BREAKING! Prop 8 is unconstitutional, Judge rules

[NeverStopMoving]

Here, I can help you out with that question;

1. Homosexuality injures the fabric of society, especially children.

A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that “if anyone causes one of these little one’s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea.” Matthew 18:6

Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down. I am certain that many will believe my views to be unfair as they know loving gay families who would do nothing to harm their children. Though there may be loving gay families, it does not erase the fact that homosexuality may rob a child from being raised in a family with a male Father or a female mother. Both sexes are essential to the well being of the child. Additionally, it was God’s design to have a male Father and a female mother, this design has been in existence for thousands of years and shouldn’t be replaced with the immoral practice of same sex relationships.

Homosexual acts do not promote the procreation of children

Logically speaking, if everyone's sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone's sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race. As one person has put it, the homosexual act is solely for the benefit of two same sex people and not for any potential procreation, thus it is a sterile act. To intentionally perform sexual acts without the potential to procreate children goes against the very nature of our own human perpetuity and fosters selfishness. This standard also applies to heterosexual couples who intentionally decide against having children, which also fosters selfishness and does nothing to propagate their own family line and legacy.

I can keep on going if wish.

What a fuking joke!

The first amendment CLEARLY overrules you in using any kind of religious argument to establish constitutionality.

LAWL

[hypnojedi]

One of the weaknesses of the US political system is politicised judges making law on a whim.

[NeverStopMoving]

One of the weaknesses of the US political system is politicised judges making law on a whim.

And yet this judge was a Reagan appointee

HAHAHA!

[Judge_Joe_Brown]

BTW I'm really interested on what spin Fox puts on it tonight.

[hooked4life]

One of the weaknesses of the US political system is politicised judges making law on a whim.

Location: UK

Pray tell, you're qualifications for making such a broad and simple statement ... are?

[SpeedCheeser]

Here, I can help you out with that question;

1. Homosexuality injures the fabric of society, especially children.

A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that “if anyone causes one of these little one’s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea.” Matthew 18:6

I can keep on going if wish.

Lol, or you could stop, reread the 1st amendment, and quit while you're WAY behind. Your book means nothing as far as the government is concerned. No law shall be made respecting one religion over another.

Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down. I am certain that many will believe my views to be unfair as they know loving gay families who would do nothing to harm their children. Though there may be loving gay families, it does not erase the fact that homosexuality may rob a child from being raised in a family with a male Father or a female mother. Both sexes are essential to the well being of the child. Additionally, it was God’s design to have a male Father and a female mother, this design has been in existence for thousands of years and shouldn’t be replaced with the immoral practice of same sex relationships.

So I suppose by that logic you feel it's better for a child to live in an orphanage than to be adopted by a pair of homosexuals who truely want nothing more than to care for an underpriveledged child?

[SWORN]

Please tell more

sure read under

I didnt know that. Im sorry.. anymore info?

yes


Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child's life. (It has already been proven sadly that boys without fathers end up in jail or practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child�s life. Some research indicates that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be 4 to 10 times more likely to engage in homosexuality. If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/...s_prohomo.html

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view...e.php?rID=6509

[Judge_Joe_Brown]

sure read under



yes


Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child's life. (It has already been proven sadly that boys without fathers end up in jail or practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child�s life. Some research indicates that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be 4 to 10 times more likely to engage in homosexuality. If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/...s_prohomo.html

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view...e.php?rID=6509

NONE of that is backed up by research. You know what is backed up by SCIENTIFIC research though? The notion that children raised in gay couples will be perfectly normal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6562KX20100607

[JustAnotherUser]

http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/...s_prohomo.html

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view...e.php?rID=6509

I liked the part where you addressed our criticisms. That was a very nice rational arguement.

Oh, and that second link you provided as "proof" is about the effects of divorce on children.

The first link just claims crap, doesn't provide citations, isn't an actual study. Actually, he tells you to go to another one of his articles, which is just him commenting on abstracts that he either disagrees or agrees with. And he seems to be claiming a huge pro-homosexuality element in modern psychology. If you want to be taken seriously as a Psychologist, which he claims, you have to write with the APA guidelines. This guy doesn't.

[Kiefer 2004]

Good. I fully support gay marriage.

I love the wording. Especially the "rational basis" part.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

[paul_v]

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways.

[Streetbull]

It shouldn't have been. Can you give me one good reason besides your imaginary friend frowning upon it against gay marriage? I'm glad this happened, less and less people are being oppressed by religious bigots nowadays.

Why can gays crap all over hetero traditions but heteros have to walk on eggshells around gays? Remember the TV commercial about calling something or someone 'gay'? This is just an attempt by people with an agenda to rub crap in the face of people with sacred traditions.

For 5000 years, marriage has been defined as being between people of the opposite sex. Those traditions have value. Gays had pretty much the same rights as hetero couples but wanted the word 'marriage' in there, just to be assh&&&s.

[SWORN]

NONE of that is backed up by research. You know what is backed up by SCIENTIFIC research though? The notion that children raised in gay couples will be perfectly normal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6562KX20100607

I liked the part where you addressed our criticisms. That was a very nice rational arguement.

Oh, and that second link you provided as "proof" is about the effects of divorce on children.

The first link just claims crap, doesn't provide citations, isn't an actual study. Actually, he tells you to go to another one of his articles, which is just him commenting on abstracts that he either disagrees or agrees with. And he seems to be claiming a huge pro-homosexuality element in modern psychology. If you want to be taken seriously as a Psychologist, which he claims, you have to write with the APA guidelines. This guy doesn't.

I have met my posting quota. Good day now

[JustAnotherUser]

I have met my posting quota. Good day now

"I'm tired of hearing facts that don't support my irrational and bigoted beliefs"

[Mr.Hombre]

Why can gays crap all over hetero traditions but heteros have to walk on eggshells around gays? Remember the TV commercial about calling something or someone 'gay'? This is just an attempt by people with an agenda to rub crap in the face of people with sacred traditions.

For 5000 years, marriage has been defined as being between people of the opposite sex. Those traditions have value. Gays had pretty much the same rights as hetero couples but wanted the word 'marriage' in there, just to be assh&&&s.

first part in bold: eh not entirely true...there was a time where you had to be of the same social class...and there was a time where you had to be of the same race. hell, just 40-50 years ago, black and whites of the opposite sex couldn't get married...you see the trend?

second part: you dont understand the concept of EQUAL rights do you?

[Cerulean]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

[NZDarren]

Why can gays crap all over hetero traditions but heteros have to walk on eggshells around gays? Remember the TV commercial about calling something or someone 'gay'? This is just an attempt by people with an agenda to rub crap in the face of people with sacred traditions.

For 5000 years, marriage has been defined as being between people of the opposite sex. Those traditions have value. Gays had pretty much the same rights as hetero couples but wanted the word 'marriage' in there, just to be assh&&&s.

Ahh its gays that are being prevented from getting married. They are being deinied the same rights as straight people.

What if gay people had marriage banned for straight people, would people consider that unconstitutional?

[hypnojedi]

Location: UK

Pray tell, you're qualifications for making such a broad and simple statement ... are?

One example, the partisan hand wringing and muck raking over Supreme Court candidates. The judicial branch of the US system simply reinforces the increasingly dictatorial nature of the executive branch. It's ridiculous that the justices are appointed by the president.

The Constitution is no good at all, this shows it was a rotten concept. Who is it protecting in this case? The state citizens came to a decision (albeit an ignorant one) yet they are over-ridden by a political appointee, unelected and practically unaccountable for over 20 years.

[Emmortal]

It was put to a vote and the people voted for what they want. Now some judge can decide it's unconstitutional?

Explain the unconstitutionality of it to me.

So if it was put to a vote that we bring back slavery and the majority wanted it, by your same logic, then by all means, bring back slavery!

You are a ****ing retard.

[gjohnson5]

did i fail?

You just fell off the Grand Canyon....

[T150]

The Constitution is no good at all, this shows it was a rotten concept.

Yet Ron Paul for 2012?

[SquatsNOats]

dem homosesuxals are takin er jerbs

lawd have mercy on this nation11!1!1!1!

[Streetbull]

first part in bold: eh not entirely true...there was a time where you had to be of the same social class...and there was a time where you had to be of the same race. hell, just 40-50 years ago, black and whites of the opposite sex couldn't get married...you see the trend?

second part: you dont understand the concept of EQUAL rights do you?

Marriage is defined as a social contract between men and women wherein society recognizes the children of such union as legitimate members of the society. Gay couples by definition do not produce (naturally) children. A union defined to be for the purpose of producing children as part of a society cannot therefore recognize a gay marriage -- it has no meaning.

Do you understand what marriage is?

You also don't understand what a 'right' is. Because rights are what you are born with and are part and parcel of the definition of Man, and marriage is merely a social contract, no one can have a 'right' to get married. Just as you have no right to a driver's license, you have no right to get married. Society decides who is allowed to marry, which was done by voting in the Proposition. For the judge to rule in this way was the mark of a judge who doesn't understand the difference between social contract and right -- another idiot judicial activist twit.

[Amsterdammerr]

Wow some of you guise are really really narrow minded rednecks lol
Glad I live in Europe(no homo) because I couldnt stand people like you all

[Frozen_By_You]

Wow some of you guise are really really narrow minded rednecks lol
Glad I live in Europe(no homo) because I couldnt stand people like you all

Same, except i live in Quebec, where gay marriage is alive and in full force and the sky has not fallen yet.

[Streetbull]

Same, except i live in Quebec, where gay marriage is alive and in full force and the sky has not fallen yet.

If you don't understand the difference between rights and social contracts/norms, it is not the fault of Americans.

Americans are the most moral people on earth. You'll laugh at that because you have no idea what morality is.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Then why was it put up for a vote?

There were disputes surrounding this very question. It's possible, though it has never been decided that the measure didn't go through the proper process per the California Constitution before it was qualified for the ballot.

Nonetheless, many issues regarding the rights of the minority have been decided by the Judicial Branch, often against popular opinion which should never be the deciding factor on such issues. As I pointed out in the other thread, Loving vs. Virginia never had approval over 50% until years after it was decided.

If permitting gay marriage had any effect on straight marriage, or it meant that religions would be forced to recognize them and/or conduct gay wedding ceremonies, that would be cause for a majority approval. Since neither of these are true, then the majority should have no say.

[GeorgeCarlinJr]

If you don't understand the difference between rights and social contracts/norms, it is not the fault of Americans.

Americans are the most moral people on earth. You'll laugh at that because you have no idea what morality is.

what the ****? rofl SERIOUSLY? how did you come to this conclusion?

[ONtop888]

If you don't understand the difference between rights and social contracts/norms, it is not the fault of Americans.

Americans are the most moral people on earth. You'll laugh at that because you have no idea what morality is.

I really could care less about banning gay marriage. It is fiscally insignificant, and it doesn't infringe on other peoples rights. If people don't agree with the morality of homosexual acts then promote that belief in whatever community you belong closest to.

[sb327]

If you don't understand the difference between rights and social contracts/norms, it is not the fault of Americans.

Americans are the most moral people on earth. You'll laugh at that because you have no idea what morality is.

wat