Calif. Sup Ct. overturns ban on gay marriages.

[rn79870]

probate, wills, estates; I don't see that there is any change here. As the law stands, a testator is free to dispose of his personal/real property as he chooses. Beneficiary orientation should play no part in this.

community property. In CA, CP is a form of property owner ship that is vested in a husband and wife. It passes to the surviving spouse without probate on the demise of the partner, or when the judge hacks it up and gives it to the female upon divorce. Gay marriage may actually work to equalize community property divisions in dissolution proceedings. Ironic.

health care, Probably provides nothing, as I understand that CA has already allowed "partners" to be included in the health care provisions of employee benefit's.

taxation, etc etc etc. Now it appears that CA taxes may be subject to same sex marriage provisions. (Married filing jointly).I think the IRS will continue to disallow it (I believe they do so now).

Any estate planners feel free to jump in with your opinions here.

[Leuthesius]

All they are doing is giving Gay couples tax breaks. The reason that married couples (traditional ones, that is) receive tax breaks, is because they produce CHILDREN, which produce more population, which produces more of a tax base.

Gay couples produce no children. Period. What is the point in them receiving that tax breaks when they lack the pen15 and/or Vagina counterpart to create a chromosomal mixture (more specifically, planted to the placental wall rather than in a pool on the other guy's back)?

I am not opposed to gay marriage. If a church wants to marry two men, or two women, then they can be married. I oppose the tax breaks they receive because of the "union", and I oppose the possibility of them adopting children.

[skylndrftr]

I'm fine with civil unions. I'm fine with relationships that are outside the "norm", and I'm fine with being tolerant if I must. But quit shoving it down my damn throat, or there's gonna be a backlash.

Actually no one is shoving anything down your throat really...

This was actually a relatively legally conservative decision by the court. It used legal precedent in the form of previous rulings overturning bans on interracial marriage. They didn't come up with this on their own, they just used the law.

I kinda like this discussion, its fun to see peoples prejudices come out. But just for fun, go back and change every reference to 'gay marriage' to 'inter racial marriage' and see how it sounds, because thats where the ruling came from.

[AZhitman]

How convenient to call something a "prejudice" when it's a position.

I could just as easily classify certani folks as "prejudiced" against Christians, conservatives, or people of high moral fiber.

Let's leave the word "prejudice" where it belongs, because this isn't an example of it.

[ArizonaG35]

I'm kinda late to the party here, but I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring on this one.

Fundamentally, the human being is not designed to be sexually active with the same sex. This is why we are designed with "pegs and holes". Look at every species on the planet and you'll see that there sole purpose in life is to get food and procreate in order to expand their species population. The entire foundation of species success in the order of life is it's ability to find a successful mate with strong genes so that their offspring can have the highest level of gene structure and ensure future generations of healthy, dominant procreators only to continue the cycle.

Homosexuality by definition is the act of two same sex individuals performing sexual acts upon each other for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. Although gratification is a fundamental perk of sexuality, it should not be the basis for sexual activity. When we as a society place the emphasis on gratification as opposed to procreation, we open up the pandora's box of immoral behavior. However, when immoral behavior becomes the precedent for a society, then a total breakdown of all ethics are thrown out the window and historically the society will fail. Sexual gratification is a selfish act, to which we are all wired to seek. None of us is immune to this desire, however, we must redirect our focus to procreation to strengthen the moral fiber in our society.

I find it funny that the homosexual community has claimed to be "victimized" by the AIDS epidemic and rampant sexually transmitted diseases, however they openly embrace the lifestyle choice of sexual promiscuity and multiple sex partners. Why is it that you don't see many 70 and 80 year old gay couples? They are systematically cleansing their own pool of homosexuals by means of life threatening diseases for which they have brought upon themselves. AIDS is the ONLY disease on the planet that can be transmitted by social choices... this is lifes way of cleaning up the "unnecessary's".

My uncle and his "life partner" live in Santa Barbara California. About 16 years ago, they decided that they wanted to adopt a child. So at the time, there was a lot of news about children being abandoned in Romania... they hopped on a plane and bribed a Romanian judge with a case of whiskey to expedite the paperwork. In a couple days, they had a healthy baby boy back in their home. They loved him unconditionally, but he always had emotional problems. He was very insecure and could never fit into the mainstream of society. He is very smart and speaks several languages, but lacks that certain ability to successfully socialize in groups. One may say that this is due to a very distressed infancy in Romania, but I disagree. I witnessed his constant hatred/anger towards my uncle and his partner. He never respected them and constantly called them "f***"... this really hurt my uncle and he even told me one time that he really regretted adopting the boy because it just didn't work with a gay couple. I sincerely believe that there was NEVER any inappropriate behavior between the gay couple and the child, but it simply did not work very well.

In summation, I don't believe that a society should embrace any form of unhealthy lifestyles as they are only detrimental to the fiber of the society. When at first we attempt to foster immoral behavior, then we gradually increase our acceptance of more and more inappropriate "lifestyle choices", eventually resulting in the total destruction of the structure of society. I feel that the courts should not support such a measure to endorse homosexual "marriages" as this will only lead to further socially damaging issues.

I'm not preaching that I'm a saint here guys... I've done my fair share of "immoral" acts in my life, but i've grown up since then.

Just my thoughts...

Dave

[AZhitman]

^ Interestingly put.

Of course, it'll get thrown on the heap of "conservative rantings" and "Bible-thumping zealotry" without being given any real consideration...

Let me restate - I don't necessarily have an issue with the Court's decision, or the existence of gay couples.

I'm a TRUE "live and let live" kind of guy (something many libbies PREACH but don't PRACTICE)...

I think a lot of us who have kids are getting to the point where the mainstream media has pushed, and pushed, and pushed the boundaries to the point where we're saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Might even be worth a new thread - Who's clamoring for more sex and inappropriate language on TV? Is there a "repressed group" out there who just can't get enough?

[Encryptshun]

Having the Courts, ANY OF THEM, say that Gay marriage is ok sends a bad example IMO. What example is that? That it's ok to be Gay and you'll be openly excepted. It's not a Left or a Right problem, it's ALL of our problem.

For those of you that don't care, what about your kids? Want your boy to suck d!ck and get his *** ****ed?

Don't give me this genetic **** either, faggots are the recourse of bad parenting.

Having a child adopted by a gay couple is a good thing? I stronglu disagree. The child is already going to have mental issues, then you throw him in with a couple of dudes as daddy and daddy. Yeah, he's going to turn out well. There are normal couples waiting in line to adopt, they are waiting because of red tape. It's Not because there aren't enough willing parents.

One system has nothing to do with the other. Although both are closely related because they revolve around bad parenting.

WD

So why don't you offer up some statistics on the psychological effects of growing up with same-sex parents versus, say, the effects from smoking pot?

[ArizonaG35]

^ Interestingly put.

Of course, it'll get thrown on the heap of "conservative rantings" and "Bible-thumping zealotry" without being given any real consideration...

I figured that might happen... so be it. Just my viewpoint on the issue... actually I'm more of a "Big picture" kind of person so I didn't even really address the detailed societal repricussions of such a measure, I figured I might get banned if I didn't censor myself a bit... besides, I wrote enough as it is...

I'm a TRUE "live and let live" kind of guy (something many libbies PREACH but don't PRACTICE)...

Hey, I'm right there with you on the live and let live thing brother... and I think that is exactly what they should do... Just STFU and live and let live without getting the courts involved...

I think a lot of us who have kids are getting to the point where the mainstream media has pushed, and pushed, and pushed the boundaries to the point where we're saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

See... point proven. That's what happens when we first start to accept immoralities... we continue to press the issues until they fester into resentment and eventually there will be a major fallout in one direction or the other.

Who's clamoring for more sex and inappropriate language on TV? Is there a "repressed group" out there who just can't get enough?

Again, I'm no saint... I won't be the first to pass up watching Girl on Girl on Girl on Girl on Guy action, but that's in the privacy of my own home. The difference is that I'm not trying to plea to the courts to uphold my right to crank off a few knuckle children in my own home. I think that if society was responsible enough to decipher the difference between reality and fantasy, then we could handle more graphic language and stronger sexual content, but the fact of the matter is that in a society so focused on instant gratification and individual superiority we simply can't handle that type of liberal consumption. With the current generations ability to rationalize their every wrong doing with no punishment, we would see a huge increase in sexually based crimes that would continue our downward spiral.

Just my $.02

Dave

[rn79870]

Dave makes a good point, albeit one that others have made, which leads to this question. What is a parent to do when explaining the facts of life to a kid. Talk about alternate lifestyles? What about a gay couple, are they going to tell their kids that their life style is viewed by many as a sick and degenerate life style?

[wawazat8402]

ArizonaG35, I completely respect how well you put your opinion, even though I disagree.

How do we decide which are morally superior to decide the direction of society? Many people of every religious background claim they are morally superior, however, every religion has as many immoral acts committed under its roof as can be found under the roof of a brothel.

I have found in my short life that there are very few people, regardless of cultural, religious, or financial background that are truly moral people. When I say this, Im not including minor acts such as stealing a piece of candy as a young child or speeding on public roadways. Every church I went to through high school had several people that would take an elderly persons last penny if given an opportunity. Deacons daughters were getting drunk and being promiscuous only to sit on the front row of church the next day pretending nothing had happened.

Basically my belief is that no one has the answer for a moral society, they can only work to be moral in their own choices and hope others do the same. If we all would take as much time to live our own lives right as we take to tell others how to live theirs, we would turn out to be a more moral society.

[wawazat8402]

Additionally, to address the comment on species being here to eat and procreate. Homosexuality has been found in other animals as well.

This an interesting read. Dont be turned off by "sodomy" in the link.http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

[ishkabibble]

I think it's fine. Most of the homosexuals I know are overall more moral and have contributed far more to society than the people who use words like "faggots" to describe them. Same goes for the kids of gay couples.

"God Bless America, if you don't like it...the door is open and you can GTFO!!!"

^ I hate statements like that. All it does is show you have no clue about what this country is all about. If anyone should leave, it's the fascists.

[rn79870]

The bottom line is that homosexuality is (and there isn't a nice way to say this) a freak of nature. It is not a natural act. In fact, biologically it can not support itself (gay couples can't conceive children on their own) and would lead to the end of a blood lines. It is a genetic dead end for the participants. Procreation still requires an xy and an xx, the way nature intended it.

This isn't meant as a derogatory comment, and no offense is intended to any individual, gay or otherwise.

[ishkabibble]

Funny how the right wing cites gayness as wrong because it's unnatural yet feels humans are some special creation which is above nature. Not specifically directing this at you, rn, just an observation.

Nature doesn't intend anything. It just lets the strongest survive, and that's about it.

[Encryptshun]

The bottom line is that homosexuality is (and there isn't a nice way to say this) a freak of nature. It is not a natural act. In fact, biologically it can not support itself (gay couples can't conceive children on their own) and would lead to the end of a blood lines. It is a genetic dead end for the participants. Procreation still requires an xy and an xx, the way nature intended it.

This isn't meant as a derogatory comment, and no offense is intended to any individual, gay or otherwise.

So maybe it's nature's way of naturally decreasing population growth? Curbing "reproductive instinct" isn't really enough from an evolutionary perspective -- sex is still a craving and accidents do happen. Of course with science now, sex isn't required for reproduction...so that's a thumb in Darwin's eye.... Now where did I put my Barbara Streisand DVD?

[rn79870]

The problem with your post ish is the fact that humans have evolved to the point that laws take the place of nature. There is no longer a "survival" of the fittest. Even the weak survive. All this flies inthe face of natural seletion and allows the "other than normal" to exist.

[AZhitman]

Funny how the right wing cites gayness as wrong because it's unnatural yet feels humans are some special creation which is above nature.

The fact that we are the only species possessing qualities exceeding those necessary for procreation & survival should tell you something about evolution as it applies to humankind.

Let me restate what I said in another thread:

All non-human creatures possess ONLY the evolutionary components to survive, reproduce and thrive. Humans possess thousands of additional high-level traits that serve no useful purpose in an evolutionary continuum.

The ability to compose music is just one of the multitude of seemingly unnecessary abilities we possess - Explain its role in evolution.

We are a special creation, but not "above nature". Microevolution applies to all living things, but until you can point out some "intermediate species" to fill in the gaps, there's no way I'm buying our origins in the muck-hole.

We HAVE certainly "micro-evolved". Less hair (no need), less pronounced brow (also no need), more upright stance (more efficient), taller, more finite motor skills, etc.

I believe if you could FF 10,000 years, you'd see us trending towards looking like those alien pictures... bigger heads, longer fingers, thin and frail (as technology does all the work for us). Microevolution - NOT the development of new species.

[Encryptshun]

The ability to compose music is just one of the multitude of seemingly unnecessary abilities we possess - Explain its role in evolution.

Attraction of mates, mang. Same as any other. Music is a "language" -- a form of expression. As our brains evolved, our method of expression steered away from the physical plumage and somewhere the mental traits became more desirable.

The "exile" from Eden is a nearly perfect prophetic parable speaking to the evolutionary point where our genetic "strength" ceased to be our bodies and started to be our minds -- therfore rendering the belief in God (which has always been used to fill in gaps in our understanding of our environment) obsolete.

*sorry, that's not mean to be "religion" but does reference a very popular story which seems to be at the crux of this debate.

[AZhitman]

I can appreciate your explanation - that's good stuff, and I think you're onto something.

However, it's interesting how non-believers classify their thinking as "higher-level" and Creationism as "obsolete", yet don't provide much in the way of alternate explanations to "fill in the gaps".

Composition of music was the example that came to mind - what about other traits that seem to serve no useful pro-procreation purpose?

I mean, we could twist any trait into a "positive" if we wanted to, right?

[Encryptshun]

^ Greg, you always impress me with your ability to be passionate and fervent in your beliefs yet still hold civil conversation. I wish others would follow your example.

Maybe this is a debate for a different topic. But it will be impossible to discuss thoroughly without breaking the "no religion" rule.

Which brings back the question -- where religion crosses politics, how do you talk about one without talking about the other?

[AZhitman]

Good question.

Screw it. Let's go drink beer and pick up chicks.

[Encryptshun]

Good question.

Screw it. Let's go drink beer and pick up chicks.

[audtatious]

Good question.

Screw it. Let's go drink beer and pick up chicks.

Sorry, but I won't be joining you. I have beer and a wife upstairs

[ishkabibble]

There is no longer a "survival" of the fittest. Even the weak survive.

Not true. Look at major outbreaks of deadly disease - the black plague on a large scale, ebola on a smaller scale. The weak die, the strong/immune survive. In the future, it will be the people who can tolerate the most pollution that will survive.

Greg, I already countered your points.

You cannot argue with creationists. They are, by the nature of their argument, irrational, and will believe what they want to believe no matter what you say. So, I'll bow out of this discussion.

Signed,

h0m0 Erectus

[rn79870]

Ish, I don't think that was the point of Greg's post at all. Greg was addressing the holes in the evolutionary theory. There are holes. I'm not saying intelligent design fills those holes.

Natural selection was effective in the past, as man evolved to his current position, however, being weak is no longer the death sentence it once was. Science, laws and society in general have usurped the natural selection process. The more tolerant society becomes the further micro evolution removes itself from man's future. I don't see man evolving to to a different level in the future as Greg does, in fact, I see the opposite happening. Lack of evolutionary pressures will result in more weak genes on the gene pool.

[AZhitman]

You cannot argue with evolutionists. They are, by the nature of their argument, irrational, and will believe what they want to believe no matter what you say. So, I'll bow out of this discussion.

Fixed that for ya.

Like I said, those evolutionists are quite the elitist bunch, with their supposed "superior intellect" and their belief that they're the "rational" ones.

Interestingly, science leans more and more towards an acceptance of I.D. every year.

Call it arguing if you like - I call it discussion. Then again, I'm not so sure I made it past h0m0 Habilis, so maybe I'm borderline retarded.

[AZhitman]

I just now read an article (Popular Science) that claims to have found a "missing link" between whales and land-based animals.

They show a pic of a fossil. Calling it "Indohyus". Looks like a miniature T-Rex.

Some pointy-head says, through analysis of its DNA, that it lived in the surf, ate plants, and was about deer-size.

Ummm, exqueeze me? This is what came between whales and land critters? A deformed deer?

And this is the first one you've found? Where's the rest? Where's the thing that's more whale-like, less deer-like?

Hell, there's a Brontosaurus in every damn museum. There's millions of prehistoric fossil fishes, there's tons of skeletons of weird dinosaurs from early history...

And these guys are jerking the gherkin over this "walking whale" that looks more like a cross between a kangaroo and a housecat?

Great quote: "Scientists know that Indohyus belongs in the evo path with whales because it has skeletal similarities to modern whales and known primordial whale ancestors."

Anyone ever stop to think this is the only one because it was a friggin' freak of nature? Something deformed to the extent that its Mama kicked it to the curb and let it starve?

Lots of creatures have whale-like skeletal structures. Look it up.

God forbid we'd dug up ol' John Merrick thousands of years ago - They'd have mistaken him for something other than modern man.

Remember kids, 50% of scientists graduated in the bottom half of their class.

Think about it.

[rn79870]

I think you're confusing scientist with female civil servants who work for the government.

[audtatious]

Lack of evolutionary pressures will result in more weak genes on the gene pool.

Unfortunately we see that more and more on a daily basis

[ishkabibble]

Unfortunately we see that more and more on a daily basis

<- yeah, just look at this guy