To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1176 without my signature.

For some time now I have lamented the fact that major issues are overlooked while many
unnecessary bills come to me for consideration. Water reform, prison reform, and health
care are major issues my Administration has brought to the table, but the Legislature just
kicks the can down the alley.

Yet another legislative year has come and gone without the major reforms Californians
overwhelmingly deserve. In light of this, and after careful consideration, I believe it is
unnecessary to sign this measure at this time.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

For those who don't know, Bill AB 1176 is a bill that was passed unanimously in the State of California Legislative Assembly and Senate.  This bill would
have granted the Port of San Francisco expanded financing to
redevelop a former shipyard into a new neighbourhood known as Pier 70.

This bill was sponsored by Tom Ammiano, a Democrat assemblyman.  Earlier in the year Ammiano had heckled Arnorld Schwarzenegger at an event in San Francisco.  Then on Oct. 12 Schwarzenneger vetoed the bill and sent the letter that Pedro posted below.  When Ammiano's camp complained about the word spelled by the letters that Pedro highlighted in red, Schwarzennegers spokesman said "My goodness!  What a coincidence!" 

Ferris Bueller: I'll give you an example. During WWII as you know many GI's came over to the UK. A training film had to be made to explain to those who came over to our country (staring Rocky's trainer from the original Rocky films) that there was no segregation in the UK. I think the UK attitude towards skin colour was different due to our Empire days, where many UK citizens lived, worked or fought in countries of the British Empire. And after WWII the Empire became the Commonwealth. Gurkha's still join the British army and fight side by side with British born soldiers, and more recently won the right to remain in the UK after retirement thanks to a campaign by UK citizens which forced the government to give in despite the cost... They earned the right.

Before WWII we had the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley, but at it's peak it had only had 50,000 members and soon lost ground. The Daily Mail supported them at one stage, yet after an anti-fascist protester lost an eye during a confrontation that support was dropped. In 1936 an act was passed banning political uniforms and required police permission for political marches.

Extreme groups that incite violence or hate are illegal by law. The likes of the KKK would never have been allowed or supported in the UK. We just find such groups utterly distasteful. Yes we have small groups of racists on both sides of the colour coin, but in public they know to keep their mouths shut (generally except the stupid ones) or face fines or prison. Our old divides use to based on class (upper, middle and lower) not race.

As a country.. we've never had the room to have separate places to non-white people, so our communities have always (except for a few areas) been mixed. People just get on in general except for a few hot heads.

The likes of Nick Griffin and his whining about lack of Britishness is just pure rubbish. Every year the proms (amongst other UK folk stuff) celebrate Britain and people around the country watch, join in and sing along with it. English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish flags you see being flown freely. He's just a little idiot blaming other ethnicities for his insecurity and lack of self worth.

(V): And after WWII the Empire became the Commonwealth. Gurkha's still join the British army and fight side by side with British born soldiers, and more recently won the right to remain in the UK after retirement thanks to a campaign by UK citizens which forced the government to give in despite the cost

it was Joanna Lumley that made that happen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/07/gurkhas-joanna-lumley-phil-woolas

and cost shouldn't come into it
many Gurkha's have laid down there lives to fight for our country so the least we can do is let them live here if they so wish without thinking about money

Snoopy: Aye, she was a great champion for the cause. and yes.. cost should never have come into it. We live near a main army base and many Gurkha families live in the surrounding areas, I see Gurkha's often guarding the base entrances as well as working in civilian positions in the area.

And what's more about *cough* Mr 'nice stand up guy' Nick Griffin.. when present and former army chiefs criticised him for using pictures of the armed forces on the BNP website, he then whined that they were Nazi's so and so's.

He's as patriotic as a wet paper bag!!.

Ferris Bueller:

Artful Dodger:   One of the few times we seem to agree w/ one another.  LOL

There is a lot of racism in Australia...and it is on both sides...black and white....the aboriginals are a VERY different race to other dark skinned people.

In NZ, the Maoris are treated as they should be...extremely well...they are educated and well spoken (when they want to be). The Islanders are treated with a bit of reserve...Fijians, Samoans, rarotongans are looked down upon by the Maoris. There is a lot of hard feelings between these races...so you have black hating black. a different racial tension and can be quite frightening at times.

Ferris Bueller: No, the UK is not perfect, there are idiots in all races that think they are superior to other colours or religions.

post code turfs, and groups being groups trying to act 'gangster rapper'

And yes.. we had the slave trade. But that was then, a stage thankfully passed. We got some people of all races creating strife.. As in one interview a politician decreed he would not be happy if he had a child that married to a Muslim through love.. and their would be some on the Muslim side who'd feel the same, etc.

... But a minority as a rule. The use though of race as a means to stir anger and violence is forbidden. As some have found in court. The 'PC' crowd can go to far.. we ain't out the water yet.

Artful Dodger: Sorry, but last week wasn't the GOP at it's lowest in the polls for ten years?

Artful Dodger: That poll is 7 years old!!

Things have changed to what is happening in the UK since then

The main problem is the stirring of extemists on both sides of the Muslim - Patriotic British groups.

But it's not everywhere!!

(V):   Sounds a lot like what we have in the states.  There does seems to be one glaring exception, however.  We tend to value freedom of speech over quelling racial tensions.  For that reason, the KKK & Neo-Nazis are allowed to march on our streets w/ the proper permits.  I'm not sure either side of the pond is headed in the right direction.  There is something to be said for discouraging hate speech & symbols, but where do u draw those lines?

Artful Dodger:

>  The British left the slave trade kicking and screaming.

Is there a country that didn't?  I think all countries that had slaves were very reluctant to give up the slave trade.  In the end slavery was a very inefficient economic system.  Capitalism superseded slavery because slavery is not very profitable.  People might think that free labour is profitable but in the long run it fails because if people have no salaries, can they buy anything?  Karl Marx (I hate quoting the guy) pointed out in Capital that capitalism required as a prerequisite a freely mobile labour force.  The British parliament passed the Slavery Trade Act of 1807 to stop the trading of slaves by British merchant ships, and then they passed the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 to completely abolish slavery in the British Empire.

Another interesting thing was slavery in France.  They abolished slavery in 1894, then reinstated slavery in 1804.  They finally abolished slavery in 1848.  They had to do it twice!

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962, kind of late for one of our favorite alies.

Then some countries never abolished slavery and still have slaves.  In Congo the Pigmy people are kept as slaves in the homes of the wealthy.  The Congolese call it a "time-honoured tradition".  Some countries like Sudan still have a thriving slave trade.  There is also sexual slavery in many countries.  It is estimated that today as many as 29 million people are slaves.

I think we should impose capital punishment on slave traders, and make it a crime against humanity.  But then, we should do the same with illegal weapons traficking too.

Bernice:

>  There is a lot of hard feelings between these races...so you have black hating black.

We also have to remember Rwanda and the Hutus killing over 1 million Tutsis.  Ethnic genocide is still going on in Congo where the same racial hatred that we saw in Rwanda is still tearing apart Sub-saharan Africa.

Ferris Bueller:

>  There is something to be said for discouraging hate speech & symbols, but where do u draw those lines?

I think that while extremist racists have their freedoms of scpeech protected by the Constitution, there are limits imposed on what they can do.

Here in Canada we had a famous case in 1984.  James Keegstra was the town mayor and a school teacher in Eckville, Alberta.  He taught his social studies students that the holocaust was a fraud and that Jews were greedy, power-hungry, destructive, treacherous, etc.  Keegstra was saying that Jews inveted the Holocaust to gain sympathy.

He was charged with hate crimes for willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group.  He tried to have the charge quashed because he said that the charge infringed upon his right to freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court denied his claim and he was fined $5000 (a joke) and given a 1 year suspended sentence which he served doing community work.

The case was a landmark case and later other Aryan Nations and KKK members in Canada found themselves in trouble with the law.

Where do we draw the line?  I think the line is clear.  Anything that promotes hatred or racism is against the spirit of the Constitution.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Übergeek 바둑이:Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hate.
what about "freedom of free thinking"?
your case regarding the teacher just once again proves government is trying to control our minds, our freedoms, and our rights of life. what happened to that teacher was not justice...it was a political coup,imo.

Ferris Bueller: Having an opinion is everyone's right. But the law is is that to incite hatred or violence is illegal. The BNP can do rallies as much as the Green party. Animal rights folks can protest about experimentation. But as soon as it gets nasty.. People have the right to carry out their lawful business.

That the KKK, etc can march without permits (or any group that needs to) is crazy. If trouble starts at least there will be police to protect both sides from hotheads. They can shout at each other.. some name calling is expected and depending overlooked. But out and right crap. It ain't right.

Übergeek 바둑이: What gets me about capitalism (at the moment) is something nicknamed "dead peasants insurance". A policy of insurance used to protect a company from the loss of 'executives' now used by companies to make a profit on the death of a worker. My main gripe is any family, etc see nothing of this insurance money and yet the family can be left penniless.

(V):

For those of you who don't know, here is some info:

Dead Peasant's Insurance

Like much of the insurance business, it is mostly a scam (no offense to those of you who work in that industry.)  It looks like either a way to get tax breaks, or a way for companies to get richer.  The assumption is that a key employee is expensive to replace.  Then companies can declare the cost of the insurance against income taxes.  If the employee dies the company gets the money, not the family.  It sounds like free money for a company.  If the employee is alive the company gets the tax break, if the employee dies the company gets the insurance money.  It is a win/win for the company.  A good scam!

Übergeek 바둑이: For that reason, the KKK & Neo-Nazis are allowed to march on our streets w/ the proper permits

<v> That the KKK, etc can march without permits (or any group that needs to) is crazy.

eh???

highlights here in Maine... we voted down the new gay marriage law, and voted to allow non profits with the proper licenses to grow and distribute medical marijuana products,,,,,,

Seems the will of the people and the will of the courts and legislatures are at odds all over the country..... seems that every time the people get a vote, we vote against gay marriage (over 30 votes so far in various states)

Ferris Bueller: You already have gone down the slippery slope in certain respects. Bush and his use of "free speech zones" where those protesting against his policies were herded away from the routes Bush took so the press wouldn't see them.

People were arrested for not wanting to go, and a number prosecuted for protesting legally and non-violently.

I think you need your laws clarified to stop this sought of abuse.

Czuch: It's early days for gay marriage rights in the USA and to various degrees the whole world.

Over here we regarding marijuana and drug policy overall there has been a big stir. The advisers to the government for the first time in 30 years have been ignored in preference to politics. The repercussions of that have caused the resignations of advisers and the rest of the council to organise a meeting with the government to seriously question why.

All because Professor Nutt said he thought on scientific grounds the government was wrong.

Ferris Bueller: First of all, you dont have to be "anti gay" to be against gay marriage.

Talk about a slippery slope... what if next I said i wanted to marry two other people, the 3 of us are in love, we are a happy family, we just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has?

I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place? Why not just "civil unions" for ecveryone, both straight and gay, give us the right to choose whomever we want to for benefits and other rights we give to married couples right now?

Another random thought.... what if everyone were gay???? Would that be a good thing?


oh yeah....the courts already have interviened on behalf of gay marriage, California is one state, and even in such a liberal state as California, the people voted to reject the courts!

One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Czuch: One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

exactly....what if I wanted to marry my hamster, or my son or daughter, maybe even my mother or father??
where does it stop?

Czuch:

>  there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children,
can anyone explain to me
>  how that is really any different than being
hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Isn't age of consent a factor?  Adult homosexuals are old enough to make a decision about what they want in their lives.  Children do not have the knowledge or experience to make that decision.

I think that ultimately it comes to whether people are free to do what they want or not.  If a homosexual couple wants to marry, it is their choice as free individuals.

Homophobic people are insecure.  They think that if homosexuals marry, it somehow diminishes heterosexual marriage.  "There is no way my heterosexual marriage is in the same league as the marriage among homosexuals."  It is all fear and insecurity.  Homophobic people hide that fear behind the veil of morality.  It can be Christian morality, or morality imposed by the state.  It is much easier to say that "marriage should be as defined in the Bible" rather than "I fear homosexuals and I fear that we are becoming like them."  Those that protest the hardest against homosexuality are often those that fear it the most, and in some cases they are homosexuals who hide their true nature out of fear and shame.

>  I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place?

It has to do with money and property mostly.  For example, in the US there are 1138 statutes in the law concerning marriage rights and responsibilities and the vast majority of them have to do with property, division of assets, survivor benefits, etc.  Governments around the world have passed marriage legislation to clarify how all that money and property should be distributed, divided, managed or inherited.  This is true also of legal codes outside of modern governments.  Much of the Bible's and the Koran's law on marriage is related to property.

Artful Dodger: Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children. Society has the right to define and recognize a marriage ONLY between a man and a women.

I would expect you'd say “society has the right to define and recognize a marriage only between a man and a woman where neither of them suffers from infertility.” Because infertile couples cannot, and never will be able to do what fertile couples can do: create children.

Czuch: We are!! I thought, it was the animal side of us that was given to the point of reproduction and that the 'God' in us was capable of controlling that instinct.

As far as I've read abusers are made. Someone being gay is how their spirit is.

Artful Dodger: Maybe not, but they can love children. And the marriage is about love, not legality. Legality is a way of keeping your neighbour away. She/He has a ring, she/he is committed. Taxes, census..

Btw.. there are some men and women who cannot create babies. Is marriage allowed for them? What about a person born both male and female... what then.

And that gay folk are discriminated against in the form of legal red tape, that is wrong.

The governments have adopted inaccurate old religious interpretation, just like the one about 'witches' .. Because mistakes have been made, should folk be punished?

Artful Dodger:

> Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children.

Science has changed that.  I read sometime ago about artificial sperm.  a scientist took the DNA out of an animal's sperm and introduced the DNA of a female into it.  Then he used that sperm to ferlize the egg of a different female.  Not only that, but scientists have taken egg cells and removed all DNA from them, then introduced another sample of DNA and made the egg become a fertilized embrio.  Science is changing reproductive limitations, whether we like it or not.  There are serious ethical questions about these reproductive technologies, but they are there and in the future anybody will be able to have children, regardless of sexual orientation.  What happens then?  It is a difficult question.

Perhaps we could see the problem from another side.  If instead of sexual orientation, we used race or religion as a determinant for marriage, would we feel the same?  "Christians will have marriage, but Jews will have a civil union."  "Caucasians will have marriage, but African Blacks will have a civil union."  If we were to do this, would we be discriminating against a minority?  Obviously.  By the same token, the current law discrimates against homosexuals.  The only reason why the law remains is because the majority of the population supports the traditional definition of marriage.  In essence, it is a law that represents the will of the majority, and discriminates against the minority.  One of the tenets of modern democracy is respect for minority rights.

(V): spirit???....really???

I have an aquaintance who married, had twins and after about 15 years the marriage broke down and he eventually turned to another man. Spirit? I think not. He explains it as "trying both sides" he is still with the man after 14 years and just loves females. He says he would never go back to a woman, so what would you "categorize" him as.
By the way...are you speaking from experience, and if not where do you get your presumptions from?

Übergeek 바둑이: I havent seen anyone respond to the "we 3 are in love, or we 4 are in love" scenario yet?

Why not polygamy then too? Or like Bwild said too, why cant my sister and i be given the same rights as married couples get now? Shouldnt my sister and I be able to cohabitate and adopt children and have each other inherit property etc???



...and your only complaint against sexual attraction to children is that the child cannot consent to the sex???


oh yeah, and homosexuals are already free to marry, just like heterosexuals are, we already share the same rights.... as a heterosexual, I dont have a right to marry another man....


and I agree with AD, calling someone against gay marriage as "homophobic" is a slander and not always accurate

Artful Dodger: If you argue that homosexual couples should not be allowed to get married because they can't create children, I think you should apply the same logic to infertile couples, who cannot create children either.

Artful Dodger: Well I can also state a fact that in general, couples can create children. Only when certain conditions (medical, different sexuality, …) exist, this is not true.

Artful Dodger: And not infertile couples.

Science has made both men and women reproductive systems obsolete... "what hath man wrought?"
"oh brave new world' Everyone belongs to everyone else"

1.  An African man is fired from his job because he is black.  Is it discrimination?
2.  A Jew is fired from his job because he is a jew.  is it discrimination?
3.  A homosexual is fired from his job because he is a homosexual.  Is it discrimination?
4.  An African couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are black.  Is it discrimination?
5.  A Jewish couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are jews.  Is it discrimination?
6.  A homosexual couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are homosexual.  Is it discrimination?

Nobody will argue that cases 1 to 5 are discrimination.  What about case 6?  If it is not discrimination, why?

Übergeek 바둑이: I think the argfument isnt so much against them having similar rights, IE to pass property and hospital rights etc., its just when you call it "marriage" where the issues arise?

But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Artful Dodger: Are you saying love is a purely biological matter? I thought love was something beyond biology.

"because their union is incapable of reproducing. "

No, they can reproduce. As in the parts of their anatomy just don't start not working. God does not make them suddenly sterile. Just their sexuality does not give to reproduction (unless bi)....

"I can't marry my sister or my daughter or a very close relative. Such unions are restricted by law as they don't fall under the standard set by society. "

those are set for good reason of high mutation rate through a closed gene pool, not a good example if you are going on about not reproducing being part of why they cannot marry.

"What's really being sought by homosexual advocates is a special standing before the law. "

No. If you missed it (seeing as Fox only covered it quickly) ...there was a gay rights march in Washington at the same time as the tea party and the protest against Obama telling kids to work harder... 75,000+ march... though the Obama telling kids to work harder got more time and a reporter.

... basically... they just want the same rights. Equality under the law.

Czuch: No. That's rubbish. The only possible one of those you mention is polygamy.. which is not a worldwide crime, some places it is traditional and allowed, some it is not.

Brother/sister, etc is due to science of reproduction and the danger of high mutation or the reinforcement of bad genes.

Übergeek 바둑이: Also, what AD said, that it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument... its simply not natural for a guy to put his penis in another guys anus, the same way it is for him to put it into a female vagina! There is something unnatural about it, and most people do not want to "legitimize" something that is so unnatural!

I think it would make a better tact, instead of calling it "gay marriage", that something like the "civil union" be adopted.... then you are not putting the emphasis on "homosexuals", you are putting the emphasis on couples, or familys in general, and their rights under the laws. "Family" is a lot easier definition to legally mess around with than "marriage"..... If all they really want is to have the same property and visitation etc rights, then why push so hard for it to be called a marriage anyways? I believe there has to be more to the agenda than meets the eye!

Czuch:

>  it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument

What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say.  We are very different from other living organisms in this planet.  Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.  For example, it is not natural for a person to sit in front of a television for a few hours.  It is not natural for people to build skyscrapers, or rockets that go to the moon.  Human sexual behaviour is very different to that of other animals.  We are the only species that mates face to face.  I think that mating face to face has sometimes been observed among bonobos (a species of chimpazee).  The old trusty Missionary, the most common sexual position among humans, is uniquely human.

Is homosexuality unnatural? People would be surtprised to know how common homosexual behavious is in nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Bonobos (our closest genetic relative) exhibit homosexuality in several forms, although homosexuslaity among females is more common.

To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.  Western culture has been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Homosexuality was taboo among the ancient Israelites as exemplified by some of the laws in the Torah.  That same taboo was passed on into the New Testament.

Other cultures outside the Judeo-Christian cultures had different views of homosexuality.  The ancient Greeks engaged in open homosexuality and among Greek aristocrats pederasty was the desirable form of education for young Greeks destined for political and economic power.  Homosexuality was common among the ancient Chinese up to the late Qin dinasty (end of the 19th century).  It was not uncoomon for male concubines to form part of the Chinese emperor's harem.  Homosexuality was acceptable among Sufi moslems in the 18th century, as attested in the poetry of the Persian Sufi poets.

Clearly our western dislike for homosexuality is culturally driven, and western culture is Judeo-Cristian in its origin.  The current definition of marriage is the Biblical definition of marriage, and that definition holds homosexuality as taboo.  If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable, then a lot of people fear that it would diminish the meaning of marriage, and therefore the values expounded by Judeo-Christian culture.

Czuch:

>  But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Two other western taboos are polygamy and incest.

Incest was acceptable in ancient Egypt and the pharaohs were often married to their brothers/sisters in order to preserve the purity of their divine blood.  It led to serious genetic defects being passed on to their children.  For example, Tuttankhammon suffered from spina bifida.  The Bible rejects incest very early on.  After escaping from Soddom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters were cursed because they had an incestuous relationship.  Our modern objection to incest comes from the possibility of passing genetic mutations or diseases to children.  As such incest remains undesirable and to me it is unacceptable in any form.

Poligamy is different because it is a form of marriage that survives into our modern era both in western culture and outside of western culture.  I know of two cases in southeast Asia.  I know of a "monk" in Singapore who had two wives.  I met one of his daughters who kept referring to her "auntie" and how cute her little brother was when he was playing with his mom who was also her "auntie".  Obviously that "autie" was her father's second wife.  I know of another case in Laos.  This wealthy man had 13 children with 3 women.  The common denominator here was wealth.  Polygamy is a priviledge of the wealthy.

Among Tibetans it was not uncommon for a woman to have several husbands.  Marriages involved the transfer of property among families and for many families it was economically unfeasible to "purchase" a wife for every male in the family.  For this reason several brothers would often marry the same woman.  It was acceptable socially because Tibetans believe that a man inherits his father's bones, therefore all brothers had the same bones from their father and if any of them had children with the woman, the children inherited the same bones.  Polyandry still survives in some places in Tibet and Nepal.  Poligyny (having several wives) was also common in Tibet where wealthy men could acquire several wives.

In India the Mahabharata describes a case one one woman marrying five brothers, so both polygyny and polyandry were acceptable.  Of course, the ancient Israelites had polygamy as attested in the stories of Abraham, Solomon, David, etc.  Judaism abandoned polygamy in the 11th century and today polygamy is illegal in Israel.

Polygamy became unacceptable during Roman times.  The Greeks had monogamous relationships, and the Roman's inherited monogamy from the Greeks.  In the 4th century St. Augustine formally accepted monogamy as the acceptable form of marriage among Christians.  Ever since western culture became monogamous.  Those values have gone around the world and many countries today have monogamous laws.

The question is: Is polygamy acceptable?  Here in Canada the government has had a lot of problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Some of its sects engage in polygamy.  It has become a serious issue because in some cases girls as young as 13 have been married, with and without their consent.  On the one hand there are issues of the rights of women and young girls, on the other there are issues of religious freedom.  Polygamy remains illegal here and it will remain so in spite of the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom.  The government does not want to open that can of worms.

The Mormon church in Utah officially excommunicated those who practice polygamy, so the practice remains only among a few sects.  I would believe that the Mormon sects following polygamy had a legal case on constitutional grounds, but many marriages are with women under the legal age for marriage, and that women are denied full rights to education.

I don't know if polygamy is acceptable.  In a case where the people involved are of legal marriage age, fully aware of their actions, without coercion or subterfuge, and in full view of society and the law, would it be acceptable?  In some countires it is, in other it isn't.  It might sound desirable to some men, but isn't having one wife trouble enough?  What about division of property and divorce?  Cultures where polygyny is acceptable often have vague laws or laws that disfavour women.  It is one of reasons why polygamy remains unacceptable in most places.

Übergeek 바둑이: What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say. We are very different from other living organisms in this planet. Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.

So at least you agree that a man on man sex is not natural....


To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.

I never said it had no relationship to religion.... just that it is more an issue that it is abnormal. I am not religious, but it is obvious to me that it is natural for a man and woman to have sex, and it is not natural for a man and a man to have sex.

Thats why I believe this argument should be about two people being together and their rights, no matter who they are, and not about sexual anything!