California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

I guess I'm asserting that people who engage in gay or other deviant sexual fixations from the biological norm are not "minorities". They aren't a cohesive group in any capacity other than their claim of engaging in aberrant sexual behaviors. That's why I chuckle when I see their handle as GLBT. It stands for "gay(male homosexual)lesbian, bisexual and transgender" people. Their binding cohesion? Practice of sexual contact outside heterosexual.

It would be the same as calling a group of people who pierced their nipples, belly button or groin as minority groups in contrast to people who do not pierce at all. Their "minority" status is an adopted behavior and not a recognizable or consistent inborn trait.

So if they are arguing descrimination, they'd better get their reading glasses out and look deeply into the recognized phenomenon of the AI industry and its factual knowledge of how sexual-preference is acquired and not inborn. Something that is acquired is avoidable up to a certain point until it becomes fixated. And because humans learn socially more than any other animal, to promote and acquired deviant behavior without first understanding its origins fully, or at least refusing to accept its proven origins (via the AI industry's findings and the known psychological phenomenon of molestee-memory-blackout), is foolishness in the highest order.

What gay lawyers are hoping is that society (aka the 7 CA Supreme Court Justices) will get so wrapped up in politically-correct blindness, that they will fail to see the origins of homosexuality as acquired and having no other cohesive identity other than the tweaking of normal sexual behavior, and overturn Prop 8 in an attempt to stay in the good graces of gay pressure.

Why do the gays fight so hard for wanting to be accepted as normal? (via society condoning their aberration in marriage) Because they know they're not and want to be? I think we should oblige them, but not in the way they'd planned on. I think we should uphold what "normal" is so that they can continue to have something to at least aspire to.

 

[top gun]

Would majority rule in this instance if the vote went differently?

Majority rules unless something is unconstitutional or violates a superseding valid & upheld standing law or ordinance.

But this may very well be the case in selectively limiting the civil rights to a particular group that is merely expressing free will & free expression in a way that in neither dangerous to society nor illegal (the act of being gay) by precluding them from access to a state sanctioned & governed legal contract (a marriage license).

 

[Sihouette]

Marriage has a very specific definition thanks to Prop 8. The voters have a right to define it any way they like. Any applicants for marriage that don't fall within those definitions may find other types of unions outside the word "marriage".

Feel free. Just don't try to seek legitimacy via the word marriage. Try: civil union. Oh, wait a minute, you already have that. What's the fuss about again? Oh, yes...you want society (and its impressionable youth) to be forced to see you as normal in spite of the fact that sexual aberration is an acquired deviance from normal. (are you sure this isn't a recruitment drive?)

Pardon the pun but you cannot "marry" the words 'normal' and 'deviant' together. Oil and water just don't mix. Marriage defines a normal sexual relation as between one adult man and one adult woman.

Will you be petitioning next for bigamy? Surely bigamists are born with a natural desire to have multiple partners? Should we descriminate against them in "marriage"? Logically that must follow gays' "rights" to marry..

 

[Sihouette]

I guess it's just really important to fully understand the origins of deviant sexuality before we consider that people who engage in deviant sexuality are some sort of cohesive "group". Otherwise we need to include bigamists and such under the same "rights" umbrella. Bigamy and sex with children, animals and objects also falls under the binding definition with the GLBT+ "deviations" from the adult heterosexual norms.

If we hear arguments against these other types of "love" getting married from GLBT people, we are hearing arguments of descrimination under the same logic they're using to promote their own selective deviations.

 

[Sihouette]

I'ts too bad that Mare Tranquility has disappeared. I never did quite get an answer from him/her/ about disallowing bigamists to be married under the same "we deviate from on man and one woman sex" "minority" group seeking "equal rights" in "marriage".

Because of course, naturally, once gays, lesbians and trannies start making arguments why bigamists cannot be married legally, they know they're treading on shakey ground.

Absolutely, mark my words. If the CA Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 (by either voting that way or allowing language to allow previous unions to stay "legal" thereby setting conditions of unfairness to other deviants) then no sooner is the ink dry on those documents will be the equally weighty arguments that bigamists must be allowed to marry.

Why only two people? Is that dualistic bigotry? And so on...

Pay attention oh Supreme Court Of California, because the stenographer is mindlessly typing away every word of the winning arguments for another attorney to step in, use and win their case for a whole new set of deviants. Why not? Why not them also? People who understand law and how precidents set the ground for future litigation and understand sharp lawyers will not see this possibility as a farce.

And so on..

 

[top gun]

I'ts too bad that Mare Tranquility has disappeared. I never did quite get an answer from him/her/ about disallowing bigamists to be married under the same "we deviate from on man and one woman sex" "minority" group seeking "equal rights" in "marriage".

Because of course, naturally, once gays, lesbians and trannies start making arguments why bigamists cannot be married legally, they know they're treading on shakey ground.

Absolutely, mark my words. If the CA Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 (by either voting that way or allowing language to allow previous unions to stay "legal" thereby setting conditions of unfairness to other deviants) then no sooner is the ink dry on those documents will be the equally weighty arguments that bigamists must be allowed to marry.

Why only two people? Is that dualistic bigotry? And so on...

Pay attention oh Supreme Court Of California, because the stenographer is mindlessly typing away every word of the winning arguments for another attorney to step in, use and win their case for a whole new set of deviants. Why not? Why not them also? People who understand law and how precidents set the ground for future litigation and understand sharp lawyers will not see this possibility as a farce.

And so on..

Yeah, yeah, yeah... and the whole world be be overrun by married gays and the men & women that don't turn gay will start to want to marry multiple sheep!

One word for you Siho... VALIUM!

 

[Sihouette]

Taking an argument to a farcical extreme doesn't smokescreen the facts for long "toppy"..

The facts are this and you know it: bigamists will have legal legs to stand on in pleas for marriage. We must include bigamists in the plea for equality in marriage this time aroud. It will save the taxpayers money so the Supreme Court won't have to sit in separate sessions for each new non one-man-to-one-woman marriage petition.

So now I would like to amend the Supreme Court's decision making process in California to include exactly which type of sexual deviants are to be recognized as "marryable" and which aren't. I want exact descriptions of the types of deviants and how to recognize one to keep the applicants within the boundaries of the specific legal language. In other words toppy I think you and I agree there needs to be language to keep out people from trying to marry sheep, or multiple partners, or children.

Laugh all you want but there really does need to be specific language describing which "non-traditional" marriages qualify and which don't. People as you know get carried away once the deviant pandora's box is opened.

So top gun, which exact sexual deviants may marry, and which may not? And why or why not? Specifics please..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Would majority rule in this instance if the vote went differently?

yes because you are not talking about taking away anyone's rights...and there is nothing constitutional that says they cant get married. US laws are not made but majority vote...if we had a vote to ban the republican party and 51% said yes....does that mean its legal to do it? no.

 

[Sihouette]

Look at it this way, the sexual deviants (well, some of them anyway that are "allowed" by the current sanctioned-group GLBT) are trying to take away the rights of the majority to define what marriage is, the actual word "marriage" itself. The GLBT community can do everything short of being recognized just by that actual word "marriage" so they really aren't being descriminated against.

And again, the deviant group needs to be expanded to include ALL deviances if you want to pit the argument that direction...now doesn't it? Bigamists, and NAMBLA members are conspicuously absent from inclusion in this "we're being oppressed" hissy fit. I move that bigamy is included in the current arguments since it will definitely be included in future ones with good cause and legal precident set by sexual deviants acheiving "marriage" eligibility. At least taxpayers could save some money by anticipating future litigation and lumping it all together.

 

[top gun]

Taking an argument to a farcical extreme doesn't smokescreen the facts for long "toppy"..

The facts are this and you know it: bigamists will have legal legs to stand on in pleas for marriage. We must include bigamists in the plea for equality in marriage this time aroud. It will save the taxpayers money so the Supreme Court won't have to sit in separate sessions for each new non one-man-to-one-woman marriage petition.

So now I would like to amend the Supreme Court's decision making process in California to include exactly which type of sexual deviants are to be recognized as "marryable" and which aren't. I want exact descriptions of the types of deviants and how to recognize one to keep the applicants within the boundaries of the specific legal language. In other words toppy I think you and I agree there needs to be language to keep out people from trying to marry sheep, or multiple partners, or children.

Laugh all you want but there really does need to be specific language describing which "non-traditional" marriages qualify and which don't. People as you know get carried away once the deviant pandora's box is opened.

So top gun, which exact sexual deviants may marry, and which may not? And why or why not? Specifics please..

Well I see you didn't take me up on the VALIUM and are still scared to death you might have a little gay tendency in ya!

Any two consenting adults of legal age not already bound by a marriage contract should be allowed have a legally recognized marriage contract with all it's rights and responsibilities.

Not bigomists... not man on sheep... not woman on washing machine... just two adults of consenting legal age.

It's really very simple when one just acts in a fair and non-homophobic way.

Don't worry Siho... they're not after you... you'd be way too much DRAMA!

 

[Sihouette]

Any two consenting adults of legal age not already bound by a marriage contract should be allowed have a legally recognized marriage contract with all it's rights and responsibilities.~ Topgun

Why only two, specifically?

You mean to tell me you, with your passion for supporting adult humans (OK, we can agree to make that distinction) being married no matter what type of sexual behavior they are flaunting, are (de facto) speaking out against more than two adults being in a married relationship by denying bigamists inclusion in the current pleas to the Supreme Court?

This is weird..

I know a few "arrangements" that include one man and two or more women or one woman and a couple of guys that all seem to love each other. If "love between adults" is the determining argument, are they also to be denied? Why? I really need you to give me specifics here...

Why not bigamy also? Are you descriminating against them based on the number of consenting adults? Why is more than two "amoral" or bad in your eyes...a bad idea? If it is 'love' between consenting adults, why can't their unions also be ordained before a minister and bound by the laws of marriage in the State of CA?

And if you are saying bigamists should be denied, but other deviances from one man and one woman be allowed, you are in fact descriminating against muslims and mormons because their religion allows taking more than one wife for men. Other cultures women are allowed to have more than one husband. These minority US citizens have been descriminated against long enough. They have rights to follow their ideas of 'love' too.....right?

 

[top gun]

Why only two, specifically?

You mean to tell me you, with your passion for supporting adult humans (OK, we can agree to make that distinction) being married no matter what type of sexual behavior they are flaunting, are (de facto) speaking out against more than two adults being in a married relationship by denying bigamists inclusion in the current pleas to the Supreme Court?

This is weird..

I know a few "arrangements" that include one man and two or more women or one woman and a couple of guys that all seem to love each other. If "love between adults" is the determining argument, are they also to be denied? Why? I really need you to give me specifics here...

Why not bigamy also? Are you descriminating against them based on the number of consenting adults? Why is more than two "amoral" or bad in your eyes...a bad idea? If it is 'love' between consenting adults, why can't their unions also be ordained before a minister and bound by the laws of marriage in the State of CA?

And if you are saying bigamists should be denied, but other deviances from one man and one woman be allowed, you are in fact descriminating against muslims and mormons because their religion allows taking more than one wife for men. Other cultures women are allowed to have more than one husband. These minority US citizens have been descriminated against long enough. They have rights to follow their ideas of 'love' too.....right?

HOMOPHOBIC SIHO STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

The ooooh scary types of sexual behavior you always squeal about is already happening and disallowing 2 consenting adults marriage doesn't change that in any way.

Furthermore There's a whole big lot of heterosexual men having anal sex with their wives, sodomy!

Not to mention S&M and Bondage and a whole laundry list of sexual perversions absolutely marriable!

As far as the multiple marriages we've been all over that before and it's quit simple to understand. With multiple legally married partners you would be setting up detrimental effects onto other people.

Such as property rights, inheritance rights and even possible child custody issues.

Just leave it that you think about being gay a lot and you don't need anymore temptation. That's totally understandable.

 

[Sihouette]

I think you're doing a straw diversion...

You haven't addressed why you think it should only be between two deviants and not three or more. Or between two heterosexuals and not three or more?

Specifics, and no deflecting this time. Why not bigamy? Why?


The issue I'm hemming you in on of course is that we have just a selective group of deviants pleading for inclusion while shutting others out. This whitewashes their "cause" with legitimacy you see, because they know damn well that if they are gracious and are really all about "love" in whatever form getting a fair shake, they know it will start to cross some boundaries that people just aren't willing to cross.

So they are descriminating against bigamists and others in their pet cause. The hot diversion courtesy of Topgun illustrates just how much they want to keep this little snag under wraps until they get what they want. They already have what they want: civil unions. What they're really after is society's stamp of approval for their deviant unions. And we can boil that down into: they want homosexuality to be seen as normal to increase the number of people who will have homosexual encouters at that critical age of puberty and become fixated in that preference.

I said it before: it's a recruitment drive couched in a "civil rights" movement. Only the thing that supposedly minoritizes these folks is an adopted preference for deviant sexuality. Hardly an inborn trait that people are ganging up against. We have a right as a society to determine "norms" in behavior, not in DNA, by majority rule. Gays are seeking to usurp that.

 

[Sihouette]

Of course in order to accept my previous posts, you have to accept that the AI industry exists and has found that sexual preference is not only learned around puberty, but can also be trained specifically and fixated, even on inanimate objects, across many different mammalian species...nearly all mammals that exhibit a malleable childhood..of which humans are the paramount example of said.

And when you factor in that human primates are the apex of social learners...well...making homosexuality "normal" via the stamp of marriage kinda starts lookin' like a recruitment drive, doesn't it?

Don't say I'm against male on male action. Bulls mounting the steers they were trained to prefer is great around BBQ time. Many more cows can be serviced this way by one choice bull. But we're not talking about cattle. Teaching homosexuality via example (see legitimizing the behavior via marriage) is not what the majority of CA voters want to do for its human "herd".

Case closed.

 

[top gun]

Of course in order to accept my previous posts, you have to accept that the AI industry exists and has found that sexual preference is not only learned around puberty, but can also be trained specifically and fixated, even on inanimate objects, across many different mammalian species...nearly all mammals that exhibit a malleable childhood..of which humans are the paramount example of said.

And when you factor in that human primates are the apex of social learners...well...making homosexuality "normal" via the stamp of marriage kinda starts lookin' like a recruitment drive, doesn't it?

Don't say I'm against male on male action. Bulls mounting the steers they were trained to prefer is great around BBQ time. Many more cows can be serviced this way by one choice bull. But we're not talking about cattle. Teaching homosexuality via example (see legitimizing the behavior via marriage) is not what the majority of CA voters want to do for its human "herd".

Case closed.

You'd like the case closed I'm sure... but of course it's not at all.

I'm just saying that it's been highly documented that bi-curious people often suppress these feelings by acting out against the very sexual orientation they are in fact attracted to.

I'm not saying this is necessarily true in your case... you do see this over & over again though even with Priests and Evangelists. I think a really good portrayal of this is in the movie American Beauty with the former Marine Colonel and his neighbor.

We can watch this dynamic play out... maybe it will hit a cord.