Sign in to follow this  
f_vo

Arnold To Stop Gay Marriages In Kalifornia

Recommended Posts

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the adopted kid of a gay couple. Not out of discrimination, but because I wouldn't want be enviromentally influenced (and primed as if "it's a normal thing") to like boys instead of girls.

It's not a social disgrace being gay, but it's a genetic dead-end. And I still have some 'selfish genes' I would love to see pass to my progeny! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In High School, a friend was being raised by her two moms. One day, she sat down and had the "Mom, mom...I don't know how to tell you this...I'm straight" speech :lol:

Considering that she was exposed to very positive lesbian rolemodels her entire life, and ended up getting engaged to a not-very-cute guy....it makes me think it's more genetic than enviromental.

Otherwise there would be may more "bi" (semi-infected?) people running around. As it stands the majority have a clear preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otherwise there would be may more "bi" (semi-infected?) people running around. As it stands the majority have a clear preference.

There was a study once claiming all people were subcounciouslly bi.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it makes me think it's more genetic than enviromental.

There are opposing schools of thought AFAIK. I'm more for the enviromental influence (more or less like cancer... 80% enviroment, 20% genes).

The assumption it is genetic has been extensively used by pro-gay support groups who want to pass the subconscious message it's natural... "Hey, it's in my genes... what can I do?"

I don't buy it it's all genes. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I wouldn't want to be the adopted kid of a gay couple. Not out of discrimination, but because I wouldn't want be enviromentally influenced (and primed as if "it's a normal thing") to like boys instead of girls.

it would be pretty obvious what 'normal' was when you left your house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it makes me think it's more genetic than enviromental.

There are opposing schools of thought AFAIK. I'm more for the enviromental influence (more or less like cancer... 80% enviroment, 20% genes).

The assumption it is genetic has been extensively used by pro-gay support groups who want to pass the subconscious message it's natural... "Hey, it's in my genes... what can I do?"

I don't buy it it's all genes. <_<

Yes, I'm aware of the 2 schools here, but I was under the impression that anti-gay groups used the "infection/influence" routine to make it seem actually bad, like a disease.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be pretty obvious what 'normal' was when you left your house.

Yeah, FWIW, I find it more 'natural' to be straight. And I don't care for the flak here. I'll most probably pass my genes to the next generation by choosing this path. :)

I'm not pretty sure what the guy with a 'cleft asshole' will do though... :unsure:

(sorry about the term, saw it in "Big Lebowski" and found it pretty funny- don't want to offend anyone)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW Arnold for governer... what kind of utter idiot would vote for him?  Any disaster that befalls California must certainly be a sign that the gods take issue with Mr Terminator.

I disagree with you here King, i would vote for Arnold if i was Amercan and living in California.

Give it some thought here : why would you vote for Stevaert, Verhofstadt and other Anciaux's who may have studied more then Arnold? They do a very, very BAD job in Belgium with their [/b] "shortminded, me first mentality."

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting turn of events in this article. To quote the first line:

California's attorney general predicted on Monday that the courts would shortly bar same-sex marriages in San Francisco and invalidate the thousands of gay marriages the city has sanctioned over the past two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting turn of events in this article.  To quote the first line:

California's attorney general predicted on Monday that the courts would shortly bar same-sex marriages in San Francisco and invalidate the thousands of gay marriages the city has sanctioned over the past two weeks.

As it should be. Same sex marriages in California are *illegal*.

Everyone is so happy to be married, and within a month their marriages will be invalidated. Sad.

Of course, if the folks aren't bright enough to know that the marriage license says "State of California" on it... well I can only feel pity that they think the Mayor of S.F. is the Governor.

A local municipality *cannot* override laws of the State.

Ironically, a State law *can* override the Federal law. States have precedence. Penalities for doing so may range from lack of Federal funding to being kicked out of the union.

I like a sound bite I heard from the mayor of San Francisco. He said he was willing to make a stand for Gay-rights even if it cost him his job or career.

HA! Pretty brave standing up for Gay rights *in* San Francisco. Sounds like someone wants to get re-elected.

I honestly believe if gay marriages are legal, then churches will be forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples.

You don't think someone will sue so they can be married at a particular Cathedral?

I'd have to give on civil unions only because so many things (as mentioned above) are tied to legal unions.

This is a stretch for me since I believe homosexuality is a perversion. And in case you think me insensitive, I include *any* sexual activity outside of a marriage (between a man and a woman) to be wrong in the same respect.

For the record, I *did* try to organize a heterosexual parade in Seattle. I was flatly denied and told if I tried to hold such an event I would be jailed.

Of course, the Gay Rights parades had been going for a few years before that time.

Hmmmm.

How come I cannot promote *my* lifestyle?

Why is "reverse discrimination" different than "discrimination?"

Everyone is feels discrimination except for the very rich... and they have their own problems.

I've been turned down by the United Negro College Fund - I'm "White." - denied and told to leave them alone. I said "Hey! I thought racial discrimination is illegal?"

I tried to join "Women's Workout World" - I'm a male. Denied membership.

The Ku Klux Klan can hold a parade in my town, but my church cannot: "We don't want to offend people."

I'd say the homosexuals need a Milllion Man march... but how many males are counted as "men?" How many of the females? :P

Dogeared

8^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly believe if gay marriages are legal, then churches will be forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples.  You don't think someone will sue so they can be married at a particular Cathedral?

forced? are they forced to perform weddings for heterosexuals?

Of course, the Gay Rights parades had been going for a few years before that time.  Hmmmm.  How come I cannot promote *my* lifestyle?

this has already been addressed. heterosexuals are not minorities. your organized march would have not been for rights.

I've been turned down by the United Negro College Fund - I'm "White." - denied and told to leave them alone.  I said "Hey!  I thought racial discrimination is illegal?"

i'm not sure your mother would sing me a bedtime story, but she probably did for you. shall i sue for discrimination over that as well?

you appear to be unable to grasp the difference between standard law and the wishes of private individuals/institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes down to the constitution....it gets very messy.

One of the cornerstones of the constitution is not to discriminate against ANYONE. So is creating a constitutional ammendmant that violates the fundamentals of the constitution possible? We managed it in CA (thanks to LA :P)...so what happens?

People are arguing whether the voters or the courts should be allowed to decide this issue. IMHO, cosidering we already have a number on laws and a constitution that cover these grounds, the courts should be left to clarify individual cases. Leaving it to the voters allows for emotion to affect what should be a "civil rights" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it seems Bush [Jr] does not want gay marriages either. It is not over yet. Many gay couples are already married......

He had a minor brush with the gay community's anger in his first run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it seems Bush [Jr] does not want gay marriages either. It is not over yet. Many gay couples are already married......

He had a minor brush with the gay community's anger in his first run.

I did not now that. All i know is that Arnold (was on Yahoo) was seeking help from Bush (against gay marriages) and in return he promised help for Bush for his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same sex marriages in California are *illegal*.

Everyone is so happy to be married, and within a month their marriages will be invalidated. Sad.

While I think gay marriage should be legal, I do have to agree that all of the marriages performed in San Francisco SHOULD be invalidated, because they were performed in violation of state law. I think the law should be changed, and the licenses re-issued (or just re-validated,) but I do believe that the current ones should indeed be invalid. (I'm sure most of the people getting them know that they are not valid, and are only doing it to make a statement.)

I honestly believe if gay marriages are legal, then churches will be forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples.

You don't think someone will sue so they can be married at a particular Cathedral?

Churches couldn't be forced to perform the ceremonies. Already, some churches refuse to perform ceremonies between people when one of them is of a different faith, so it's not a stretch to assume that they could reject a same-sex couple. Likewise, there are already some churches that perform same-sex marriages. They're just not recognized by the government. To me, this is one of the big issues, marriage is two-fold. Marriage is used by the government to signify a partnership in all matters legal and financial. (Such as death benefits, medical decision rights, and taxes.) This, I believe is where gay marriage should be allowed. Gay lifetime partners should have the same rights as straight lifetime partners. In religion, it's another matter. If one religion wants to celebrate marriage one way, that's fine. If another wants to do it another way, that's also fine. That's up to each religion to decide. For example, the Catholic church doesn't recognize a marriage as valid unless it's performed in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest. So to my extremely strictly Catholic grandmother, I'm not married. (I was married by a Lutheran minster outdoors.) Likewise, the Catholic church doesn't recognize divorces, either, only annulments, so my best friend wasn't able to remarry in a Catholic church, because his divorce wasn't recognized by the church. (So the government says he is married to one woman, the Catholic church says he is married to a different woman. And his first wife is also remarried, which means that her current husband is committing a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic church! [Coveting thy neighbor's wife.])

I'd have to give on civil unions only because so many things (as mentioned above) are tied to legal unions.

Finally, I commend you for your willingness to compromise and allow others to have their freedoms, even when you disagree with them. I have now been happily surprised this way twice today. (Once was seeing a 'protester' outside an abortion clinic with a simple sign saying "If you don't want your child, consider adoption." or something to that effect.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i always considered marriage a thing between "man & woman. The financial thing came later in my opinion. In the beginning men worked and women did housework, meanwhile having lots of children, since birth control did not exist.

Children did get the name of the father. Later on thanks to the marriage a woman living longer then her husband did get a pension, even if she never worked as a worker or employee. Thanks to this system society was more conctrolled.

Now let's go further here with the gay thing:

First they want to get married as well. Why? Are they jealous at the normal weddings?

Then they want children as well. We all know, it probably will be better to get raised by gays then getting raised by a "normal couple", acting abnormally. But this is more exception then rule. Also when being raised by a gay couple children would see a side of life they would not see from so close if raised by a normal couple. This could influence there acting and being. There is no proof it does not, since everyone reacts differently.

Another point to consider is school. We all know, there always are "little" assholes in school sometimes terrorising other kids, calling them names, taking their money away, intimidation, you name it...

What are the changes these kids raised by a gay couple will be threated "differently" then others? How many times must they hear "your parents" are gay, so you are too?

Also when 2 gay men are married, one is working, the other stays at home as a housekeeper and the working man dies, then should the remainder men get a pension like in a normal wedding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that gay marriages shouldn't happen. Yes, a legal union is ok, but the term is wrong. Additionally, i know this sounds like discrimination, I think that marriage should have more benefits than whatever the union is called. Very simple, Heterosexual people are able to reproduce, thereby have the OPTION to have children at some point in time. These children will be nationals and will improve the nation/ country in later years. Homosexual couples are unable to have children naturally and should therefore not have the same advantages as marriages. Inheritance is a good idea, alimony maybe too (makes people think twice before getting unionized), but i think that preferential taxing should be for marriage only.

And yes, I think gay-pride parades stink. It's gotten "cool" to be gay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes, I think gay-pride parades stink. It's gotten "cool" to be gay...

Agreed. In essence a gay pride parade is a celebration of men having sex with men and women having sex with woman. It isn't a protest, it isn't a celebration of a holiday or another important event. I just never understood exactly what the purpose of these parades are. And despite the use of the term "alternative lifestyles" the way I learned it in school homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction along with pedophilia, bestiality, and other types of deviant sex. This was right from a page in my textbook on abnormal psychology. This isn't to say that homosexuals deserve to be ostracized. Rather, it should be thought of as an illness the same as schizophrenia. Perhaps one day an effective treatment will be found (IIRC results with electroconvulsive therapy are mixed) and then something like gay marriages will no longer be an issue.

I also think I agree with everything else you wrote. Legal unions of some sort which preserve property rights and inheritances are fine but marriage with all its benefits should be reserved for a couple able to procreate. I'm also against health or any other special benefits for domestic partners, whether the couple is homosexual or heterosexual. Those should also be reserved for traditional heterosexual marriages. Here my reason is simple-it costs too much and it is open to abuse. For example, the benefits NYC provides to employees who have domestic partners are yet another needless expense used to pander to voters. Also, what is to stop a heterosexual person from saying his heterosexual roommate is really his domestic partner?

I know this will hit a sore note with some people here, but homosexuals and single people should not be allowed to adopt children, period. I'm aware there is a shortage of parents but that isn't a good enough reason in my mind to not place children in the environment in which they're shown to do the best, and that is with two married heterosexual parents. Potential adoptive parents should be better made to understand that kids over two are just as desireable as infants. Additionally, perhaps the shortage of parents would decrease if some parents who wanted to procreate could be persuaded to adopt instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather fed up with hearing the word "gay" being used to describe homosexuals. It wasn't so very long ago that the word, gay, meant happy.

I have met quite a few homosexuals in my 58 years on this planet and, from personal experience, the word "gay" is one which least describes them. They all seem to have incredible psychological hangups and there is an unproportionate number of suicides within homosexual groups.

I would like to start a movement to reclaim the word "gay" into the English language (with it's original meaning intact.)

God's first commandment to man was, "Go forth and multiply and fill up the earth." This can only be accomplished when two members of the opposite sex come together. I can't envisage homosexuals ever possessing this capability. To be able to "multiply" requires more than being able to conceive children. It also requires an environment which is conducive to their growth and survival. This is the purpose of marriage, generally and society at large.

Since homosexuals don't even begin to qualify on the first part, there is no point in marriage.

To me, they are not only incapable of marriage but also incapable of being gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this