Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Bill D Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:48 PM "That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am. Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses. Good grief! JohnP's post didn't claim anything about total numbers! "closer to the middle of the spectrum" refers to the position, relative to other configurations. Of course, heterosexuality in more common! Genetics just determines occasional variations, like white tigers and very tall people! Ake and GfS strike me as persons who are emotionally sure they know the 'truth', and therefore shove everything they read into some logical pattern that 'fits' what they are already convinced of. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM You are quite right, but the avoidance of fertility is much harder to guarantee in incestuous marriages. Both my sisters were quite fertile, for example. (Not that I was even tempted!) SDame sex marriages are quite safer. And I woudl say to you once again that you really need to differentiate -- the health hazard is not caused by marriage and in fact is lessened by it. So you are defeating your own bias here. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM Sanity is perfectly correct, if the scientists were anywhere close to isolating a homosexual gene, it would be trailed across the "liberal" media daily. It just does not exist, if it did exist, it would be the simplest thing in the world to isolate, given the "progress" made in genetic research over the past decade. Sanity is also correct to question why "rights" should be granted to one behavioural minority and not all. Marriage rights are denied to couples in incestuous relationships and many other types of sexual relationships...health grounds are cited.....I would submit that incestuous sexual relationships if not used for the production of children, are much less dangerous to health than the lifestyle of the average homosexual. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM Your VAST majority is typical distribution along a Gaussian curve, Ake. A bell-curve. JP's point is probably true--pure hetros are the ctral peak of the bell, and bi-sexuals to either side. It depends, of course on what you are charting and how you go about it. Nothing idiotic about it! A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 18 Aug 10 - 11:23 AM That is the most idiotic post I've read for some considerable time, 10:18am. Homos and Bis are compose a tiny part of the "spectrum", the vast majority are heterosexuals,with normal sexual impulses. If that were not the case, prospects for the continuation of the human race would be bleak indeed. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 18 Aug 10 - 10:18 AM Like most other things in this world, sexual orientation is a spectrum, with some people completely one or the other and most people somewhere in between. Bisexuals are closer to the middle of the spectrum. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Patsy Date: 18 Aug 10 - 08:47 AM Where do bisexuals stand in all of this, is it the genes or a case of having their cake and eating it as well so to speak? |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 18 Aug 10 - 02:03 AM "Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!. Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it." You cannot possibly lump all those together. It would be too insanely ignorant. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:56 PM Seems clear ya don't know much about recessive genes or adaptation. In any case, there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that it is not a matter of an act of will. So why legislate against it? That's just stupid, like legislating against tooth decay. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Aug 10 - 11:36 PM That link was no more PROOF that it is genetic than the Popsicle man going by. Don Firth's posted link earlier was a study done after, the date on the link, posted more recently. That study confirms that it has not been isolated to a gene,..and it was done by a homosexual researcher. For that, I give him credit, for not having his outcome determined by his 'preference'. As to the law, a black man and woman heterosexual, having a child,will have a black child....But in your thinking, a hetero man, and a hetero woman, will bear a combination of mutated cells, grouped together, to make a homosexual. THAT is the sticking point, boys and girls...and California is delaying lifting the ban, as of yesterday, because that very issue has been raised, among others, and now the Constitutionality is being challenged. The Ninth Federal Appeals Court agrees, and now the question goes on. So, AH-HA, nothing. You are prematurely reading into what the link is saying, and the courts have not found that argument to be conclusive. However, as I have said before, and continue to say, and I am accurate, the receptors can be conducive in grouping genes together, in the womb, depending on the Mother, and her responses, and emotional state(if you will). The Mother and child are linked together, and those impulses are set up, during gestation. Now, I've said that before, and whether or not homosexuality is looked upon as a moral issue as not, does not change that FACT!. Can the same be said about pedophiles? ....or polygamists?....bestiality??..celibates??...necrophiliacs?...any number of sexual 'preferences'. It's just that this one has everyone emotionally whacked over it. I'm sure the courts will have all that at their disposal.....until then..... Objectively, GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:43 PM Besides-- what is special privilege about the right to have one's union with another recognized under law? We of the hetero persuasion take it for granted as a right. Why should it be denied on the basis of sexua orientation? And why are we doing Groundhog Day on this discussion? A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM GfS- What age were you when you chose to be heterosexual? You must surely remember such a momentus decision. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:08 PM Ah-HAH!!! Try THAT on your little ukulele, GoofuS!! Thanks, Bill! I felt sure they'd nail it sooner or later. Don Firth P. S. And you were being snotty, GfS. And childishly so. The idiot games you keep playing with my name when your back is against the wall is worthy of a petulant second grader. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:32 PM Wow. Interesting finding. Especially: "By using all these variables, we were able to predict sexual orientation in 95 per cent of the cases," she said. It sounds like they are zeroing in on it. I have a friend who is gay, as is his sister. Their brother is not. Interesting stuff. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Bill D Date: 16 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM actually.....research HAS closed in on the issue and more Took me 15 seconds to find 2 quick articles. Many others out there...yes, including from those who do not WISH to believe the science, just as they do not WISH to believe in Global Climate Change caused by humans. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 09:25 PM I wasn't being 'snotty'...I was quoting you...and trying to make sense of it. Look, chances are the 'marriage' ban will be lifted, but it would only come as a twisting of the law, as it stands. It doesn't make it right, but it IS agenda driven...not by rule of law. That's what is called 'corruption'! OK, back to your genetics research, Doc! GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:26 PM Rave on, little critter. There is ample evidence that gender orientation is indeed genetic to make the civil rights issue valid. You can be as snotty and insulting as you want, but it still doesn't make you right. Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 07:05 PM You know, after I posted my last post, I re-read Firth's again...let me comment: First: ""No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't."" Just think about your statement..."WE do NOT know"...so in my mind I don't want to believe it????? Actually, I'd rather believe in what we DO know!!..How about you, Mr. Fantasy? Mr. Fantasy First: "I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be." Now you're a 'geneticists'....I thought you were a radio news guy, who just read what they gave you??....When did you promote yourself?..or is that just more of your 'fantasy speculations'????? I can't believe that you want to go through this again...but then, just because it's you, maybe you do!!! (Symptoms of psychotic, includes doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...in other words, They just don't learn, from repeated mistakes!!) Suggestion: Relax, just read the mail. GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM Amos Lightfoot: "A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute. Civil status, such as marriage, can not be with held do to race, creed, or color. Civil status, and the statutes regarding them are determined, by democratic process. That vote has never passed. Perhaps we should be run by the courts, and their interpretation?...and if that was the case, under what grounds do you make an exception? Race, creed or color?? Preference??..of any kind?? Nobody, even our illustrious Mr. Firth, has been able to produce ANYTHING in which Homosexuals, should get preferential treatment, and/or exceptions to the law. Donny Firth: "No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case. I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be." That is speculation. Since when have 'civil rights' issues, regarding the law, are passed on speculation????? You need to do a bit better....shit, let's speculate that 2012 everything is going to be destroyed..and pass a law that we party till then, at government expense!!..EQUALLY!! Nope!..Bad foundation to build a case on!! GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM "We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it???" No, GfS, we do NOT know that it is not genetic. YOU don't want to believe it, so in your mind, it isn't. But there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that gender orientation IS genetic. The specific gene or genes have not been isolated yet, but the basic principles of genetics established by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century definitely point to this being the case. I, and many geneticists, feel confident that the gene(s) will be found soon. If it hasn't been yet, that doesn't mean that it won't be. Only a small percentage of genes in general have actually been isolated and identified as to their function, and the project is on-going. Trying to claim that gender-orientation is not genetic is way premature and no reputable geneticist would ever make that claim. No matter how much you, personally, wish it to be true. Also, attempts to "cure" homosexuality have been a dismal failure, usually resulting in high rates of recidivism, or recipients of these "cures" simply abandoning sexual activity entirely, which is hardly evidence of a successful cure. A fairly large percentage of the latter wind up suffering from serious depression, and there has been a fairly high rate of suicides by supposedly "cured" homosexuals. Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:25 PM A civil status is being unequally administered on the basis of a pre-judgement concerning a personal attribute. The civil status needs to be administered equitably. What is so hard to understand about that? We are not talking about religion or any other form of sanctimony, thank you. We are talking about civil statuses and who may enjoy them or not. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 03:04 PM How so?? GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:04 PM It is in fact a matter of civil rights. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM GfS: ...So, what BOTH of you are saying...." What I meant by BOTH, is that between you, you are equating a 'civil right' issue, (genetic), to a behavioral(non genetic) issue. Different animal. GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM That's not at all what I am saying. Are you off your freaking meds? I don't have time to do your homework for you just now. But don't twist words. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:45 PM I didn't say any such thing, gfs. Nor did I imply it. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM Well put, John. I'll check in again in another thousand posts or so. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:27 PM So, what both of you are saying is that nobody has a reason, or proof that it is genetic...which I agree!...So, it may, in fact be behavioral, right? Comparing it to 'left-handed/right-handed' is therefore, not true, being as that is genetic..comparing it to blacks, also genetic, again not true. OK, just checking........ (Hint: It has to do with receptors).....which is not a 'civil rights' issue....but a behavioral one)...That is a FACT! GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM I know lots of gay people. I've asked them how they "became" gay. ALL of them report being gay right from when they first became sexually aware, or horribly conflicted until they finally realized/admitted they were gay. No where in any of that is any choice. gfs, do you remember when you were 12 or 13 or whenever you first became interested in members of the opposite sex? Was there any chance at all that you would pay attention to members of the same sex instead? Did you have any choice in the matter? Do you really think there's a bunch of 13 year olds wracked with hormones and coming to grips with being a sexual being who are saying, "Gee, I think I'll be gay! All those raging hormones that are pointing me towards girls can be ignored! I'll pay attention to other little boys instead!" Besides, even if it were a choice, where do you get off telling other people what to do in bed? I know, I know, they can do anything they like in bed, yadda yadda yadda. But you support punishing them for it by insisting that they remain second class citizens. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM We know no such thing, Madam. Some of us believe we know as much; others of us accept the ongoing scientific process reported inn peer-reviewed journals (some mentioned upthread) which offer no such hard conclusion. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM John P: "Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group NOT OF THEIR CHOOSING is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing." John P: " Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals." John, can you do the same?????? PROVE, that it is the same! Can you back up your position??? We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it??? GfS |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:58 AM An interesting legal question has been pointed out, namely, that there may be no appellant to the Supreme Court to defend Prop 8 who would also have legal standing to do so in the Court's eyes: article here explains why. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:29 PM Apologies mousethief, dont know how I linked you with the remark...maybe it wasn't on this thread. It had to do with the idea that a majority would favour the return of the death penalty for murder. I never intentionally lie on this forum or in real life...you little snake! Guest D....I like your posts...hope you stick around and become a member |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM Nicely put, Guest David. It is a good question how we have been induced to generate such antagonistic costumes for each other! A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,David E. Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM "'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal." And heaven knows that these days we are either one or the other in each others eyes. David E. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM 'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:28 AM Mousethief mentions the death penalty I did? Where? Ah. No reply. You must realize you were lying. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:10 AM You are so full of it- unlike Amos, I don't say that with the deepest respect because in my opinion you are a sadly deluded person. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:59 AM Ebbie.."You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question. .." You are quite wrong Ebbie, those who bring left politics into disrepute ARE the "liberals".....a group of people who whine about the conditions of minorities, yet have no intention of facing up to the real problems of society and the corporate system. Pseudo lefties, the chattering classes, they don't want "change" at all!.......how dare they attempt to compare themselves to Dr King or those who took real risks in supporting him. The recovery to reasonable health of "Fidel" in Cuba has made me very happy, like it or not, Fidel's regime is the closest thing to socialism we are likely to see in our lifetime. Fidel should be an inspiration to all left thinking people.....but could never, and would never wish to be termed a "liberal"....Ake. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:37 AM Amos......Are you really tryin to contend that all should have the same "civil rights".....regardless of behaviour? This is patently untrue. Many minorities have their "rights" curtailed because of health or safety issues. Rights are assigned by pressure groups, not "democratic govt" |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM Mousethief mentions the death penalty I did? Where? |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:18 AM Moments ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions opposing a stay of Judge WalkerÕs decision to overturn Prop. 8. This is the kind of extraordinary leadership we need from the next governor and attorney generalÑthe kind Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris will deliver. Thank you to everyone who has signed our petition to Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, urging them not to defend Prop. 8 in Court. (From Equality California, a liberal activist conscientious progressive group.) |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM Ake: There's nothing compassionate about any of your statements here. You are so confused about cause and effect, and your own emotions versus matters at law, that you are hollering from way off the mark. I'm sorry, but it is true. Here's the point: CIVIL rights are a separate and distinct matter from love, hate, approbation or revulsion. Your states of affinity have NO bearing. Medical statistics have no bearing. Religious convolutions have no bearing. What has a bearing is evidence at law concerning the equality with which peopkle are treated by others, or lack of it. That is the only thing at issue here--the equality of civil rights. The OTHER issues you raise are matters for a DIFFERENT discussion, not a matter of civil law or civil rights for a minority. (You are equally misguided on some of them as well, but I say that with the sincerest respect!! :D) A |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 10 - 06:16 PM As I recall (having been around in the 1960s) the same argument, that equal rights is a heinous plot by the "liberal mafia," was heavily used by rabid racists. . . . one sick puppy!! Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM "The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood." ake sheesh I realize you are not American, ake, no matter how often you say "we", but you might note that in recent years the politicians caught in embarrassing same-sex encounters have not been liberal- whatever that means, in this context - but conservative Republicans. You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:23 PM Tia ....Only if left handedness led to higher rates of HIV, higher than normal rates of psychiatric illness, or much lower life expectancy! |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:16 PM Mousethief mentions the death penalty, and that is rather a good example of what I mean by the conditionality of "rights". Although I am against the death penalty on principle, there are certain crimes, for example the rape and murder of babies or small children, which are so abhorrent and against all natural laws.... are so utterly beyond redemption, that removing these people permanently from the human race seems the only option. I would happily put these people out of their misery personally. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM For the trillionth time Amos "human rights" as presented by the current "liberal" mafia, are not universal, but conditional on the behavior of the people involved. The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood. Once the media ball starts rolling, opportunistic politicians jump onto the bandwagon and use the issue to boost their "liberal" credentials....and the beat goes on. The victims are homosexuals themselves, who are left with the "normality" of their horrendous health statistics.....and society in general, which has to deal with a situation in which the traditional family structure is seen as at best as curiosity, and at worst as a reactionary structure.....along with Christianity! Fortunately the madness of unbridled "liberalism" appears to have run its course and the ordinary folks are beginning to see beyond the smoke and mirrors. As a lifelong leftwinger who is not ruled by political dogma, i can see that the decadent West would benefit fron a dose of "compassionate conservatism" |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM As was said, why should the ruling of a homosexual judge on this matter be less valid than the ruling of a heterosexual judge? Both may have biases. A ruling must be based on law and common sense- and when that is done a bias is not important. |
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:01 PM "This week's ruling in California represents more than a setback for opponents of same-sex marriage. It lays bare the sparseness of their evidence, the emptiness of their legal arguments and the hollowness of their claims that gay marriage would somehow undermine straight ones. In 136 pages, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker analyzed testimony and studies that were scientific, historical, sociological and personal. He examined arguments constitutional and political. And when he was done, he left little obvious room for reversal on appeal. However conservative the U.S. Supreme Court has become, and however sharply it is divided, chances are decent that the thrust of Walker's order will survive. What he said was this: It violates the Constitution's equal-protection promise to deny a minority group the fundamental right to wed. He found no compelling state interest in forbidding such marriages. There was no credible evidence that society, the institution of marriage, children or anyone else would be harmed if gay people marry, he ruled. In fact, all evidence pointed to the benefits of letting people marry those they love and giving their children a more stable, legitimized family life. Without any rational basis for banning these marriages, all that's left is "the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." Whether the belief stems from religion, moral disapproval or animus, none can justify discrimination, Walker said. " (Bloomberg Opinion) |