California Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4866721&page=1)

More than 1,000 supporters filed onto the rotunda steps of San Francisco's City Hall this morning awaiting -- then celebrating -- the California Supreme Court's decision to strike down the ban on gay marriage. The court ruled four to three that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The issue will be raised in November's presidential election

Can't wait till this reach France, so I can get married.

What you have to understand, HITMAN, is that this has nothing to do with the United States government. This is the California Supreme Court interpreting California law. No President can do anything about it, unless there were an amendment to the US constitution forbidding states from doing this: which won't happen.

The states in our system are SOVEREIGN. They aren't just divisions of the US. They have their own independence. California law is not part of American law.

It's also important to understand that this is not a law voted on by the people's representatives voting democratically. This is an "interpretation" by the California court, which is simply mandating out of the blue that the Constitution of the state mandates gay marriage...although somehow no one ever noticed such a thing before.

This is one of the big issues in US politics: the power of the Courts. Courts in the last fifty years or so have taken to reading laws and constitutions like they are magic tea leaves and they can find anything there that they think is good and just.

This is how we got abortion in 1972. The Supreme Court looked at the Constitution and said, "Well the right to an abortion is in there somewhere. We can't tell you exactly where, but it's there somewhere."

The phrase they used was "emanations of penumbras"... The laws cast some kind of mystical shadow and out of the shadow comes some kind of weird thing and that's where we find this right...

So now the people of California are forbidden from deciding whether they think gay "marriage" is good or bad. They just have had it shoved down their throats.

LOL @ jeff

Guess you ain' californian eh? :p

.... nico is gay?

spirit:

I would hate it if Californians actually voted on a law adopting gay marriage. But at least it would be a decision by the PEOPLE.

What is so destructive of our system and the whole basis of the rule of law is courts just inventing these "rights" out of whole cloth and forcing them down people's throats.

We are supposed to be a DEMOCRACY, for heaven's sake!

.... nico is gay?

No: but that would be a way of showing his support! :rolleyes:

That was a scare ... don't need to know womenkind lost another hottie =/

That was a scare ... don't need to know womenkind lost another hottie =/

I'm sure Pasha Nico will be delighted to know that he belongs to all womankind!

Peel him another grape, girls! :p

at long last! good luck to those gay californians who want to make their union legal. i would put a stop to gay adoptions, but i'd rather have two gay parents than two abusive ones. that's for another topic.
got two gay friends in france who are awaiting the legislation to come forward in france. i'll be bridesmaid!

at long last! good luck to those gay californians who want to make their union legal. i would put a stop to gay adoptions, but i'd rather have two gay parents than two abusive ones. that's for another topic.
got two gay friends in france who are awaiting the legislation to come forward in france. i'll be bridesmaid!

Madness. Absolute insanity. Barking craziness.

But then the whole world has gone mad on this issue. So you're in good company.

I don't believe in gay marriages. If they want something to recognize their union fine but I don't like it to be equated to marriage between a man and a woman. Just how I am.

I don't believe in gay marriages. If they want something to recognize their union fine but I don't like it to be equated to marriage between a man and a woman. Just how I am.

Ah! Not everybody has lost their mind. :)

(Sighs happily...)

Madness. Absolute insanity. Barking craziness.

But then the whole world has gone mad on this issue. So you're in good company.
you should get in discussion with a gay couple to see how they feel about it and the reasons why they want to get 'married'.

There's a gay married couple in the season of The Amazing Race am watching now.

Hmmm I think one of the guy's name is Chip. They argue quite alot

you should get in discussion with a gay couple to see how they feel about it and the reasons why they want to get 'married'.

I've spent lots of time with gay people. Some of them are very nice indeed.

More of them than you might guess are deeply troubled by their proclivities and recognize that there is something destructive about them in spite of the fact that our culture does everything in its power to keep that knowledge from them.

But one man "marrying" another man is like reading a basketball or drinking a tiger. It just means we've lost any sense of the meaning of "man" or "marriage".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming you. These ideas are part of immensely strong tidal pull of the present stage of our culture. Almost irresistable.

But barking mad. Crazy. Absolutely nutso.

If we can believe that men can marry other men, we can believe ANYTHING. Anything at all.

I've spent lots of time with gay people. Some of them are very nice indeed.

More of them than you might guess are deeply troubled by their proclivities and recognize that there is something destructive about them in spite of the fact that our culture does everything in its power to keep that knowledge from them.

But one man "marrying" another man is like reading a basketball or drinking a tiger. It just means we've lost any sense of the meaning of "man" or "marriage".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming you. These ideas are part of immensely strong tidal pull of the present stage of our culture. Almost irresistable.

But barking mad. Crazy. Absolutely nutso.

If we can believe that men can marry other men, we can believe ANYTHING. Anything at all.
well that's your opinion, i don't think i'm going barking mad.
they want to legalise their position and tell everybody they are together. they want to buy a house together and be able to call each other 'next of kin'. they want to make a formal contract in their relationship, if one of them wants to stray, the other can claim half, they want their belongings to go automatically to their partner who has worked hard for the stuff they accrued. automatically in case of death.
plus two people in love, what's wrong with formalising it?

Mini,

It has nothing to do with whether they love each other or that they make a terrific couple or whatever,

From the beginning of time, marriage has been clearly defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Now if these people are looking for some sort of legal protection so that property and inheritance rights are protected, that fine.

But thats not what they want.

They want to SHOVE their lifestyle down our collective throats.

It is no longer enough that we tolerate their lifestyle, we must now actively applaud and promote it.

That is unacceptable.

Recently in Ontario, a Christian Aid organization (Christian Horizons) was fined by our out of control human rights organizations because :

They have a code of conduct that employees are required to sign which forbids homosexuality, pornography, and such like. No one is forcing you to join this organization but if you do, you are expected to sign this and adhere to this.

A woman who joined a couple of years ago suddenly discovered she was gay, and when this was brough to the attention of Christian Horizons, they dismissed her.

She went to the HRC who ruled in her favour, asked Christian Horizons to drop their code of conduct clause, carry out sexual orientation training to make them more sensitive to gay rights and awarded her financial damages.

This is what the gay agenda is all about. Whole hearted embracing of this deviant lifestyle, not tolerance.

can anybody make a clause that doesn't allow black people/left handed people/people who walk with a limp? without being called something-ist?

Don't understand that. Please explain.

A key question after today's sweeping California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's gay marriage ban is what it means for the 48 other states that don't recognize gay marriage. If, for example, a gay married couple in California moved to Texas, would Texas have to recognize their marriage?

The short answer is no.

States generally are not required to recognize a marriage performed in another state if it would violate their own public policy.


Poor 'Normal/ In their right mind/ God fearing' Californians. As Jeff said, they really do have it shoved down their throats.

Don't understand that. Please explain.
ok i don't think it's right for anybody to put in clauses that don't allow anybody to join in.
do gays choose the way they are? for me the answer is no.
so banning them from any organisation is just like banning anybody for being something they didn't choose to be, and something that they cannot help being.
i don't see any gays shoving anything down my throat. as long as they live their life within the parameters that other couples, the hetero ones live their lives, i see no proble with it.

I think this will be on the ballot during the elections and get thrown out.

ok i don't think it's right for anybody to put in clauses that don't allow anybody to join in.
do gays choose the way they are? for me the answer is no.
so banning them from any organisation is just like banning anybody for being something they didn't choose to be, and something that they cannot help being.
i don't see any gays shoving anything down my throat. as long as they live their life within the parameters that other couples, the hetero ones live their lives, i see no proble with it.

Mini,

This is a CHRISTIAN AID organization.. which at the very least, should be expected to abide by Christian values.. which say homosexuality is wrong.

Why should a Christian organization be forced to abandon the very principals on which they are based ?

Please don't try to muddy the waters by talking about homosexuality and disability in the same sentence.


And they aren't shoving it down your throat... yet.

You should see the havoc they are creating in North America.

Mini,

This is a CHRISTIAN AID organization.. which at the very least, should be expected to abide by Christian values.. which say homosexuality is wrong.

Why should a Christian organization be forced to abandon the very principals on which they are based ?

Please don't try to muddy the waters by talking about homosexuality and disability in the same sentence.


And they aren't shoving it down your throat... yet.

You should see the havoc they are creating in North America.
the church does not condone homosexuality but it has sympathy and understands people who have that inclination. i only compared homosexuality/disability/skin colour in the same sentence because they are all something people are born with, and not out of choice.
there are many good gay christians around as well.

The Church might be sympathetic towards gays but that does not mean that it supports and promotes the gay lifestyle.

Take a look at this Christian Horizons case.

A fully grown up woman suddenly two years into her employment discovered she was gay !

Born into it ?

I think not !

Since Religion is brought into the subject...

God is just. Homosexuality would not have been condemned if it was something someone was 'born into'. God doesn't create things in you to punish you for them later on.

You can't compare it to being dark skinned or being born with no legs.

This is a good editorial on the case I was mentioning.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/05/03/5459116-sun.php

Since Religion is brought into the subject...

God is just. Homosexuality would not have been condemned if it was something someone was 'born into'. God doesn't create things in you to punish you for them later on.

You can't compare it to being dark skinned or being born with no legs.
Umk, having no legs and having dark skin was condemned by many different people for a long time, in certain places it still is. anyway, i only brought it up to highlight the 'not out of choice thing'. i don' twant the discussion to go there, cos it's not fair to the threadstarter.
if you have a sexual orientation that you can't help, and it's not your fault that you are the way you are, then you have every right to be recognised as other people.

Mini, in the case I gave above.. a grown up woman suddenly discovered she was gay.

What gives ?

Ah, but there is still a difference, they CAN not have that sexual orientation. They just choose not to.

Or they don't, and choose to. That's why they take pills, undergo gender change ...

well that's your opinion, i don't think i'm going barking mad.
they want to legalise their position and tell everybody they are together. they want to buy a house together and be able to call each other 'next of kin'. they want to make a formal contract in their relationship, if one of them wants to stray, the other can claim half, they want their belongings to go automatically to their partner who has worked hard for the stuff they accrued. automatically in case of death.
plus two people in love, what's wrong with formalising it?

I don't agree that it's "my opinion." I instist that it is a fact. An obvious fact which all humanity could recognize until recently. There are few facts more obvious, actually.

If the world comes to believe that murder is okay, I'm not going to say, "Okay, you have your opinion; I have mine." I'm going to say, "You are wrong. Murder is NOT okay. It is evil. I don't recognize your opinion as a legitimate one."

What's wrong with "formalizing it"?

Well, men are men. Women are women.

Men couple with women. Women couple with men.

Things "fit together." Children are the fruit of this love.

That's what romantic love IS. That's what marriage is ABOUT.

And this is the basic building block of society. That needs to be enforced and it needs to be taught and embodied in society.

That this needs to be explained, or that people find it difficult to understand is a sign of how very far gone we are.

If people need ways to guarantee that others can visit them in the hospital or they can leave their possessions to others, we ought to be able to find ways to allow that.

But we ought to make it very clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage or with giving any kind of official stamp of approval to any "sexual" relationships between people of the same sex.

THAT's the key thing, not making people who are living their lives in a wrong way feel good about themselves.

Instead, we are creating a society where people get fined and go to jail merely for saying that homosexuality is wrong and people get their businesses taken away for refusing to take pictures of a homosexual "wedding" because it offends against nature and their beliefs.

These people are not content with being tolerated. They insist on being embraced and told that they are fine and that their "love" is just the same as normal love. And they insist on transforming society so that it can no longer recognize basic facts about the human condition.

But their love is not normal. That's a lie. It's bad for us to say so and it's bad for them to be told so.

I think we need to go back to using forthright language.

When people who aren't married sleep together, we should call it Fornication. That has a sharp bite. It should.

If one of them is married, we shouldn't call it an affair. We should call it Adultery. That hurts. It should.

And if men treat other men like women, inserting their organs in places where they are not designed to go, injuring musculature for life and passing on terrible diseases, we should call it Depravity. And we should call them Sodomites.

That will make people angry. That's a good thing. It might make them feel ashamed. That's also a good thing.

And we should condemn their evil and harmful behavior without mincing around. We should have compassion for them and try to help them. But not the kind of false compassion that smiles and smiles and tells them they are fine.

They are not fine. They are not "cute couples". They are deluded and they are doing evil and they are harming themselves and harming others.

We need to say all these things clearly, recognizing that sin can conquer all of us. If people say we are Homophobes, we should embrace the label gladly, insisting that there is indeed something to be afraid of and resisted. And we should insist that it is not we who are prejudiced or ignorant. It is they who are deluded and in the grip of moral madness.

But this is moving against an Almost Irresistable Tide. And we will suffer for it. We should just steel ourselves to that.

Ah, but there is still a difference, they CAN not have that sexual orientation. They just choose not to.

Or they don't, and choose to. That's why they take pills, undergo gender change ...
how many gays do you know?

i work with chidren. there are some boys who already, even though they have a very normal balanced upbringing, that favour playing with dolls and skipping ropes, they love colour, hate football, like to play 'families' and other stuff that the typical boys absolutely hate.
how could these boys choose what orientation they are going to take if by nature, themselves, they are already leaning towards the female side? they speak effeminately, even the way they sit down or run. they don't even know what the word gay means, they don't even know what it is.
that's how i am convinced that it is not by choice. and you can't force a gay man to become hetero.

^ If you see it that normal, why are you against gay adoption?

Ah, but there is still a difference, they CAN not have that sexual orientation. They just choose not to.

Or they don't, and choose to. That's why they take pills, undergo gender change ...

So nice to hear a voice of sanity on these issues. We Westerners are not allowed to be sane.

Yes, that's right. Most of them CAN change, although it's difficult.

There is a continuum: some find it harder, others easier. Just like with drug addiction or any other kind of serious defect in the way of living and thinking.

We should stop buying into the notion of "gender change" too. There is no such thing. Operations don't change gender. They just remove organs or add false "organs".

Isn't this madness? Isn't this OBVIOUS BARKING MADNESS?

And the fact that this is where "the gay lifestyle" leads ought to ALERT us to the fact that we've made an absurd mistake. But it doesn't. We've been lulled to sleep with soothing words.

Men are cutting off their organs, scooping out their insides, taking pills to change their natural hormonal balance and saying, "I am a Woman!"

No, you are NOT a woman. You've a man who has injured himself terribly.

But we are expected to swallow all this and made to feel somehow indecent if we even QUESTION it!

And now, CHILDREN are being sent to the hospital--CHILDREN!!!!--to have these operations. Sent by their PARENTS because they have a different "gender orientation."

Western society is in the grip of total insanity on these matters. It is a terrible moral evil with incalculable consequences.

WUDJAB WUDJAB WUDJAB after a rocky start Im likin you more and more everyday!

I agree you with wholeheartedly on this issue. Its not about rights or protection its about forcing the rest of society to accept their choices whether we like it or not. And perhaps even a lil about shock value - we all know how those lil Queens do so love to schock and b*tch!

I dont care what ppls sexual preference is, thats their business but I dont see why it has to be such a big deal. They complain that theyre treated with prejudice and hate but then they make these huge public scenes, gay marches etc etc etc Ever heard of a heterosexual march? No I didnt think so

Minerva, Im surprised at you. I'd have thought a nice lil catholic girl like you would see this issue a lil differently. Im not a gay basher nor do I dislike them but I dont see why everything they do has to be made into some huge drama,,,, extravaganza!:os:D And if theyre so "special" then why do they need marriage? Why cant they be original and come up with their own thang? Call it the Extravaganza of Promise:yuk:

^ If you see it that normal, why are you against gay adoption?
because of sexual identity issues of non gay children.

WUDJAB WUDJAB WUDJAB after a rocky start Im likin you more and more everyday!

I agree you with wholeheartedly on this issue. Its not about rights or protection its about forcing the rest of society to accept their choices whether we like it or not. And perhaps even a lil about shock value - we all know how those lil Queens do so love to schock and b*tch!

I dont care what ppls sexual preference is, thats their business but I dont see why it has to be such a big deal. They complain that theyre treated with prejudice and hate but then they make these huge public scenes, gay marches etc etc etc Ever heard of a heterosexual march? No I didnt think so

Minerva, Im surprised at you. I'd have thought a nice lil catholic girl like you would see this issue a lil differently. Im not a gay basher nor do I dislike them but I dont see why everything they do has to be made into some huge drama,,,, extravaganza!:os:D And if theyre so "special" then why do they need marriage? Why cant they be original and come up with their own thang? Call it the Extravaganza of Promise:yuk:
ok, let's not call it marriage and call it a formal contract of union. they can still celebrate it anyway they want and have all the rights they need to have. same difference.

i work with chidren. there are some boys who already, even though they have a very normal balanced upbringing, that favour playing with dolls and skipping ropes, they love colour, hate football, like to play 'families' and other stuff that the typical boys absolutely hate.
how could these boys choose what orientation they are going to take if by nature, themselves, they are already leaning towards the female side? they speak effeminately, even the way they sit down or run. they don't even know what the word gay means, they don't even know what it is.
that's how i am convinced that it is not by choice. and you can't force a gay man to become hetero.


I just have to say it's funny to see that you sympathize with boys who like colouring or playing with skipping ropes and say they're 'gay but they don't know it!'

There are many men who say when they were little they played 'Dolls' with their sisters.

They're mothers didn't say 'Oh, he must be gay, I should help him'. They saw it as normal, not all boys are born tough and like to wrestle. They let them be, and those boys slowly grew out of it.


(About the skipping rope issue, let me introduce you to jOPPERS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlTMf6qic4))

because of sexual identity issues of non gay children.

So if your gay pals in France felt like they wanted children, to complete the family, you'll be against it? What about their feelings?

There's no such thing as 'gay marriage'. It's like saying 'evil angel' or 'harmless devil'.
Marriage = Man + Woman.
Putting Man + Man or Woman + Woman makes it some form of deformed or animalistic copulation, not marriage. Marriage is sacred and above all these deformities.

I just have to say it's funny to see that you sympathize with boys who like colouring or playing with skipping ropes and say they're 'gay but they don't know it!'

There are many men who say when they were little they played 'Dolls' with their sisters.

They're mothers didn't say 'Oh, he must be gay, I should help him'. They saw it as normal, not all boys are born tough and like to wrestle. They let them be, and those boys slowly grew out of it.


(About the skipping rope issue, let me introduce you to jOPPERS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlTMf6qic4))
it's not just the skipping rope thing, and please don't pick on that. they have a total different way of talking, walking, playing, choice of colour etc.
i said 'gay but they don't even know what gay is'. as in 'they were not influenced by anybody'. they have hetero parents etc...
a lot of gay men will tell you that they were like that as kids and they discovered they were gay when they tried to form relationships with women but found out it wasn't for them....they weren't comfortable, they felt repressed.

anyway i don't have the energy to convince you lot lol. i just know what i'm talking about is right.

So if your gay pals in France felt like they wanted children, to complete the family, you'll be against it? What about their feelings?
they don't want children, because they know that none of them would be able to be the role of 'mother'. they make bloody good uncles though.

I didn't ask do they want, I asked if they wanted. But no need to answer if you don't want to think about it.

how many gays do you know?

i work with chidren. there are some boys who already, even though they have a very normal balanced upbringing, that favour playing with dolls and skipping ropes, they love colour, hate football, like to play 'families' and other stuff that the typical boys absolutely hate.
how could these boys choose what orientation they are going to take if by nature, themselves, they are already leaning towards the female side? they speak effeminately, even the way they sit down or run. they don't even know what the word gay means, they don't even know what it is.
that's how i am convinced that it is not by choice. and you can't force a gay man to become hetero.

Very few boys favor playing with dolls.

But if boys learn to model themselves on their mothers or their sisters, we can teach them not to. We know how to do these things; they aren't terrifically hard.

But we've taught ourselves that we can't. People who can do it are shoved out of the mainstream or driven out of business because such things aren't supposed to be doable.

I do know "gays" (ridiculous word). But I reject the notion that we have to know them in order to see that what they are doing is wrong and a perversion of human nature.

I don't know any pedophiles, but that's wrong. I don't care if you take me to a culture and show me "happy pedophiles" and happy children living with them. I don't care if we "find out" that some people are "born that way".

It doesn't matter.

It's wrong.

So's bestiality, no matter how much the goat enjoys it.

These things are frickin' OBVIOUS.

But if you subject a culture to endless propaganda, telling them that pedophillia, or bestiality, or human sacrifice, or slaughtering your first child and breast-feeding a pig instead (yes, there is a tribe in New Guinea that does that) is "good" or "healthy", people will buy into it and become incapable of recognizing that these things are evil.

Sodomy is evil and very bad news and we should not give it any quarter.

St. Paul says that this a curse, a punishment from God when people fall into idolatry. And the idolatry that our culture has fallen into is the worst idolatry of all. We aren't worshipping statues of three-headed monsters.

We have set up something else on the altar entirely. We are worshipping:

Ourselves.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1: 24-27.

Vile. Against nature. Unseemly.

And rewarded in themselves with a terrible punishment.

Try talking to homosexuals who have come to understand what it is doing to them and are trying to escape. More desperate people you will not meet.

There's no such thing as 'gay marriage'. It's like saying 'evil angel' or 'harmless devil'.
Marriage = Man + Woman.
Putting Man + Man or Woman + Woman makes it some form of deformed or animalistic copulation, not marriage. Marriage is sacred and above all these deformities.

See? Threadlike understands.

Don't let them pressure you out of it, man.

Even murderers could be 'nice people'.

zomg!!! really??!??

I feel sorry that you're on the wrong side of this argument Mini.

But you really are.

We must resist this political correctness that forces us to accept that everything is morally equivalent - we must resist at all costs.

Homosexuality is wrong, no matter how much spin the media puts on it.

Sadly homosexuality is slowly destroying the fabric of western society.

Touching on the pride parade which Hijabi mentioned.. why do we need such a parade ? What is there to be proud of ? And why should such a parade involve men and women walking around in various states of nudity and involving in mock sex acts in public ? In Toronto they are try to promote the gay pride parade as a family friendly occassion ! Whats family friendly about grown up men and women walking topless and in some cases bottomless ?

This is madness.

Resist it Mini. resist it will all your strength.

zomg!!! really??!??

Oh yeah!!!!

But does that make you turn a blind eye on their murders?

I feel sorry that you're on the wrong side of this argument Mini.

But you really are.

We must resist this political correctness that forces us to accept that everything is morally equivalent - we must resist at all costs.

Homosexuality is wrong, no matter how much spin the media puts on it.

Sadly homosexuality is slowly destroying the fabric of western society.

Touching on the pride parade which Hijabi mentioned.. why do we need such a parade ? What is there to be proud of ? And why should such a parade involve men and women walking around in various states of nudity and involving in mock sex acts in public ? In Toronto they are try to promote the gay pride parade as a family friendly occassion ! Whats family friendly about grown up men and women walking topless and in some cases bottomless ?

This is madness.

Resist it Mini. resist it will all your strength.
^that parade is silly. the gay people i know don't even look gay even if you stared at them and observed them for hours. unfortunately, those at the 'carnival' make people think that being gay is all about dressing up, and mocking their bodies.
i don't know where you got idea that i'm all for extroneous shows of affection or show offing.
and i'm not gonna have that shoved down my throat. the same way i'm not gonna have shoved down my throat something like the hetero brasil carnival.
nudity when out of context, when the human body is mocked, is bad.

There is an absolutely shattering article I read some time ago in the New Oxford Review by a reformed "gay" man. Everyone should read it. It's gripping stuff.

I'll give you a taste to see if I can get you interested. The gravamen of the piece (by someone who not only knows many more "gays" than minerva, but has actually experienced the condition from the inside) is that What You See Is NOT What You Get. The Happy Couple routine is a front, a put on, a false cover for something appalling and horrible and miserable, something that is essentially pornographic:

There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.

So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1575153/posts

Marriage = legal papers

That's it

Why people are so bothered? I can't get it

Ah, but theres the rub.

What the homosexual lobby is pushing is not the private practice of some deviant sexuality. They want to normalize perversion. So they have pride parades. They have naked men and women walking down the street. They have mock S&M displays. They want you to be immune to it so that subconsciously you begin to think its normal.

It's not normal.

Ah, but theres the rub.

What the homosexual lobby is pushing is not the private practice of some deviant sexuality. They want to normalize peversion. So they have pride parades. They have naked men and women walking down the street. They have mock S&M displays. They want you to be immune to it so that subconsciously you being to think its normal.

It's not normal.

Read that article I linked to, Wudjab. It's a knockout.

Marriage = legal papers

That's it

Why people are so bothered? I can't get it

To the government, it is legal papers.
To the society and the people involved in marriage, it isn't just that.

Ah, but theres the rub.

What the homosexual lobby is pushing is not the private practice of some deviant sexuality. They want to normalize peversion. So they have pride parades. They have naked men and women walking down the street. They have mock S&M displays. They want you to be immune to it so that subconsciously you being to think its normal.

It's not normal.
Thats the post of the month there by wudjab, totally agree

Marriage = legal papers

That's it

Why people are so bothered? I can't get it

Um, well, living is just moving around til you die.

Sex is just sticking something in somebody so you feel good.

Love is just stary-eyed feelings of happiness.

***

I call this philosophy "Just-ism". It's a subset of "Me-ism", the religion of the modern West.

Welcome! The doors swing easily going in. But they tend to stick a bit moving in the other direction...

and life goes on

Thats the post of the month there by wudjab, totally agree

Do I get a medal ?

:angel:

^When I thought of what you'd post here I thought of something like, 'Be civil, gay people love each other. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality'.

Full of surprises aren'tcha ;)?

Oh yeah!!!!

But does that make you turn a blind eye on their murders?
of course not. what makes them sit in the same boat? unless of course, you are considering homosexuality a crime.

of course not. what makes them sit in the same boat? unless of course, you are considering homosexuality a crime.

Murder is not just a crime.

It's a sin.

And that's more important.

Come on now Mini. cross over from the dark side.

Bleh

These kindda discussions are ****ing boring, why don't we pay religion a visit?

Do I get a medal ?

:angel:

You earned my respect, now thats an invisible medal :p

Interesting story Jeff!

Marriage is being a husband and wife in the eyes of God. God Forbade Sodomy. Sodomy is an act that would be practiced by gay couples, married or not. And gay marriage would indicate that such things are 'Okay' in the eyes of God, while they're not. Therefore, gay-marriage shouldn't have an existance. That's the spiritual side of it.

What does gay marriage state? For example 50-50 of property after divorce? or you get outta the door the same way you entered?
According to the law, marriage is the way to preserve each side's right with respect to properties and such.

Come on now Mini. cross over from the dark side.
when somebody convinces me that ALL gays are made, and none of them are born with the tendency, i will.

^^

People are "born" with tendencies to anger, or a weakness for alcohol, or a propensity to pride too.

^^

People are "born" with tendencies to anger, or a weakness for alcohol, or a propensity to pride too.
ok so if i have an effeminate boy, who does not identify in any way with the traditional male persona, and he doesn't like girls..what do you do? make him read the bible over and over again until he gets convinced that what he is inside does is totally so not good?

Believe it or not Minerva, but people DO get affected by what they read the most :yes:

I think the link Jeff provided has some answers to that.

What do you do with a boy who won't pay attention? Or who won't quit hitting other kids? Or who always seems to want to get into drugs?

I don't know what your responsibility is...is it disturbing the class somehow?

But if you want to explore treatments for homosexuality, here's one of many places to start:

http://www.narth.com/

treatments for homosexuality

Oh, they actually do exist!!

Next, they will legalize people with animal marriage. It's love as well :rolleyes:
And jeff, Californians are americans too. And I have a question: Why doesn't the US have a united law regarding such things ? Why every state has its own law no matter what ?

yeps. a hundred years ago there was treatment for left handedness as well.

What do you do with a boy who won't pay attention? Or who won't quit hitting other kids? Or who always seems to want to get into drugs?

I don't know what your responsibility is...is it disturbing the class somehow?

But if you want to explore treatments for homosexuality, here's one of many places to start:

http://www.narth.com/
many places?

http://www.google.com.mt/search?hl=mt&q=treatment+for+homosexuality&meta=

actually, that is the only site i found (the narth one you posted)

Next, they will legalize people with animal marriage. It's love as well :rolleyes:
And jeff, Californiann are americans too. And I have a question: Why doesn't the US have a united law regarding such things ? Why every state has its own law no matter what ?

Um, because that's the way the country was founded.

"State" means "Nation".

We are not One State. We are States. United States. But still States.

We are a federation and that is right at the root of our constitution.

There was a voluntary union on Independent States at the beginning and they kept many of their powers when they wrote the Constitution on which their union was based.

Imagine if one day Oman, UAE, Saudi, etc. decided to unite.

Would they want to completely disappear and just make one pure country?

Maybe.

But maybe they would want to preserve their individuality too.

So Oman might say to Saudi, for example, "In the new union, we want to have an equal vote even though we have fewer people. And we want to regulate religious practices ourselves. And we want to decide about punishment for murder, and marriage laws and regulation of private property ourselves.

"The new Central Government should be mainly for having a united foreign policy and certain specific functions we agree on, like free trade and movement of people and some other things."

Well, you might not agree with that approach. Or you might agree.

But I think you can see how some people and some countries might want to do things that way.

So our constitution says that the American Government will have powers X, Y, Z and so on. All the other powers that aren't mentioned specificially belong to the people or to the states.

If you kill somebody in New York, you are tried by New York law in a New York court. You can't go to an American court. They have no power to try the case and no law about murder.

yeps. a hundred years ago there was treatment for left handedness as well.

Well which hand you use is not a moral issue. And it's not at the center of who we are as human beings, and as MEN and WOMEN.

Sexuality IS a moral issue and it IS at the heart of who we are.

the people of California are forbidden from deciding whether they think gay "marriage" is good or bad. They just have had it shoved down their throats.


In the context, you might have phrased that a little differently bud...:hmm:

talk about freudian 'slip'. ^

I see what you're saying jeff, actually UAE follows the same constitution. Every state has its own law. But, in my opinion this is not for the sake of the country cos it appears that every state is a seperate country running its own laws by itself which some laws may be contradictional. I think some laws should be united like this case, maybe other less controversial laws are tolerated and left to the state to decide.

many places?

http://www.google.com.mt/search?hl=mt&q=treatment+for+homosexuality&meta=

actually, that is the only site i found (the narth one you posted)

I said "one of many places to start." You don't have to start with an umbrella organization.

They are a sort of central organization for those health professionals who insist that homosexuality is a proper subject for treatment and that it is treatable successfully.

Among their members you find many different approaches. You can start with individuals who treat it.

Or you can start with reading papers on treatment.

Or you can start with spirituality, such as the well-known organization "Courage" for Catholics who struggle with homsexuality started by Father Harvey:

http://couragerc.net/

OR

you can go the whole hog and have them get operated on to become a "different sex". Or turn them over to clinics that will train them in how to live the "transgendered lifestyle"!

That would be a good deed. After all, they can't change, etc., etc.

I said "one of many places to start." You don't have to start with an umbrella organization.

They are a sort of central organization for those health professionals who insist that homosexuality is a proper subject for treatment and that it is treatable successfully.

Among their members you find many different approaches. You can start with individuals who treat it.

Or you can start with reading papers on treatment.

Or you can start with spirituality, such as the well-known organization "Courage" for Catholics who struggle with homsexuality started by Father Harvey:

http://couragerc.net/

OR

you can go the whole hog and have them get operated on to become a "different sex". Or turn them over to clinics that will train them in how to live the "transgendered lifestyle"!

That would be a good deed. After all, they can't change, etc., etc.
gay and transgender are different. i thought you knew as much.

We'd rather be ready for the legalization of marriage between animals & humans as well in the future

We'd rather be ready for the legalization of marriage between animals & humans as well in the future
hey some women are already married to an animal already
btt.

hey some women are already married to an animal already
btt.

Have they adopted already?

Have they adopted already?

They need to adopt a fish and live in a zoo
or in an aquarium :rolleyes:

^When I thought of what you'd post here I thought of something like, 'Be civil, gay people love each other. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality'.

Full of surprises aren'tcha ;)?

Hey, don't be unfair Thready: Woody is very open-minded: He hate Muslims, Pakistanis, liberals, human rights organisations AND homosexuals. :D

Thanks Mimo, I really appreciated that.

My pleasure dear Woody, I'd hate anyone to think that you lacked breadth in your misanthropy :D

Thanks.

It's always good to know where your friends are coming from.

You know, in a serious discussion, its always good to barge in with a cheap shot.

No comments !

And nobody beats Honest Woody's Bargain Basement on that score!

Anyway OK, I'm drifting off a bit here, back to "gay marriage":

I don't have a big issue with homosexuality in as much as what people do in their own homes or own lives is not really my business. Instinctively, I dislike it of course because it's something that doesn't seem right, but...it's easy to judge someone else...much harder to know what they are dealing with in their own minds.

But this "gay marriage" thing is a misnomer isn't it? I mean, for me, the only real issue is calling it "marriage". Marriage is really by definition a religious sacrament or contract, or even duty. So what's not in accordance with religion cannot be considered a practice of religion. People who have faith take offence, I think, at the description of these unions as marriage, as much as anything. After all, as many have pointed out, marriage as a religious act is between a man and a woman (or between a man and a woman, a woman, a woman and a woman ;)), and it's annoying for others to have another kind of union described in the same way as one's own act of obedience to the Divine.

But on a more earthly level, where's the biggie? These people are not getting their union consecrated in a church or a mosque by legal authority, nobody is forcing religious acceptance of their relationship. They are getting a civil attestation together to give each other some limited tax and inheritance rights under civil law.

I get extremely irritated by people calling these civil partnerships "marriage". It's no more a marriage than forming a company with one of your friends. But you can't stop two people saying they're married; people say all sorts of stupid and misleading things about themselves.

So my response to this would be different: Don't make a fuss about these "gay marriages". Seek instead to allow "civil partnerships" between absolutely anyone. We don't want the sanctity of marriage to be devalued by misusing the term. Let's instead make sure that civil partnership term is well used, and available to anyone - friends, relatives, whatever you like. After all, it's only a tax code, let anyone have it and that really will explode the myth of "gay marriage".

^ Where's your outrage about atheist marriage then?

None, as long as it's between genders and therefore recognisable as such. I'm delighted that they choose to accept this God-given religious duty even if it's only in one aspect ;)

Hey, don't be unfair Thready: Woody is very open-minded: He hate Muslims, Pakistanis, liberals, human rights organisations AND homosexuals. :D

I'm not being unfair honestly...
It was a very pleasant surprise to agree with wudjab for once :p

I agree with Mimosa and the civil partnership contract.

I think its actually more uncommon for homosexuals to be in a long term partnership as the gay culture is a rather promiscuous one.

I agree with Mimosa and the civil partnership contract.

I think its actually more uncommon for homosexuals to be in a long term partnership as the gay culture is a rather promiscuous one.
it's no more promiscuous than the hetero culture.
i think if a gay couple want to solidify their union, it's gonna make them less promiscuous

^^I grew up surrounded by gay people, there is a reason why when HIV/AIDS reared its ugly head it was so rampant amongst the gay community.

My uncle and my best friend fall into the category of wanting long term partnership, unfortunately their partners didn't want to.

But I agree if they can solidify, it will probably make them less promiscuous.

Well Looks like Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi will be getting married now because of this decision. Expect aloooooooot more Gay couples to marry now ;p Lol

I don't understang gay ppl.. I just don't get how some chicks dont like men and vice versa,
But I do agree that the more media covers this stuff the more normal it becomes.

It shocks me how not long ago Gay marriages were so frowned upon and RARELY DISCUSSED, and now Everywhere you turn theres a new person comming out or ADVERTISING their sexuality to the world. And the crazy thing is nobodies shocked about it anymore. And the sad thing is, this wont fade over time.. It'll just become more normal and normal until eventually it won't even be a surprise or a topic that'll get discussed that much

this idea is just sick

this shouldnt be allowed

marriage it not meant to be for sick gays .

just face it !
men are made for women and women for men!
its its totally sick!
cant wait for this law to be used in oman :p

*laughs* well great! it's up to them :D
BUT if this reaches to the arab world *god forbidden* then i'd really be bothered :\

if two men decide that they want to live together, set up home and do not infringe on other people's rights, then it's up to them. nobody has the right to judge them as disgusting or whatever. it's their life, and if they are not hurting you, there are lots of other disgusting things in the world to look at.

^^^I agree on that wholeheartedly. There are def. allot more disgusting things going on. Maybe the Xaniths in Oman could come to Cali and get married....who knows.

My only qualm about gay marriages is that I personally do not see it as being sanctioned by God. I think maybe if employers allow a clause in their health programs to include a partner (which would also allow heterosexuals to claim their partners) no problem. But not a full blown marriage.

^^^I agree on that wholeheartedly. There are def. allot more disgusting things going on. Maybe the Xaniths in Oman could come to Cali and get married....who knows.

My only qualm about gay marriages is that I personally do not see it as being sanctioned by God. I think maybe if employers allow a clause in their health programs to include a partner (which would also allow heterosexuals to claim their partners) no problem. But not a full blown marriage.
how many marriages are sanctioned by God?

if two men decide that they want to live together, set up home and do not infringe on other people's rights, then it's up to them. nobody has the right to judge them as disgusting or whatever. it's their life, and if they are not hurting you, there are lots of other disgusting things in the world to look at.

We have the right to judge whether certain THINGS are disgusting, sinful or 'whatever'. And certain THINGS CAN make people disgusting if they do not quit it or repent for it. One can't keep holding shit in one's hand for one's whole life and don't expect people to say that he stinks.
So yes, homosexuality is both sinful and disgusting. According to your religion and according to mine.

I don't think homosexuals are sick; just different. I am not homophobic; so if they want some sort of contract to unify them, I would tell them to do whatever works for them. After all, it is the land of the "free" ;)

For me, from what I understood from my Catholic teachings, Homosexuality is a sin so I cannot see how it can be sanctioned in a religious ceremony. I have sinned myself and will admit to having sinned. Because homosexuality is viewed as a sin, if that person say is Catholic or Muslim then they realize that their acts are a sin and should remain celibate. Let's look at a heterosexual male or female. Premartial sex is viewed as a sin so we are suppose to stay celibate until marriage. I don't like it but that is just the way it is. I acknowledge that premarital sex is a sin and have to deal with the consequences. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin and has to be seen as such.

God will judge all of us who have sinned against what our good deeds have been in our lifetime. Only He will know what happens to our souls. I don't care if a person is gay but I do care if a gay person requests the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual.

I am not going to point fingers and call them names and want them dead...nothing like that for that is not who and what I am as a person. I just don't want them having the rights of marriage.

^Then what if it is a civil marriage? Would that be okay with you since the Church is not involved?

I don't believe in gay marriages at all. If they want a commitment ceremony no big deal. But to condone gay marriage in my own religious view would be wrong. There are people out there who totally are against any kind of ceremony, civil, religious or commitment. I just don't agree with the gay lifestyle but I am not going to stone them because of it.

i don't think gays were pushing for church marriage. they know the church's stance and what it says. they want to be recognised as a couple by the civil state.

I don't know how far that will go. I live in a conservative state. The Midwest and South tend to be pretty conservative so I doubt we will ever pass anything like that in the near future. I know my sister has friends who are gay and she attends the gay parade in Boystown over in Chicago. She doesn't believe in them getting married. Everyone has their views on this. Whether we agree with them or not in the end I know how I feel about the subject and no amount of convincing will get me to change my mind same as those who believe gays should be able to marry. No amount of convincing will change their minds either. A stalemate.

What happened to those two gay Kuwaiti dudes who used to be on here? Would be interesting to here a....er....perspective from within, so to speak...

And one of the first people taking advantage of this is no other than Ellen DeGeneres who wed the former Ally Mcbeal star Portia de Rossi. I always got this gay vibe from De rossi...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7406243.stm

hahahaha

Ok people, stop!

If two people want to solidify their relationship, then that is THEIR business, not yours. They arent inviting you to the wedding! I worked in Toronto with a gay married man and he was great to work with, good at his job and very funny. Not some evil bible-burning heretic that some people make homosexuals out to be. Co-incidentially, he and his husband succesfully adopted two young children recently and the family is doing fine.

With regards to the Christian Aid organisation that dismissed the woman after she realized she was gay, well, she was working for a Christian Aid society - where is her first clue? However, if she realised she was gay, surely she should of started looking for another job, and above all, NOT TOLD ANYONE AT HER WORK she was gay! As for the fine and requirements handed out by the thought police, I agree with the fine, because you cant just fire someone based on their sexual orientation, thats like firing an arab because they're arab. But I dont agree with the course requirements.

wudjab, your sig is making me hungry.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the Catholic church does not actually recognise a marriage as a marriage until there's been a child born - if you dont beleive me ask a priest. Contradictory I know, considering they marry many young and old couples alike which dont have kids. The actual ceremony is theoretically them giving permission to have babies, and affirming their love for one another in the eyes of God. Marriage in the legal world, is something different again, suddenly your taxed on your combined income, liable for debts of the other party, able to apply for a joint mortgage, and so on. Most homosexual couples marry for two reasons: 1. To solidify their relationship and commitment to each other and 2. For financial reasons, they may want to buy a home together but neither one can afford a home, but together they can, and of course they have to be married in order to qualify for a joint mortgage.

Mini,

It has nothing to do with whether they love each other or that they make a terrific couple or whatever,

From the beginning of time, marriage has been clearly defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Now if these people are looking for some sort of legal protection so that property and inheritance rights are protected, that fine.

But thats not what they want.

They want to SHOVE their lifestyle down our collective throats.

It is no longer enough that we tolerate their lifestyle, we must now actively applaud and promote it.

That is unacceptable.

Recently in Ontario, a Christian Aid organization (Christian Horizons) was fined by our out of control human rights organizations because :

They have a code of conduct that employees are required to sign which forbids homosexuality, pornography, and such like. No one is forcing you to join this organization but if you do, you are expected to sign this and adhere to this.

A woman who joined a couple of years ago suddenly discovered she was gay, and when this was brough to the attention of Christian Horizons, they dismissed her.

She went to the HRC who ruled in her favour, asked Christian Horizons to drop their code of conduct clause, carry out sexual orientation training to make them more sensitive to gay rights and awarded her financial damages.

This is what the gay agenda is all about. Whole hearted embracing of this deviant lifestyle, not tolerance.

I really don't think the gay population of california care about embracing their lifestyle, I'm pretty sure they're more concerned with being able to get the benefits exercised by heterosexual married couples.