Calif. Supreme Court overturns gay-marriage ban

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, you can give plethysmograph testing to a group of 13 year olds and show that 90% of them are attracted to the opposite sex, 5% are attracted to both sexes and 5% are attracted to the same sex. You can then interview the homosexuals and find that the majority have yet to have a sexual experience and have no influence in their life that would have "made them" homosexual.
Obviously this has nothing to do with one's "personal desire" and everything to do with a person's sexual orientation.

Then how do you explain the predominance of bisexual behavior in those societies that tolerate that sort of thing? Ancient Greece is an example of this.

Has the natural "orientation" of people changed through time? Does it vary from culture to culture?

All that plethysmograph testing shows is that 90% of 13 year olds have been raised correctly.

The theory of sexual orientation is dogma that is meant to mask the fact that sexual arousal and relief is variable. People can get off in a multitude of ways. No one is constrained by your categories.

I don't doubt that people have tendencies for sexual arousal from certain ideas and stimuli and not from others, but your use of the tern sexual orientation is meaningless. It denies the role of culture, environment and circumstance.

Try to think outside your box.

Boony68 wrote:

<quoted text>
A con job ?
Well, your certainly trying to pull the wool over our eyes, thats for sure.
A so called unidentified group ?
How is the homosexual community unidentified ?
These two fallacies that your trying to pass off as fact totaly negates the remainder of your argument.

It is identifiable according to a particular attraction or preference.

In that sense, pepperoni pizza lovers are an identifiable class.

It is that silly. It's like pepperoni pizza lovers got together and constituted themselves into a political class and militated for special rights.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
What an INSANE argument. Birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates are all awarded and recorded for the following primary state interest: RECORDKEEPING.
Many who are married pay MORE taxes. Google "marriage tax penalty". The largest deduction allowable comes from having DEPENDENTS. This is NOT because the US wants to make sure there are plenty of children. This is because people understand that raising children is expensive and the tax code is designed to give them a financial break, whether their dependent is biological or adopted.
Stop creating fantasy about "state interest" to support your ridiculous argument that you only have because you hate homosexuals and you hate your own homosexuality.
Go get some therapy and come to terms with who you really are.

I can see the point for birth certificates and death certificates, but there is no point for marriage certificates any longer.

Now that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, there is no longer any reason for the state to implicate itself in the private, intimate lives of its citizens. It is no longer the state's business who lives with whom if procreation is no longer of an interest. The state need only register the legal guardians of children to ensure that they have a responsible adult caring for them.

Joe_G wrote:

<quoted text>
ALL that on display at Mardi Gras too -- ahhh, but the blinders of a bigot are long and wide.

Mardi Gras is also a gay festival, now.

As a matter of fact wrote:

<quoted text>
KINSEY WAS WRONG. Why do you people still listen to this guy? He did not measure mind-based attraction but arousal levels. Arousal is NOT REAL ATTRACTION.
GAG.
People pointing out that Kinsey was right - well, that's part of the bisexual agenda.
The majority of society which is heterosexual does not lust after their own gender.
Ppl who say otherwise are DUMB.

Kinsey is controversial and may have been off-target on some things, but his findings still do not lack merit. So I would not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Sexual orientation theory classifies according to psychological criteria. This means that certain ideas and fantasies have appeal and arousal power and others do not. It also means that certain ideas have repulsive power as well.

Which ideas and fantasies have appeal and which repel are to a degree variable and changeable through time and circumstance, and can be influenced by the social environment and the culture. This is demonstrated in history and in the studies of anthropologists. Sexual mores are variable.

Where sexual orientation theory fails is with the denial of the influence of environment, circumstance, culture and general attitudes of society, as well as with the variability of human sexuality.

Opposite-sex attraction is likely innate. Same-sex attraction is likely innate also, but these attractions are modifiable to a degree and new attractions can come into being and be sexually stimulating as well. The attractions are far from the rigid, inflexible, ineluctable categories that the sexual orientation theorists would have one believe.

One interesting paradox about sexual orientation theory was mentioned above. If certain ideas and fantasies have appeal and arousal power, it also means that certain ideas and fantasies have repulsive power as well. Thus, for heterosexuals, the idea of homosexuality would be quite naturally repulsive to them, and vice versa.

This would imply that "homophobia" is NOT culturally induced bigotry as gays would have us believe, but something that would be quite natural and unavoidable. It would be integrated into the sexual orientation of an individual.

The theory of sexual orientation doesn't leave us the possibility of having it both ways. To accept it in its current formulation means having to accept the rejection and aversion to homosexuality by the great majority of people as something entirely natural and expected also.

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
Then how do you explain the predominance of bisexual behavior in those societies that tolerate that sort of thing? Ancient Greece is an example of this.
Has the natural "orientation" of people changed through time? Does it vary from culture to culture?
All that plethysmograph testing shows is that 90% of 13 year olds have been raised correctly.
The theory of sexual orientation is dogma that is meant to mask the fact that sexual arousal and relief is variable. People can get off in a multitude of ways. No one is constrained by your categories.
I don't doubt that people have tendencies for sexual arousal from certain ideas and stimuli and not from others, but your use of the tern sexual orientation is meaningless. It denies the role of culture, environment and circumstance.
Try to think outside your box.

Because there was no predominance of bisexuality in those societies. That's why. They're only societies where it was tolerated and there were a few who were well know. No one did a poll to see how many people claimed to be bisexual. Stop imagining that they did.

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
I can see the point for birth certificates and death certificates, but there is no point for marriage certificates any longer.
Now that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, there is no longer any reason for the state to implicate itself in the private, intimate lives of its citizens. It is no longer the state's business who lives with whom if procreation is no longer of an interest. The state need only register the legal guardians of children to ensure that they have a responsible adult caring for them.

No, actually marriage certificates are usually contingent on blood tests for STDs which is in the state's interest and has been ever since blood testing became available.

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
Then how do you explain the predominance of bisexual behavior in those societies that tolerate that sort of thing? Ancient Greece is an example of this.
Has the natural "orientation" of people changed through time? Does it vary from culture to culture?
All that plethysmograph testing shows is that 90% of 13 year olds have been raised correctly.
The theory of sexual orientation is dogma that is meant to mask the fact that sexual arousal and relief is variable. People can get off in a multitude of ways. No one is constrained by your categories.
I don't doubt that people have tendencies for sexual arousal from certain ideas and stimuli and not from others, but your use of the tern sexual orientation is meaningless. It denies the role of culture, environment and circumstance.
Try to think outside your box.

"Raised correctly." How offensive. I have two great parents who raised me in the church and 'correctly' with plenty of discipline and accountability and love and caring. I was raised in the church and knew homosexuality was wrong. I had no sexual experiences prior to puberty but when puberty arrived I was completely attracted to the same sex and had no attraction to the opposite sex. Of course I was horrified and spent a decade trying to change my sexuality through prayer and through work and celibacy without the slightest bit of result at any time.

But then we already know from studies that there are plenty of heterosexuals with horrible upbringings, molestation, distant or lacking fathers - that don't turn out gay or bisexual. And there are plenty of examples of homosexuals like me. Your theory is fundamentally flawed and based on nothing but your sad religion-based opinion.

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
Mardi Gras is also a gay festival, now.

How about the various "Spring Breaks" that have enormous amounts of hetero public nudity and even public sex?

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to hand it to the gay activists for their success in fooling so many people, even court judges in some states.

People like you claim that gay people are only 2% of the population. If that is so, how did 2% of the population fool so many hets so thoroughly...even Republican conservative judges? Are you saying that hets have no ability to weigh the facts and decide for themselves? You're premise is insulting to both gay and het people...not to mention just plain crazy.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
No, actually marriage certificates are usually contingent on blood tests for STDs which is in the state's interest and has been ever since blood testing became available.

BlueLamp,

I'm not sure about other states, but te State of California did not require a blood test from us when we got our Marriage License last Tuesday, and that is the general rule here.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
"Raised correctly." How offensive. I have two great parents who raised me in the church and 'correctly' with plenty of discipline and accountability and love and caring. I was raised in the church and knew homosexuality was wrong. I had no sexual experiences prior to puberty but when puberty arrived I was completely attracted to the same sex and had no attraction to the opposite sex. Of course I was horrified and spent a decade trying to change my sexuality through prayer and through work and celibacy without the slightest bit of result at any time.
But then we already know from studies that there are plenty of heterosexuals with horrible upbringings, molestation, distant or lacking fathers - that don't turn out gay or bisexual. And there are plenty of examples of homosexuals like me. Your theory is fundamentally flawed and based on nothing but your sad religion-based opinion.

Then homosexual desire is your cross to bear. So which choice did you make?

To bear your cross………

or SURRENDER?

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
BlueLamp,
I'm not sure about other states, but te State of California did not require a blood test from us when we got our Marriage License last Tuesday, and that is the general rule here.

Yeah! Why should it? It's not like you two were going to go out and make babies!

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
People like you claim that gay people are only 2% of the population. If that is so, how did 2% of the population fool so many hets so thoroughly...even Republican conservative judges? Are you saying that hets have no ability to weigh the facts and decide for themselves? You're premise is insulting to both gay and het people...not to mention just plain crazy.

It's not that the 2-3% of the population that are gay people fooled all the rest. That deception comes from the damned, leftist, liberal, socialistic, secular, humanistic, atheistic, spawn-of-Satan totalitarians that want to rule the world.

Yeah! Mostly you people.

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
No, actually marriage certificates are usually contingent on blood tests for STDs which is in the state's interest and has been ever since blood testing became available.

Actually, I believe that there are only two states that require any kind of blood test for a marriage certificate, or maybe even only one, and then it is just the woman who must take the test. I read this on a website provided by one of the fundies trying to make a point. The website he posted not only negated his point but made him look quite foolish as well.

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah! Why should it? It's not like you two were going to go out and make babies!

BlueLight may be a fine and attractive man, but I am married and can keep it for my spouse. Do you "make babies?" Just Polynesians or North American, Australian and European tourists as well?

Roberto wrote:

<quoted text>
Then homosexual desire is your cross to bear. So which choice did you make?
To bear your cross………
or SURRENDER?

No actually I bore the cross of trying to change my sexuality for years when science, medicine and psychology all claim it can't be changed.

I SURRENDERED to God. He led me to accepting myself the way I am and everything else fell right into place - the way it should have been from the beginning.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I believe that there are only two states that require any kind of blood test for a marriage certificate, or maybe even only one, and then it is just the woman who must take the test. I read this on a website provided by one of the fundies trying to make a point. The website he posted not only negated his point but made him look quite foolish as well.

Oh well thanks for the info. I knew they used to require blood tests here and thought it was probably common. Guess not.

LookByawnDobvyus wrote:

What I would like to pay money to see is your facial expressions in the coming weeks, when you turn on CNN,FOX,ABC,CBS and MSNBC news and the News report on the next TOPIX is:
"Major Earthquake Hits California"...
I'm going to take the high-road and not say
"I told you so". That would be childish...
Signing Off... People... much Love and prayer...

Just as a reminder, this was posted on May 20th along with another message that said God would hit CA with an earthquake in the next 21 days to show his anger at the lifting of a gay marriage ban. It is now June 25th.
The quake is now over two weeks late. Did God change his mind again?

It may not have been the swiftest of legal moves for the defendaning lawyers in the case to tell a 68 year old, married judge, that the only value of marriage was procreation.

Bwahhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!