it was strictly for procreation. While many people believe it is. All I ever said was that as a part of the marriage union, children can be produced under the guise that the marriage union is between one man and one woman.

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

Umm, I think you may be confusing breeding with the fact that in certain animal species the male parent is involved in caring for the little offspring. Let's take penguins. In order for there to be a baby penguin, there had to have been a mommy penguin and a daddy penguin. Once the mommy penguin lays the egg, she goes off for a time to feed while the daddy penguin sits (protects) the egg.

Breeding involves the mating between two different genders, male and female. At least that is how we learned it in my Agri 101 class. As far as I know, I've never come across a genetic case where a sperm fertilized a sperm and an egg fertilized an egg to produce viable offspring.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by kstar

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

That doesn't make their actions not unnatural. How is this an argument? Breeding between a male and a female specimen is as as natural as it gets. Whether you like it or not, a male has to impregnate a FEMALE to have a baby. Having a same sex relationship and being incapable of having a child is not natural because it doesn't advance the species.......as was intended. Finding a way around that via a surrogate mother is a moot point and certainly doesn't make homosexuality a "natural" behavior.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I am coming at this from a societal perspective.



And history certainly shows that polygamy....

Yeah, umm....I was just trying to be a bit funny here.

[nate2512]

Technically polygamist are multiple two person relationships.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Straight people have anal sex, too.

And some heterosexual men allegedly like stuff in their booty.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

And some heterosexual men allegedly like stuff in their booty.

Not this heterosexual man, there is no way in hell something is going in my exit hole.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Not this heterosexual man, there is no way in hell something is going in my exit hole.

Don't be such a prostate hater. hehe.

[RU OX Alum]

don't joke about prostates, they get swollen from stress

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

don't joke about prostates, they get swollen from stress

Just get a prostate massage.