9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[Little-Acorn]

In 2010 a judge (who himself was gay) issued a ruling to change the fundamental definition of marriage in California, amending it to include same-sex couples. The decision was appealed to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, where a 3-judge panel said they would issue their ruling this morning, Feb. 7. Two of the judges were appointed by liberal Presidents, and one by a moderate.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46294255/ns/us_news-life/

Federal court to rule on Calif. ban on gay marriage

by LISA LEFF
updated 2 hours 51 minutes ago 2012-02-07 14:09:12

SAN FRANCISCO — Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18 months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married.

The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest in the case.

Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8 backers plan to appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel and then to the U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court. Marriages would likely stay on hold while that process plays out.

The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard arguments on the ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on whether Proposition 8 sponsors had legal authority to challenge the trial court ruling after California's attorney general and governor decided not to appeal it.

The California court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so.

Further complicating the case was a move in April by lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that put Proposition 8 on the ballot to have the trial court ruling struck down because the now-retired judge who issued it was in a long-term relationship with another man.

Judge's sexual orientation became part of case

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8 backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict-of-interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.

[Little-Acorn]

Whatever the decision, it will be appealed. Probably to a full panel on the 9th Circus (this one is just a three-judge panel).

Or possibly straight to the Supremes.

So, just like the previous Obamacare trials, it doesn't really matter what this panel decides.

[Little-Acorn]

And today, the 9th Circus 3-judge panel has said.... Traditional marriage is unconstitutional. The fundamental definition of marriage MUST be changed, and same-sex couples must be included.

Off to the appeals process.....

[Gaffer]

The most overturned court in the land has spoken.

[jimnyc]

The most overturned court in the land has spoken.

Nevermind letting the people speak and decide, just hand it to nitwits who have a storied history of fucked up appeals. It's not like I'd be out protesting, in Cali or here in NY. But one of the main things they want, respect and acceptance, they aren't going to get.

[Abbey Marie]

Nevermind letting the people speak and decide, just hand it to nitwits who have a storied history of fucked up appeals. It's not like I'd be out protesting, in Cali or here in NY. But one of the main things they want, respect and acceptance, they aren't going to get.

3 people who are essentially answerable to no one.

[Noir]

3 people who are essentially answerable to no one.

Thats the point of having a separation of the three branches of government.

[logroller]

Nevermind letting the people speak and decide, just hand it to nitwits who have a storied history of fucked up appeals. It's not like I'd be out protesting, in Cali or here in NY. But one of the main things they want, respect and acceptance, they aren't going to get.
I don't see what the big deal is-- it's not like gays getting married will change straight marriage. I'm all for equal rights to marriage, but that's not to say the marriages are equal- my wife and I made babies, equal that!

[Abbey Marie]

Thats the point of having a separation of the three branches of government.

The point isn't to let these often unelected people run amok with biased interpretations of the Constitution. There are supposed to be checks and balances for all 3 branches. John Marshall eventually made this branch "uncheck-able".

[logroller]

The point isn't to let these often unelected people run amok with biased interpretations of the Constitution. There are supposed to be checks and balances for all 3 branches. John Marshall eventually made this branch "uncheck-able".
Constitutional amendment! That's a check.

[ConHog]

Nevermind letting the people speak and decide, just hand it to nitwits who have a storied history of fucked up appeals. It's not like I'd be out protesting, in Cali or here in NY. But one of the main things they want, respect and acceptance, they aren't going to get.

I don't know what the big deal is Jim, if some gay wants to be unhappy, not get enough sex, and risk losing half his shit in the end, why do you care if they get married? :laugh2:

[Noir]

Constitutional amendment! That's a check.

Exactly.
If the judiciary says somethings unconstitutional, the legislature can change the constitution.

[Abbey Marie]

Exactly.
If the judiciary says somethings unconstitutional, the legislature can change the constitution.

Lalala, "just change the Constitution" over every bad ruling? Ludicrous as a solution.
And while you're at it, if that is such a workable solution, make it that impossibly difficult for anyone to check the other two branches when they go off the rails, too. Then see how that works for you.

[Noir]

Lalala, "just change the Constitution" over every bad ruling? Ludicrous as a solution.
And while you're at it, if that is such a workable solution, make it that impossibly difficult for anyone to check the other two branches when they go off the rails, too. Then see how that works for you.

If the ruling is 'bad' enough then the legislature has the power, can't ask for more than that, because the only alternative is to have a weaker judiciary and thus constitution...

[OCA]

I'm sure Connie will love this, he is a big fan of liberal judges overturning the will of the people.

[OCA]

I don't know what the big deal is Jim, if some gay wants to be unhappy, not get enough sex, and risk losing half his shit in the end, why do you care if they get married? :laugh2:

Should I post all the links again as to why?:lame2:

[ConHog]

Should I post all the links again as to why?:lame2:

You had an entire thread to post a SINGLE link proving that gay marriage was detrimental to society, you failed to do so, you don't get a second bite at the apple.

[OCA]

You had an entire thread to post a SINGLE link proving that gay marriage was detrimental to society, you failed to do so, you don't get a second bite at the apple.

Ohhhh. here is Mr. "i'll just ignore and dismiss pertinent facts" chiming in.

Don't deny, the whole board saw you do it and has said so.

You might be the worst debater here...........ever.

[jimnyc]

I don't see what the big deal is-- it's not like gays getting married will change straight marriage. I'm all for equal rights to marriage, but that's not to say the marriages are equal- my wife and I made babies, equal that!


I don't know what the big deal is Jim, if some gay wants to be unhappy, not get enough sex, and risk losing half his shit in the end, why do you care if they get married? :laugh2:

I'm just not going to give respect or acceptance to queers. A ruling from a court, or a marriage license, won't change anything.

[jimnyc]

You had an entire thread to post a SINGLE link proving that gay marriage was detrimental to society, you failed to do so, you don't get a second bite at the apple.

I don't even need a link. If humans can't procreate, society ends. There's your single detriment.

[OCA]

I'm just not going to give respect or acceptance to queers. A ruling from a court, or a marriage license, won't change anything.

I reserve the right to not conduct business with queers the same way I wouldn't drug addicts or convicts.

No liberal judge is going to change that.

I'll bet Connie loves lib judges, its the only way he can win on this subject.

[OCA]

I don't even need a link. If humans can't procreate, society ends. There's your single detriment.

Damn straight!

Its a simnple choice between right and wrong, nothing less, nothing more.

[logroller]

Should I post all the links again as to why?:lame2:

I can come up with lots of reasons not to be gay, you listed some good ones; hence, I don't agree with homo lifestyles.
What I see in this law is an attempt to codify morality-- which can be done when it poses a significant and tangible benefit to all, or at least the non disparate majority--
But for the life of me, when I ask myself---
Do gays getting married affect my personal freedom, liberty or pursuit of happiness?

I cannot answer in the affirmative. If anything, the concept of marriage as a civil contract, bringing rise to no-fault divorce, is more an affront to the sanctity of marriage than gayness-- its all that Martin Luther's fault-- just ask the Pope, he and God are tight. I could link to the canons, but that pesky first amendment, I'd blame that Virginian Jefferson for that.

[OCA]

I can come up with lots of reasons not to be gay, you listed some good ones; hence, I don't agree with homo lifestyles.
What I see in this law is an attempt to codify morality-- which can be done when it poses a significant and tangible benefit to the all--
But for the life of me, when I ask myself---
Do gays getting married affect my personal freedom, liberty or pursuit of happiness?

I cannot answer in the affirmative. If anything, the concept of marriage as a civil contract, bringing rise to no-fault divorce, is more an affront to the sanctity of marriage than gayness-- its all that Martin Luther's fault-- just ask the Pope, he and God are tight. I could link to the canons, but that pesky first amendment, I'd blame that Virginian Jefferson for that.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[logroller]

Damn straight!

Its a simnple choice between right and wrong, nothing less, nothing more.

haven't we a society that embraces free choice?

[logroller]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Suicide is a choice I neither encourage or condone-- but one is free to do so.

[jimnyc]

Do gays getting married affect my personal freedom, liberty or pursuit of happiness?

I can sit here all night long and list things that won't affect the above - but that doesn't mean society should embrace it. If everything was gauged in that manner, todays society as we know it would go down the shitter within a few years.

[OCA]

haven't we a society that embraces free choice?

Even free choice must have limits. Am I free to burn down my neighbor's house?

[ConHog]

Ohhhh. here is Mr. "i'll just ignore and dismiss pertinent facts" chiming in.

Don't deny, the whole board saw you do it and has said so.

You might be the worst debater here...........ever.

Listen dipshit, your alleged proofs that gay sex are detrimental to society have NOTHING to do with gay marriage UNLESS you are contending that gays only have sex if they are married. It's simple as that.

[ConHog]

Even free choice must have limits. Am I free to burn down my neighbor's house?

Not unless he has given you permission to do, you're not free to ass rape your neighbor either BUT if he spreads his ass cheeks and says go for it, you're good to go.

[ConHog]

I reserve the right to not conduct business with queers the same way I wouldn't drug addicts or convicts.

No liberal judge is going to change that.

I'll bet Connie loves lib judges, its the only way he can win on this subject.

Actually, I FULLY support your right to not do business with gays.

[ConHog]

I'm just not going to give respect or acceptance to queers. A ruling from a court, or a marriage license, won't change anything.

YOu have that right, and I don't contend that you should change your opinion about gays one bit.

[OCA]

Listen dipshit, your alleged proofs that gay sex are detrimental to society have NOTHING to do with gay marriage UNLESS you are contending that gays only have sex if they are married. It's simple as that.

No matter how far you stick your head in the sand "Mr. Hypocrite" it has everything to do with queer marriage.

Shall I post a link on "queer marriage divorce rates after legalization"? They are astronomical..........because queers don'tr want to really get married they just want bleeding hearts like you to fall into their little bait and switch game.

[logroller]

I can sit here all night long and list things that won't affect the above - but that doesn't mean society should embrace it. If everything was gauged in that manner, todays society as we know it would go down the shitter within a few years.

You don't have to like Jim. I don't like it either, but I pick my battles wisely; gays fucking off doing God knows what-- not my problem. God shall judge them IMHO, not the courts. When/ if it becomes my problem, I'll address it then. Two circles in my life, circle of concern, circle of impact. Gay marriage is in neither. Besides, US laws aren't arguments of ignorance, that because straight marriage has been a successful vehicle (decreasingly so) that no other is valid-- one must prove that something is detrimental to another-- its the basis of freedom, damned though it may be, and it has delivered unto citizens of this country great opportunity. I don't forsake the opportunity that is lawfully granted to all because a few people use it for purely morally-reprehensible purposes.

[ConHog]

No matter how far you stick your head in the sand "Mr. Hypocrite" it has everything to do with queer marriage.

Shall I post a link on "queer marriage divorce rates after legalization"? They are astronomical..........because queers don'tr want to really get married they just want bleeding hearts like you to fall into their little bait and switch game.

LOL so let's argue whether divorces are detrimental to society , and if they are then lets debate outlawing divorce. UNLESS you contend that gay divorce is more harmful for society than straight divorce? LOL


You are weak OCA.

[OCA]

You don't have to like Jim. I don't like it either, but I pick my battles wisely; gays fucking off doing God knows what-- not my problem. God shall judge them IMHO, not the courts. When/ if it becomes my problem, I'll address it then. Two circles in my life, circle of concern, circle of impact. Gay marriage is in neither. Besides, US laws aren't arguments of ignorance, that because straight marriage has been a successful vehicle (decreasingly so) that no other is valid-- one must prove that something is detrimental to another-- its the basis of freedom, damned though it may be, and it has delivered unto citizens of this country great opportunity. I don't forsake the opportunity that is lawfully granted to all because a few people use it for purely morally-reprehensible purposes.

Thats exactly one of the reasons Amerika is in the social morass its in.

[OCA]

LOL so let's argue whether divorces are detrimental to society , and if they are then lets debate outlawing divorce. UNLESS you contend that gay divorce is more harmful for society than straight divorce? LOL


You are weak OCA.

No dumbass hypocrite, I contend that queers didn't really want to get married they just wanted bleeding hearts like you to accept their filthy perversion as equal to the rest of us, as soon as they get that they get divorced because promicuity is part of the queer constitution, rampant promiscuity.

I'm the man.

You are a hypocrite.

[jimnyc]

You don't have to like Jim. I don't like it either, but I pick my battles wisely; gays fucking off doing God knows what-- not my problem. God shall judge them IMHO, not the courts. When/ if it becomes my problem, I'll address it then. Two circles in my life, circle of concern, circle of impact. Gay marriage is in neither. Besides, US laws aren't arguments of ignorance, that because straight marriage has been a successful vehicle (decreasingly so) that no other is valid-- one must prove that something is detrimental to another-- its the basis of freedom, damned though it may be, and it has delivered unto citizens of this country great opportunity. I don't forsake the opportunity that is lawfully granted to all because a few people use it for purely morally-reprehensible purposes.

I can agree with the majority of that. Its not like I'm actively involved in things against homosexuality or gay marriage, I just don't support it in any way and I don't respect the lifestyle.

I also have an issue with the 9th circuit. This court has literally become a joke over the years.

[gabosaurus]

Game over. You lose.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

[jimnyc]

Game over. You lose.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html

So it's legal already? Nope! Its still on hold until appeals are heard. Game over it is not.

[ConHog]

I can agree with the majority of that. Its not like I'm actively involved in things against homosexuality or gay marriage, I just don't support it in any way and I don't respect the lifestyle.

I also have an issue with the 9th circuit. This court has literally become a joke over the years.

We totally agree about the 9th circuit court, they are proof that judicial impeachment should be used more often.

[ConHog]

No dumbass hypocrite, I contend that queers didn't really want to get married they just wanted bleeding hearts like you to accept their filthy perversion as equal to the rest of us, as soon as they get that they get divorced because promicuity is part of the queer constitution, rampant promiscuity.

I'm the man.

You are a hypocrite.

I've already proven your hypocrite claim wrong , you apparently can't read too well.

[OCA]

I've already proven your hypocrite claim wrong , you apparently can't read too well.

Where? The whole board missed it.

[ConHog]

Where? The whole board missed it.

No they didn't stupid. YOU missed it, here let me explain it again REAL slow.

If I accuse you of attempting to dehumanize gays by calling them queers and then admit that when I call blacks niggers I am doing so to dehumanize them that is not hypocrisy, it is merely pointing out a tactic you used.

IT would ONLY be hypocrisy if I pretended that I called blacks niggers for any other reason.

Oh and PS 99.9% of the time when I say nigger I am not actually calling anyone a nigger anyway, so the point is moot for the most part.

Now shut up NIGGER!!

[OCA]

No they didn't stupid. YOU missed it, here let me explain it again REAL slow.

If I accuse you of attempting to dehumanize gays by calling them queers and then admit that when I call blacks niggers I am doing so to dehumanize them that is not hypocrisy, it is merely pointing out a tactic you used.

IT would ONLY be hypocrisy if I pretended that I called blacks niggers for any other reason.

Oh and PS 99.9% of the time when I say nigger I am not actually calling anyone a nigger anyway, so the point is moot for the most part.

Now shut up NIGGER!!

Nope, you can play it off all you like but you got busted.

Now, let me drive you up to Lenox Ave and you say "nigger" and tell them you don't really mean it...........just to let you know i'm gonna step on you to make the blood flow faster.

[MtnBiker]

I don't see what the big deal is-- it's not like gays getting married will change straight marriage. I'm all for equal rights to marriage, but that's not to say the marriages are equal- my wife and I made babies, equal that!

Ok, will polygamy marriage be permitted then? The issue is, what is marriage? If is not one man married to one woman then what is it? Should a minority group (gay people) be allowed to marry and not polygamists? Or should polygamists also be allowed to marry. What then does the defenition of marriage become?

[ConHog]

Nope, you can play it off all you like but you got busted.

Now, let me drive you up to Lenox Ave and you say "nigger" and tell them you don't really mean it...........just to let you know i'm gonna step on you to make the blood flow faster.

See how stupid you are. I ADMITTED that when I say nigger I meant it. There is NO hypocrisy you moron.

Okay, I don't want to be thread banned, so I'm not addressing this in this thread anymore. Knock yourself out OCA.

[ConHog]

Ok, will polygamy marriage be permitted then? The issue is, what is marriage? If is not one man married to one woman then what is it? Should a minority group (gay people) be allowed to marry and not polygamists? Or should polygamists also be allowed to marry. What then does the defenition of marriage become?

IMO the definition of marriage shouldn't be left up to government at ALL.

[MtnBiker]

Not unless he has given you permission to do, you're not free to ass rape your neighbor either BUT if he spreads his ass cheeks and says go for it, you're good to go.

Really? come on, we don't need comments like this. It is quite possible to make a point without going to the gutter.

[jimnyc]

See how stupid you are. I ADMITTED that when I say nigger I meant it. There is NO hypocrisy you moron.

Okay, I don't want to be thread banned, so I'm not addressing this in this thread anymore. Knock yourself out OCA.

Your wording in that thread is what was hypocritical. You tried to vilify him for using words you find acceptable yourself.

[OCA]

Your wording in that thread is what was hypocritical. You tried to vilify him for using words you find acceptable yourself.

Yep, Connie just can't seem to understand it...........or is it............admit it?

[ConHog]

Your wording in that thread is what was hypocritical. You tried to vilify him for using words you find acceptable yourself.


Jim, that is true, but it's not hypocritical. I admitted I do the same thing, I merely pointed out his using it in what was supposed to be a "real" debate. That is NOT hypocrisy. PERIOD. Merely a debate tactic.

[jimnyc]

Jim, that is true, but it's not hypocritical. I admitted I do the same thing, I merely pointed out his using it in what was supposed to be a "real" debate. That is NOT hypocrisy. PERIOD. Merely a debate tactic.

I posted this for you already, but I'll do so again:


a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.



That is EXACTLY what you did in the thread. You wanted acceptance of your villification to win approval, although your own actions outside that thread belie your words toward OCA.

[ConHog]

I posted this for you already, but I'll do so again:



That is EXACTLY what you did in the thread. You wanted acceptance of your villification to win approval, although your own actions outside that thread belie your words toward OCA.

Not true, that isn't what I did and let's see why.


a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Now we can assume the desirable or publicly approved attitude in this situation is NOT using slurs to dehumanize people right? Well since I ADMIT that WHEN I do use slurs I do it for the same reason, it is obvious that I am not pretending to have the desirable attribute of not doing so. Is that true or false? I mean I admitted I do it do.

[MtnBiker]

Good lord. Who gives a shit? Can we resume the actual topic of the thread?

I will attempt to redirect.

What is the definition of marriage?

[jimnyc]

Not true, that isn't what I did and let's see why.


a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Now we can assume the desirable or publicly approved attitude in this situation is NOT using slurs to dehumanize people right? Well since I ADMIT that WHEN I do use slurs I do it for the same reason, it is obvious that I am not pretending to have the desirable attribute of not doing so. Is that true or false? I mean I admitted I do it do.

You wanted people to look at OCA negatively for using the term he did. You pointed out him doing so and stated he was dehumanizing them. You sought this public approval knowing full well that you would just as quickly do the same thing. I don't know how much clearer that can be and it's pretty much the very definition I quoted to the T.

[OCA]

Not true, that isn't what I did and let's see why.


a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


Now we can assume the desirable or publicly approved attitude in this situation is NOT using slurs to dehumanize people right? Well since I ADMIT that WHEN I do use slurs I do it for the same reason, it is obvious that I am not pretending to have the desirable attribute of not doing so. Is that true or false? I mean I admitted I do it do.



3256*sigh* hell I even use a word that they use to describe themselves on television media.

Now show me a show called "Nigger Eye For The White Guy" and you've got something.

You originally tried to slam me in the very first post for using "queer", if you had acknowledged at the time your use of "nigger" then you'd be correct...you didn't therefore you are a fucking hypocrite.

[jimnyc]

Good lord. Who gives a shit? Can we resume the actual topic of the thread?

I will attempt to redirect.

What is the definition of marriage?


the social institution under which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a man and woman establish their decision (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decision) to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Works for me

[OCA]

What is the definition of marriage?

One man, one woman.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Thanks Biker, got any elk jerky?:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

One man, one woman.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Thanks Biker, got any elk jerky?:laugh2:

I buy some shitty jerky here all the time, something with "links" in the name. I get the teriyaki one. I'd love me some free jerky. And no funny comments about the jerky, jerky!

[ConHog]

You wanted people to look at OCA negatively for using the term he did. You pointed out him doing so and stated he was dehumanizing them. You sought this public approval knowing full well that you would just as quickly do the same thing. I don't know how much clearer that can be and it's pretty much the very definition I quoted to the T.

Incorrect, I merely pointed out that he used the tactic in that thread, I didn't pretend like I wouldn't and haven't done the same in other threads. That is so simple to see that I am baffled at how much it has confused you.

[OCA]

I buy some shitty jerky here all the time, something with "links" in the name. I get the teriyaki one. I'd love me some free jerky. And no funny comments about the jerky, jerky!

Thats "Jack Links".......junk.

I play cards with a guy who runs the "Wild Bill" jerky business, the stuff is usually found in convenience and grocery stores and is god awful expensive but its the bomb!

[OCA]

Incorrect, I merely pointed out that he used the tactic in that thread, I didn't pretend like I wouldn't and haven't done the same in other threads. That is so simple to see that I am baffled at how much it has confused you.

:bang3:
:bang3::bang3:

[Noir]

Game over. You lose.

This one post, more than anything sums up american politics for me. I can't honestly think of a bill that could be pasted in the british parliament, or judgement made by our courts that would get the same response.

[ConHog]

This one post, more than anything sums up american politics for me. I can't honestly think of a bill that could be pasted in the british parliament, or judgement made by our courts that would get the same response.

Straight up right, most Americans don't give a shit about what's best for the country, they only care about being right. Cracks me up " I have rights" as they trample over the rights of others.

[jimnyc]

Incorrect, I merely pointed out that he used the tactic in that thread, I didn't pretend like I wouldn't and haven't done the same in other threads. That is so simple to see that I am baffled at how much it has confused you.

Yeah, I'm confused. Sure. That's hilarious. Whatever though, I'll try and be less confused in the future.

[ConHog]

Yeah, I'm confused. Sure. That's hilarious. Whatever though, I'll try and be less confused in the future.

You are if you see me as being hypocritical there. I've given a pretty thorough explanation. But eh, whatever it's not worth arguing any more about agree to disagree and all that.

[logroller]

Thats exactly one of the reasons Amerika is in the social morass its in.
What reason is that, Personal freedom?

[logroller]

Game over. You lose.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html


So it's legal already? Nope! Its still on hold until appeals are heard. Game over it is not.
More like halftime really.


We totally agree about the 9th circuit court, they are proof that judicial impeachment should be used more often.
For what it's worth, i understand the ruling wasnt binding precedent. Anybody have link to the opinion text; I haven't been able to load the court web page- I suspect it's inundated.

[gabosaurus]

Until Tuesday, it looked like California's Proposition 8 gay marriage case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But that looks less certain now.

The narrow California-only approach adopted by the 9th Circuit means the high court might choose to steer clear of the dispute.

If so, that would leave for another day — perhaps several years in the future — a national ruling on same-sex marriage.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-supreme-court-may-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html

[OCA]

What reason is that, Personal freedom?

We refuse to make judgements based on clear right and wrongs and instead take the easy way out and let everyone run amok.

[Missileman]

I don't see what the big deal is-- it's not like gays getting married will change straight marriage. I'm all for equal rights to marriage, but that's not to say the marriages are equal- my wife and I made babies, equal that!

Gays aren't sterile...if they want a baby, they can acquire one through surrogacy or artificial insemination. The only difference is it will only have the genes of one of them.

[Missileman]

No matter how far you stick your head in the sand "Mr. Hypocrite" it has everything to do with queer marriage.

Shall I post a link on "queer marriage divorce rates after legalization"? They are astronomical..........because queers don'tr want to really get married they just want bleeding hearts like you to fall into their little bait and switch game.


Post it.

[OCA]

Post it.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020315

It is my contention that queers do not really want marriage since promiscuity is such a LARGE part of the lifestyle, they only want the legitimizatio that marriage brings and once they get it you will soon see divorce rates skyrocket among queers.......after an acceptable amount of time so they can say "we tried".

Of course you will find many links that say divorce rates have gone down in states that have "legalized" queer marriage but they cannot attribute that to queers, but that doesn't stop them from trying to hoist that lie upon the American people.

[OCA]

Gays aren't sterile...if they want a baby, they can acquire one through surrogacy or artificial insemination. The only difference is it will only have the genes of one of them.

In no way can queers become parents, only through unnatural and abnormal means and then at that they can never be "real parents".

[Missileman]

In no way can queers become parents, only through unnatural and abnormal means and then at that they can never be "real parents".

So a man and a woman who can't have kids naturally will never be real parents if they use invitro? Think before you post.

[ConHog]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020315

It is my contention that queers do not really want marriage since promiscuity is such a LARGE part of the lifestyle, they only want the legitimizatio that marriage brings and once they get it you will soon see divorce rates skyrocket among queers.......after an acceptable amount of time so they can say "we tried".

Of course you will find many links that say divorce rates have gone down in states that have "legalized" queer marriage but they cannot attribute that to queers, but that doesn't stop them from trying to hoist that lie upon the American people.

Too bad for you that proof was already provided that shows there is NO proof that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

[ConHog]

So a man and a woman who can't have kids naturally will never be real parents if they use invitro? Think before you post.

Also , using OCA's "logic" a heterosexual couple who choose to never have kids should not be allowed to marry either, because marriage should be reserved for "child rearers"

[Missileman]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/feb/09020315

It is my contention that queers do not really want marriage since promiscuity is such a LARGE part of the lifestyle, they only want the legitimizatio that marriage brings and once they get it you will soon see divorce rates skyrocket among queers.......after an acceptable amount of time so they can say "we tried".

Of course you will find many links that say divorce rates have gone down in states that have "legalized" queer marriage but they cannot attribute that to queers, but that doesn't stop them from trying to hoist that lie upon the American people.

What you claimed was that gay divorce rates are through the roof and what you posted as evidence is ONE divorce. Stop wasting bandwidth to post a bunch of bullshit, will ya?

[jimnyc]

Also , using OCA's "logic" a heterosexual couple who choose to never have kids should not be allowed to marry either, because marriage should be reserved for "child rearers"

He never said that. But there's a difference between a married couple who medically cannot have children, and homosexuals who choose to live a lifestyle that doesn't produce children.

[fj1200]

3 people who are essentially answerable to no one.

Au contraire, answerable to the Supremes and en banc.

[ConHog]

He never said that. But there's a difference between a married couple who medically cannot have children, and homosexuals who choose to live a lifestyle that doesn't produce children.

He said that the entire purpose of marriage was to perpetuate the human race. His words, not mine. Extending that clearly those that don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry. Save the marriage tag for those who want to and can have kids, I mean there is only so many marriages to go around.

[jimnyc]

He said that the entire purpose of marriage was to perpetuate the human race. His words, not mine. Extending that clearly those that don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry. Save the marriage tag for those who want to and can have kids, I mean there is only so many marriages to go around.

I should have known better. You didn't even address what I wrote. I thought I was discussing this with YOU, but if you can't answer without sounding like a mimicking ass because of what he said, then adios.

[ConHog]

I should have known better. You didn't even address what I wrote. I thought I was discussing this with YOU, but if you can't answer without sounding like a mimicking ass because of what he said, then adios.

HUH? YOU said OCA didn't say something, I contend he did. I wasn't being an ass at all.

What else was I supposed to address? Of course I agree there is a difference between gays and heterosexual couples that can't have kids due to medical reasons.

[DragonStryk72]

Exactly.
If the judiciary says somethings unconstitutional, the legislature can change the constitution.

Actually, Noir, we haven't altered the Constitution all that much at this point. Think about it, ten of the amendments were already in effect from our founding, known as the bill of rights, with 26 amendments total. the 16th Amendment being passed in 1914, meaning that in the first 136 years of our country, we passed only 5 Amendments, being 11-15, with 16-26 coming pretty rapid fire over a 50 year period starting from 1914.

The central argument here is what the Constitutional specifically allows. A lot of people assume that there rights are spelled out in the Constitution, which is patently false. There is never a mention of a right being granted to the people, and is as it should be. The Founders believed in inherent rights, and thus put restraints on the government to keep it from screwing around with people's personal liberties.

Also, no they can't. For a constitutional amendment to be passed, it has to be ratified by the States. Just to get that far, you would have to get a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate, or have 2/3 of the State legislatures call for a Constitutional Convention. Once the Amendment is agreed upon, voting is sent back to the states to ratify the amendment.

[ConHog]

Actually, Noir, we haven't altered the Constitution all that much at this point. Think about it, ten of the amendments were already in effect from our founding, known as the bill of rights, with 26 amendments total. the 16th Amendment being passed in 1914, meaning that in the first 136 years of our country, we passed only 5 Amendments, being 11-15, with 16-26 coming pretty rapid fire over a 50 year period starting from 1914.

The central argument here is what the Constitutional specifically allows. A lot of people assume that there rights are spelled out in the Constitution, which is patently false. There is never a mention of a right being granted to the people, and is as it should be. The Founders believed in inherent rights, and thus put restraints on the government to keep it from screwing around with people's personal liberties.

Exactly, all the COTUS does is prevent the government from taking our rights. I'm always amazed at how many don't realize that. They seem to think that the COTUS gives rights that are protected from abuse by ANYONE (like a few weeks back when such and such poster said in a thread that he had the right to post whatever he wanted on this board, obviously untrue.)

[logroller]

We refuse to make judgements based on clear right and wrongs and instead take the easy way out and let everyone run amok.

Explain to me how you are wronged by gay marriage. Gay marriage make you wanna be gay or something? What would Freud say...

[ConHog]

Explain to me how you are wronged by gay marriage. Gay marriage make you wanna be gay or something? What would Freud say...


but but but, it's icky.................

[OCA]

So a man and a woman who can't have kids naturally will never be real parents if they use invitro? Think before you post.

No they can..........its a man and a woman.

Two queers can never be parents unless you get a dyke and a pole smoker to procreate just for the sake of procreation, otherwise two queers can never be parents no matter the method of ACQUIRING the child.

[OCA]

Too bad for you that proof was already provided that shows there is NO proof that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

No no no., its been proven over and over again.

[Abbey Marie]

If the ruling is 'bad' enough then the legislature has the power, can't ask for more than that, because the only alternative is to have a weaker judiciary and thus constitution...

Partisan politics all but insures this almost never works. Is it different in your country?

And we shouldn't have to go through hoops to change the Constitution, when judges make rulings that are based on something that is not actually IN the Constitution.

[OCA]

Also , using OCA's "logic" a heterosexual couple who choose to never have kids should not be allowed to marry either, because marriage should be reserved for "child rearers"

Nice try at twisting.

[OCA]

He never said that. But there's a difference between a married couple who medically cannot have children, and homosexuals who choose to live a lifestyle that doesn't produce children.

BINGO!:clap:

[ConHog]

No they can..........its a man and a woman.

Two queers can never be parents unless you get a dyke and a pole smoker to procreate just for the sake of procreation, otherwise two queers can never be parents no matter the method of ACQUIRING the child.

A person can be a great parent regardless of genetics. Likewise a person can be a shitty parent regardless of genetics.

[Missileman]

No they can..........its a man and a woman.

Two queers can never be parents unless you get a dyke and a pole smoker to procreate just for the sake of procreation, otherwise two queers can never be parents no matter the method of ACQUIRING the child.

So now you can't be a parent unless you fuck and make a baby? You're beyond ridiculous.

[OCA]

A person can be a great parent regardless of genetics. Likewise a person can be a shitty parent regardless of genetics.

A child would be better off in an orphanage than with queer parents. What do they have to look forward to? Caring for one or both of the queers as they waste away from HIV complications.

[gabosaurus]

He never said that. But there's a difference between a married couple who medically cannot have children, and homosexuals who choose to live a lifestyle that doesn't produce children.

What exactly is the difference?
My husband and I adopted a child. What makes us different from two men or two women that adopt a child? Are you saying that the child will grow up different because we are male and female and they are not?
What about a single mom who lives with a female roomate. Will their child grow up to be of dubious character?
How about the single male or female who lives with a boyfriend or girlfriend? Will their children suffer?

I talk to kids every day. They want parents who will love and provide for them. Regardless of sexual preference.

[ConHog]

A child would be better off in an orphanage than with queer parents. What do they have to look forward to? Caring for one or both of the queers as they waste away from HIV complications.

You're ridiculous. Sure there is a chance that one or both parents could get AIDS, but hell man, there is a chance of having to deal with sick parents for ANY children.

[OCA]

You're ridiculous. Sure there is a chance that one or both parents could get AIDS, but hell man, there is a chance of having to deal with sick parents for ANY children.

That was just 1 thing, I could list about a thousand more things that a child shouldn't have to deal with that comes with queer "parents".

Should I post a link of all those things?

[gabosaurus]

A child would be better off in an orphanage than with queer parents. What do they have to look forward to? Caring for one or both of the queers as they waste away from HIV complications.

You are an incredibly sick person. I hope you do not have children.

[ConHog]

That was just 1 thing, I could list about a thousand more things that a child shouldn't have to deal with that comes with queer "parents".

Should I post a link of all those things?

Go ahead, for every single thing you list that a child shouldn't potentially have to put up with from gay parents, I will post two things that they shouldn't have to put up with from straight parents. This will go on as long as need be until you realize shitty parents and or bad luck with health issues have nothing to do with gay or straight or more likely until this thread gets closed.

[Abbey Marie]

Au contraire, answerable to the Supremes and en banc.

If that is true, what happens to the judges if they are overturned? Fired? Fined? Anything? Unanswerable in any way that matters. From a lib judge's POV, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

[ConHog]

If that is true, what happens to the judges if they are overturned? Fired? Fined? Anything? Unanswerable in any way that matters. From a lib judge's POV, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Judges CAN be impeached, and frankly that doesn't happen near often enough.

[fj1200]

If that is true, what happens to the judges if they are overturned? Fired? Fined? Anything? Unanswerable in any way that matters. From a lib judge's POV, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Would you prefer that? They're appointed by the POTUS approved by the Senate and reflect what the POTUS wants. Elect a different POTUS.

[ConHog]

Would you prefer that? They're appointed by the POTUS approved by the Senate and reflect what the POTUS wants. Elect a different POTUS.

Electing a different POTUS of course has limited effect on the makeup of the Court unless you absolutely know that that POTUS is going to be able to nominate enough Judges to build the Court that favors him.

Ever see the movie Pelican Brief, or read the book?

[fj1200]

Electing a different POTUS of course has limited effect on the makeup of the Court unless you absolutely know that that POTUS is going to be able to nominate enough Judges to build the Court that favors him.

Ever see the movie Pelican Brief, or read the book?

:rolleyes: Elect a bunch of them.

[ConHog]

:rolleyes: Elect a bunch of them.

That's a pretty slow method of getting rid of bad Judges.

:laugh2:

Seriously, I think a lot of what people complain is "making law from the bench" is just sour grapes from people who are unhappy with a particular ruling, BUT there are judges who just do whatever the hell they want on the bench, and too a certain extent that is necessary but often taken too far and those judges should face penalties

[fj1200]

That's a pretty slow method of getting rid of bad Judges.

That's the method we have. Mayhap I should have said POTI.

[ConHog]

That's the method we have. Mayhap I should have said POTI.

As I said, we also have IMPEACHMENT. If it were used more often.

[logroller]

:rolleyes: Elect a bunch of them.
I'd of went with stack the court. Easy breezy:dance:

[avatar4321]

Exactly.
If the judiciary says somethings unconstitutional, the legislature can change the constitution.

The Constitution was changed. Now the Constitution is unconstitutional.

[Abbey Marie]

Would you prefer that? They're appointed by the POTUS approved by the Senate and reflect what the POTUS wants. Elect a different POTUS.

Ok, I see. You are ok with the courts doing anything they want. as long as the ruling party gets "their guys' in there. Not the country I want to live in. I have this silly notion that our judiciary should actually not be biased, and instead follow the... wait for it.. Constitution.

[Abbey Marie]

What exactly is the difference?
My husband and I adopted a child. What makes us different from two men or two women that adopt a child? Are you saying that the child will grow up different because we are male and female and they are not?
What about a single mom who lives with a female roomate. Will their child grow up to be of dubious character?
How about the single male or female who lives with a boyfriend or girlfriend? Will their children suffer?

I talk to kids every day. They want parents who will love and provide for them. Regardless of sexual preference.

I suppose one difference is that if most people couldn't have children, the species eventually would die out.

I remember when our daughter went through the "my parents are embarrassing" stage (she still feels that way sometimes, lol). I can't imagine how much harder that would have been for all of us, if we were a gay couple. And I would think it's even harder for a boy, given how much they tend to look down on gayness in others.

I expect that children don't tend to think in terms of "Oh, I'm so glad I'm not in an orphanage", or "I'm so lucky to have parents at all". Not for long, anyway. Even if their prior circumstances were sad, they tend to live in an ego-centric world, and will quickly forget those circumstances if something at the "new" home is odd or embarrassing. Whatever is currently going on, they really feel it.

This would of course apply to more than just gayness. An out-of-control alcoholic parent, or a particularly slutty parent, for example.

[MtnBiker]

What exactly is the difference?




What exactly is the definition of marriage? If is not one man married to one women, what exactly is it?

[fj1200]

Ok, I see. You are ok with the courts doing anything they want. as long as the ruling party gets "their guys' in there. Not the country I want to live in. I have this silly notion that our judiciary should actually not be biased, and instead follow the... wait for it.. Constitution.

Me too but please point out an individual with zero bias. But your argument is silly here because this particular court can't do anything they want, they are subject to appeal and reversal. Also, court appointments should be an issue during a Presidential election which we happen to have coming up, if you don't like what you see please vote for someone with views more in line with yours.

[ConHog]

What exactly is the definition of marriage? If is not one man married to one women, what exactly is it?

One definition is a close and intimate relationship.

That being said, I'll ask again, WHY do you care if two people wish to call themselves married? How does it affect you at all? Don't give me theories or morality lessons, give me an actual way it affects you. Barring it affecting you I fail to see how you have any standing to complain.

[MtnBiker]

One definition is a close and intimate relationship.

That being said, I'll ask again, WHY do you care if two people wish to call themselves married? How does it affect you at all? Don't give me theories or morality lessons, give me an actual way it affects you. Barring it affecting you I fail to see how you have any standing to complain.

I asked what exactly is a marriage if is not one man and one woman. Replying with "one definition is a close and intimate relationship" is not an exact answer. What is the exact definition?

I see the issue as a minority group(gay) seeking special rights. Therefore if rights are to be granted to one minorty group then other minority groups should have rights granted to them as well. If marriage is to include gay people being married to each other than polygamist people should also be able to marry. In fact some are going to the courts to argue just that, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html .


btw it doesn't take a legal marriage to have a "close and intimate relationship", boyfriends and girlfriends do it all the time.

[jimnyc]

One definition is a close and intimate relationship.

That being said, I'll ask again, WHY do you care if two people wish to call themselves married? How does it affect you at all? Don't give me theories or morality lessons, give me an actual way it affects you. Barring it affecting you I fail to see how you have any standing to complain.

Are you suggesting that people need a reason that YOU accept in order to have an issue with gay marriage? Some people simply don't want to be labeled in the same group as queers. Whether you agree, or like that, hardly means someone is barred from "complaining".

[jimnyc]

I asked what exactly is a marriage if is not one man and one woman. Replying with "one definition is a close and intimate relationship" is not an exact answer. What is the exact definition?

I see the issue as a minority group(gay) seeking special rights. Therefore if rights are to be granted to one minorty group then other minority groups should have rights granted to them as well. If marriage is to include gay people being married to each other than polygamist people should also be able to marry. In fact some are going to the courts to argue just that, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html .

I'm againts both, but if you are going to grant it to queers, then polygamists will be next. I wonder what will be after that?

[fj1200]

Are you suggesting that people need a reason that YOU accept in order to have an issue with gay marriage? Some people simply don't want to be labeled in the same group as queers. Whether you agree, or like that, hardly means someone is barred from "complaining".

I believe he's suggested that the state have no say in the matter. If two gays start referring to themselves as married, whether state granted or not, then I'm not sure what can be done about that. In my mind your church, or mine, can define marriage and perform the ceremony for those couples that choose but the state shouldn't be in the defining business.

[logroller]

Are you suggesting that people need a reason that YOU accept in order to have an issue with gay marriage? Some people simply don't want to be labeled in the same group as queers. Whether you agree, or like that, hardly means someone is barred from "complaining".


That's not what he said at all, he said they need have standing; its a legal doctrine meaning the party suing must have something to lose.

You are a human being, an American, a father and husband; are those group labels linked to being homosexual too?

Of course you can still complain, but without standing, it sounds a lot like violins.

[jimnyc]

I believe he's suggested that the state have no say in the matter. If two gays start referring to themselves as married, whether state granted or not, then I'm not sure what can be done about that. In my mind your church, or mine, can define marriage and perform the ceremony for those couples that choose but the state shouldn't be in the defining business.

Allowing "marriage" to queers, regardless of where they marry, by whom, and whether religious or not, is in fact redefining marriage.


That's not what he said at all, he said they need have standing; its a legal doctrine meaning the party suing must have something to lose.

You are a human being, an American, a father and husband; are those group labels linked to being homosexual too?

Of course you can still complain, but without standing, it sounds a lot like violins.

There is, IMO, plenty of standing, it's just dismissed by the queer apologists, and to me those dismissals sound like violins.

[jimnyc]

FJ - Log - I noticed you 2 conveniently skirted the issue of polygamy. Using the same definitions and term and reasoning to allow queers to marry, can you give "standing" as to why polygamy cannot now be next in line to be legal?

[ConHog]

Are you suggesting that people need a reason that YOU accept in order to have an issue with gay marriage? Some people simply don't want to be labeled in the same group as queers. Whether you agree, or like that, hardly means someone is barred from "complaining".

Jim I've stated umpteen times that you have the right to complain all you want. Complaining and interfering with another person's life are two different things.

[ConHog]

FJ - Log - I noticed you 2 conveniently skirted the issue of polygamy. Using the same definitions and term and reasoning to allow queers to marry, can you give "standing" as to why polygamy cannot now be next in line to be legal?

To be consistent I think it SHOULD be legal. Disgusting? Sure, but again I can think of no compelling reason to not allow consenting adults to enter into whatever they want to call marriage.

[jimnyc]

Jim I've stated umpteen times that you have the right to complain all you want. Complaining and interfering with another person's life are two different things.

Ok, so now that we know you support polygamy in addition to gay marriage, what's next?

[jimnyc]

To be consistent I think it SHOULD be legal. Disgusting? Sure, but again I can think of no compelling reason to not allow consenting adults to enter into whatever they want to call marriage.

Yep, then when these consenting adults, which can be all kinds of freak shows, so long as they're consenting and not bothering anyone else, and their actions are legal, should be able to get married. Then when you have a guy who is married to 10 different women, who's footing the bill for the "equality" they'll be receiving via benefits?

[ConHog]

Ok, so now that we know you support polygamy in addition to gay marriage, what's next?

Please stop. You know that I support neither gay marriage nor polygamy. I do however support other people having the right to do as they wish. I know you understand that concept.

[ConHog]

Yep, then when these consenting adults, which can be all kinds of freak shows, so long as they're consenting and not bothering anyone else, and their actions are legal, should be able to get married. Then when you have a guy who is married to 10 different women, who's footing the bill for the "equality" they'll be receiving via benefits?

I already stated that government should give no marriage benefits. Whether the marriage is between a man and a woman or a man and a man or between 1 man and 10 women.

[MtnBiker]

I still want to know the exact definition of marriage. So far only OCA has offered one, that is one man and one woman.

Is there a standard for marriage or should 8 guy be able to marry 12 women at the same time?

[fj1200]

Allowing "marriage" to queers, regardless of where they marry, by whom, and whether religious or not, is in fact redefining marriage.

Of course it is. It is redefining the state sanctioned definition of marriage. I don't think we need the state involved in that role. When gays can have kids regardless of being married then society has moved past it IMO especially when the argument is made that a stable relationship is in the best interest of the kids.

[ConHog]

Of course it is. It is redefining the state sanctioned definition of marriage. I don't think we need the state involved in that role. When gays can have kids regardless of being married then society has moved past it IMO especially when the argument is made that a stable relationship is in the best interest of the kids.

Exactly my stance. State out of marriage and let each church define marriage however they want. If my church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages or polygamy, and they certainly dont, that is cool, but we shouldn't and don't have the right to tell another church how they must define marriage.

[fj1200]

I still want to know the exact definition of marriage.

Please provide the cultural context that you would prefer to use.

[MtnBiker]

Please provide the cultural context that you would prefer to use.

Marriage is recognized as a legal binding relationship between people. Who exactly are able to enter into that legal binding agreement?


Why is this so hard to answer?

[jimnyc]

I still want to know the exact definition of marriage. So far only OCA has offered one, that is one man and one woman.

Is there a standard for marriage or should 8 guy be able to marry 12 women at the same time?

Hey, I offered one too!!


the social institution under which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a man and woman establish their decision (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decision) to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

[jimnyc]

Of course it is. It is redefining the state sanctioned definition of marriage. I don't think we need the state involved in that role. When gays can have kids regardless of being married then society has moved past it IMO especially when the argument is made that a stable relationship is in the best interest of the kids.

Now that the state IS involved, should they extend the same to polygamists? Under previous definitions and reasoning for allowing gay marriage, I would say polygamy fits within that reasoning too.

[fj1200]

Marriage is recognized as a legal binding relationship between people. Who exactly are able to enter into that legal binding agreement?


Why is this so hard to answer?

It's not hard to answer. It just depends on where you are and who you are. I have an inkling of what YOU would like it to be and how YOU would like the state to define it for YOU.

[jimnyc]

It's not hard to answer. It just depends on where you are and who you are. I have an inkling of what YOU would like it to be and how YOU would like the state to define it for YOU.

You either limit it or you don't limit it - and WHO is going to determine where to draw the line? Or is there no line and anyone can get married?

[jimnyc]

This doesn't change anything or really add merit to any argument, just tossing the link into this thread as I find it funny as hell!

"Poster Couple" For Gays Rights Divorcinghttp://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divorcing-138944094.html

[ConHog]

Marriage is recognized as a legal binding relationship between people. Who exactly are able to enter into that legal binding agreement?


Why is this so hard to answer?

Marriage should NOT be a legally binding contract, it should be a religious contract. If you want a legally binding contract, hire a lawyer and draw one up, and of course ANYONE able to consent can enter into any legal contract they wish with other people who are legally able to consent.

[fj1200]

Now that the state IS involved, should they extend the same to polygamists? Under previous definitions and reasoning for allowing gay marriage, I would say polygamy fits within that reasoning too.

Not necessarily.


Stanley Kurtz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute, lamented the modern arguments increasingly being made by various intellectuals who call for de-criminalizing polygamy. Kurtz concluded, "Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy


You either limit it or you don't limit it - and WHO is going to determine where to draw the line? Or is there no line and anyone can get married?

You can argue that there is a compelling state interest in limiting "marriage" to two consenting individuals. I don't think that argument holds water like it did in years past.

[ConHog]

You either limit it or you don't limit it - and WHO is going to determine where to draw the line? Or is there no line and anyone can get married?

Bing fucking O yes, let churches marry whomever they want . I don't even give a shit if some weird church wants to let some dude marry his dog. Now if dude has sex with that dog, that's illegal.......

I suppose you could push to outlaw gay sex..........

[fj1200]

Marriage should NOT be a legally binding contract, it should be a religious contract. If you want a legally binding contract, hire a lawyer and draw one up, and of course ANYONE able to consent can enter into any legal contract they wish with other people who are legally able to consent.

Oh I think it should be legally binding. You can either draw one up specifically or rely on precedent and the whims of family court because a disollution is inevitable and needs to be arbitrated.

[jimnyc]

Not necessarily.


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



You can argue that there is a compelling state interest in limiting "marriage" to two consenting individuals. I don't think that argument holds water like it did in years past.

But can those opposed to polygamy prove that it harms others? That it harms those involved? Does it harm anyone in the public? If the women involved in the polygamous marriage weren't with that man, she would likely be married to someone else, so the benefits she would still be receiving. Based on arguments for gay marriage I've heard over the years, I would see no reasonable reason to then deny the same to polygamists. An opinion or article wouldn't sway me, just as thousands of such things are generally dismissed when saying the same about gay marriage.

Whether the state should be involved or not is an entirely different debate. They are involved now, and until such time they are no longer involved, marriage has to be defined, limited, or opened to others as well.

[ConHog]

Oh I think it should be legally binding. You can either draw one up specifically or rely on precedent and the whims of family court because a disollution is inevitable and needs to be arbitrated.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that one party wouldn't have remedy in civil court if one party tried screw the other party over in the event of a breakup or whatever. But the notion of having to hire a lawyer and go through the process of asking the government for a divorce is asinine. Do away with that bullshit and you save the court system millions every year. Of course child support is another matter entirely and is due the child whether the parents have ever been married or not, so I'm not suggesting that shouldn't be a government matter .

If you marry someone and you're worried about losing half your shit if s/he decided to leave the church marriage, then I suggest you get a legal contract stipulating the exact dispersion of said items should that happen. If you don't have that contract, too bad for you. It's not any different than if you go into business with someone and give them $100K as working capital to start out but fail to get any kind of legal document stating this, if at some point in the future they decide to screw you over, you're screwed. should have drawn up a legal document.

[ConHog]

But can those opposed to polygamy prove that it harms others? That it harms those involved? Does it harm anyone in the public? If the women involved in the polygamous marriage weren't with that man, she would likely be married to someone else, so the benefits she would still be receiving. Based on arguments for gay marriage I've heard over the years, I would see no reasonable reason to then deny the same to polygamists. An opinion or article wouldn't sway me, just as thousands of such things are generally dismissed when saying the same about gay marriage.

Whether the state should be involved or not is an entirely different debate. They are involved now, and until such time they are no longer involved, marriage has to be defined, limited, or opened to others as well.

Reading the above quote from you, am I wrong in thinking that you would be okay with getting government out of marriage? That you just personally object to the government allowing gays or polygamist to marry.

[jimnyc]

Reading the above quote from you, am I wrong in thinking that you would be okay with getting government out of marriage? That you just personally object to the government allowing gays or polygamist to marry.

Right now, I'm looking for an argument as to why polygamy shouldn't be given equality alongside gay marriage. What I think is irrelevant to the question. If the government IS getting involved and granting laws and benefits for one, then they should do for the others.

[logroller]

FJ - Log - I noticed you 2 conveniently skirted the issue of polygamy. Using the same definitions and term and reasoning to allow queers to marry, can you give "standing" as to why polygamy cannot now be next in line to be legal?

i don't skirt the issue, I find it to be hyperbole. Since marriage is only between two people, no standing exists for those wishing to engage in legal polygamy. Now, if a law was passed which allowed for polygamy, I must then argue I have standing (as a proponent for the People) to revoke their ability to marry multiple people. But since you asked, specifically, I shall do my best.

Marriage enjoins two people as a legal entity which enjoy special protections and legal consideration. Though other legal contracts may enjoin more than two people into obligations similar to those of marriage (eg. child rearing and shared financial interest); there are, however, certain marital privileges which would be compromised in a polygamous marriage. For example, married persons' private discussions enjoy a time-honored privilege to privacy, being deemed necessary to the inherent intimacy of the relationship. However, if a third person is present, no such privilege exists. Similarly, we see this privilege between and a person and their attorney and/or doctor-- coined privileged communication, it is one which can only exist between between two people. Though this isn't the only benefit enjoyed by married couples, taken in whole, the functional reasoning for two is necessary for a myriad of marital privileges.

In the broader context of society, we are engaged in a social contract; where certain individual freedoms are forsaken for the greater good. Indeed systems of government are derived to provide a balance between social and private interests. Balance itself connotes two. In Our system of government, we see the structured power balance of two routinely: sovereign states, balanced by a federal system; bicameral legislatures, where representatives of the populus are balanced by the Senate; we even have two Senators from each state. What is the power of two, and what conditions make it preferable to three?

Again, its providing for a balance in the simplest and most narrow construct. Where there is three or more, you have the conditions necessary for a majority to impose its will upon a minority, causing harm. To combat mob rule/ protect the minority, it becomes necessary to involve third party consideration, who, under a veil of ignorance, presumably operate without a personal interest in the outcome. To explore practices which exclude personal interests would effectively negate the very nature of that which marriage seeks to promote-- rendering it little more than a common contract.

[OCA]

[QUOTE=gabosaurus;524210]You are an incredibly sick person.

Gabs....i'm in love with you....thank you.

[OCA]

Go ahead, for every single thing you list that a child shouldn't potentially have to put up with from gay parents, I will post two things that they shouldn't have to put up with from straight parents. This will go on as long as need be until you realize shitty parents and or bad luck with health issues have nothing to do with gay or straight or more likely until this thread gets closed.

No, actually you can't list two things.

Here lets start with this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/02/27/party-play-and-pay.html

[ConHog]

No, actually you can't list two things.

Here lets start with this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/02/27/party-play-and-pay.html

Dude, what do you do sit around googling "queers get it on" all day long?

Seriously, bad parents are gad parents regardless of gender or sexual preference, in fact I would argue that a man who is quietly gay is a better parent than a dude who runs around screaming that he loves the pussy could ever be.

[OCA]

Dude, what do you do sit around googling "queers get it on" all day long?

Seriously, bad parents are gad parents regardless of gender or sexual preference, in fact I would argue that a man who is quietly gay is a better parent than a dude who runs around screaming that he loves the pussy could ever be.

If a child is missing a mom or a father the child is going to have an unbalanced upbringing, thats just an unargueable fact Connie.

Two dudes do not make mom and dad and vice/versa.

[ConHog]

If a child is missing a mom or a father the child is going to have an unbalanced upbringing, thats just an unargueable fact Connie.

Two dudes do not make mom and dad and vice/versa.

Literally billions of kids have grown up in unbalanced homes without irreparable harm. Are we going to outlaw ANYTHING that might make a child's home unbalanced?

Guess divorce is illegal now, b/c studies have conclusively shown that divorce is hard on kids.

Guess if you knock a girl up you have to marry her and she can't say no either, b/c single parent nope that's illegal.

And also while you're married and a parent you're not allowed to partake in any activities that the OCA behavior board has determine is unbalanced for a child.
Good grief.

[jimnyc]

i don't skirt the issue, I find it to be hyperbole. Since marriage is only between two people, no standing exists for those wishing to engage in legal polygamy. Now, if a law was passed which allowed for polygamy, I must then argue I have standing (as a proponent for the People) to revoke their ability to marry multiple people. But since you asked, specifically, I shall do my best.

Marriage enjoins two people as a legal entity which enjoy special protections and legal consideration. Though other legal contracts may enjoin more than two people into obligations similar to those of marriage (eg. child rearing and shared financial interest); there are, however, certain marital privileges which would be compromised in a polygamous marriage. For example, married persons' private discussions enjoy a time-honored privilege to privacy, being deemed necessary to the inherent intimacy of the relationship. However, if a third person is present, no such privilege exists. Similarly, we see this privilege between and a person and their attorney and/or doctor-- coined privileged communication, it is one which can only exist between between two people. Though this isn't the only benefit enjoyed by married couples, taken in whole, the functional reasoning for two is necessary for a myriad of marital privileges.

In the broader context of society, we are engaged in a social contract; where certain individual freedoms are forsaken for the greater good. Indeed systems of government are derived to provide a balance between social and private interests. Balance itself connotes two. In Our system of government, we see the structured power balance of two routinely: sovereign states, balanced by a federal system; bicameral legislatures, where representatives of the populus are balanced by the Senate; we even have two Senators from each state. What is the power of two, and what conditions make it preferable to three?

Again, its providing for a balance in the simplest and most narrow construct. Where there is three or more, you have the conditions necessary for a majority to impose its will upon a minority, causing harm. To combat mob rule/ protect the minority, it becomes necessary to involve third party consideration, who, under a veil of ignorance, presumably operate without a personal interest in the outcome. To explore practices which exclude personal interests would effectively negate the very nature of that which marriage seeks to promote-- rendering it little more than a common contract.

As to the bold: there was also a time when society thought marriage was meant only for a man and a woman. This is exactly why MtnBiker asked for a definition. Where does it get limited? Why can one argue that 2 people who love one another, who aren't harming others, should be free to get married so long as it doesn't infringe on others - but someone who loves multiple people doesn't deserve the same level of "freedom"? Quite frankly, your post didn't convince me that one group of people deserve inclusion, but another group remains excluded. It's simply a matter of the definition at this point. If the original definition is gone, and it's already been altered, then altering it a bit more to include others shouldn't be a reach. The root of the word marriage is to join/merger, in the literal sense, and that's exactly what polygamists would be doing.

Obviously I don't go for either gay marriage or polygamy, but I think the reasoning behind allowing gays to marry then makes a solid argument for polygamy. In the end, it boils down to benefits and rights from the state. And if the state can alter it to include one group, don't think another group can't ask and someday achieve the same.

[fj1200]

But can those opposed to polygamy prove that it harms others? That it harms those involved? Does it harm anyone in the public?

I don't think many of the women married to a polygamist are truly entering into the arrangement of their own free will. See the Warren Jeff's cult for examples. I believe that was the point of the quote.


Oh, I'm not suggesting that one party wouldn't have remedy in civil court if one party tried screw the other party over in the event of a breakup or whatever. But the notion of having to hire a lawyer and go through the process of asking the government for a divorce is asinine. Do away with that bullshit and you save the court system millions every year. Of course child support is another matter entirely and is due the child whether the parents have ever been married or not, so I'm not suggesting that shouldn't be a government matter .

If you marry someone and you're worried about losing half your shit if s/he decided to leave the church marriage, then I suggest you get a legal contract stipulating the exact dispersion of said items should that happen. If you don't have that contract, too bad for you. It's not any different than if you go into business with someone and give them $100K as working capital to start out but fail to get any kind of legal document stating this, if at some point in the future they decide to screw you over, you're screwed. should have drawn up a legal document.

I don't think the government should step in where the separation is amicable but there's no reason to believe that the precedents regarding divorce currently would be changed. Splitting half of the marital assets would seem reasonable in the absence of a contract.

[ConHog]

I don't think many of the women married to a polygamist are truly entering into the arrangement of their own free will. See the Warren Jeff's cult for examples. I believe that was the point of the quote.



I don't think the government should step in where the separation is amicable but there's no reason to believe that the precedents regarding divorce currently would be changed. Splitting half of the marital assets would seem reasonable in the absence of a contract.

I agree. and couldn't that be accomplished sans government involvement? I mean yes of course if one party won't abide then the government might need to get involved. But despite all the horror stories, there are SOME couples who split amicably and having the government perform the divorce circus is a waste of government resources on something that has nothing to do with their responsibilities.

[Missileman]

Ok, so now that we know you support polygamy in addition to gay marriage, what's next?

If it's limited to arrangements of adult human beings, what else might there be?

[Missileman]

I see the issue as a minority group(gay) seeking special rights.

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

[jimnyc]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

They had identical rights all along, just not rights that supported their chosen lifestyle.

[Missileman]

They had identical rights all along, just not rights that supported their chosen lifestyle.

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

[jimnyc]

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

As to my other point, I don't think we should be in the habit of extending rights to people simply because of their lifestyles.

[ConHog]

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

As to my other point, I don't think we should be in the habit of extending rights to people simply because of their lifestyles.

A) the proof is at best questionable either way
B) We the people don't extend right, we can infringe on those rights, but we don't give them to anyone.

[MtnBiker]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.


True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.

[Missileman]

Evidence? LOL I've yet to see a single thing that could serve as evidence of otherwise. Lots od observations, deductions and analyzing - but not a shred of absolute proof.

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".

[ConHog]

True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.


No, it would just require a change in the law. Suppose they did make it legal for a man to marry a man, you could marry a man even if straight, if you chose to. That's not giving anyone a special right.

[Missileman]

True, gay people do have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. The state I live in, I do not have the right to marry another man, so a gay man does have the identical right as my self. It would take a special right for me to marry another man.

If gay marriage is made legal, you and gays will still have identical rights and it won't be a special right for anyone.

[jimnyc]

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

[ConHog]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

[logroller]

As to the bold: there was also a time when society thought marriage was meant only for a man and a woman. This is exactly why MtnBiker asked for a definition. Where does it get limited? Why can one argue that 2 people who love one another, who aren't harming others, should be free to get married so long as it doesn't infringe on others - but someone who loves multiple people doesn't deserve the same level of "freedom"? Quite frankly, your post didn't convince me that one group of people deserve inclusion, but another group remains excluded. It's simply a matter of the definition at this point. If the original definition is gone, and it's already been altered, then altering it a bit more to include others shouldn't be a reach. The root of the word marriage is to join/merger, in the literal sense, and that's exactly what polygamists would be doing.

Obviously I don't go for either gay marriage or polygamy, but I think the reasoning behind allowing gays to marry then makes a solid argument for polygamy. In the end, it boils down to benefits and rights from the state. And if the state can alter it to include one group, don't think another group can't ask and someday achieve the same.

MtnBiker asked for definition so he could shoot holes in it as being based on my opinion. How I define my marriage is different than what another may, this much is certain.

There was also a time when a husband could rape his wife, and a belief that women were purely for procreation and, even today, genital mutilation is practiced under the auspices that women shouldn't enjoy sex because it distracts from the maternal interests. There was also a time when society practiced polygamy, its even in the Bible for goodness sake.

You say you aren't persuaded by my argument, so I now defer to the courts' reckoning, that the term marriage is used to describe the most esteemed relationship into which two adults may endear themselves; which includes the aspect of "bilateral loyalty". Griswold v Connecticut. Absent a dissolution of that loyalty, aka divorce, upon remarriage, one would engage in a multilateral loyalty; which undermines the social institution of marriage. If the social understanding of marriage changes in this respect, then yes, polygamist could be granted multiple marriages. Times change, societies evolve; for better or for worse, we're committed to a social contract that believes all are entitled to equal protection of the law.

[Missileman]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

[jimnyc]

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

WTF does that have to do with mice and proof?

[logroller]

Forgive me if I don't find studies done on mice as "proof".

I hear that, I love me some sweet and low in my tea...then again i smoke, maybe I just don't give an F* about cancer.

[jimnyc]

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

Is that in the same link?

[Missileman]

Is that in the same link?

To be honest I'm not sure which of the links I went to lately had the story, but I googled and found one.

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-203.htm

[ConHog]

Jim , did I miss where you showed how gays being allowed to marry affects your life at all?

[jimnyc]

Jim , did I miss where you showed how gays being allowed to marry affects your life at all?

Yes

[ConHog]

Yes

Care to point me in the right direction?

[jimnyc]

To be honest I'm not sure which of the links I went to lately had the story, but I googled and found one.

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-203.htm

I figured that would be the study, but wanted to make sure something new hasn't come out further. That study is based on a selection of men and women basically smelling armpits and urine. Has it yet been peer reviewed and through further clinical testing? I'm willing to see it as proof that brains are in fact responding differently to scents, but we'll need more than this to go on. Let me peek around for a bit on this subject and see where this study went and if its been expanded on.

[jimnyc]

Care to point me in the right direction?

Didn't you imply you asked this question already? Then you should know where to look. Does it matter though? Is there any answer that you would deem acceptable? I don't need to be personally affected either to speak out against something.

[ConHog]

Didn't you imply you asked this question already? Then you should know where to look. Does it matter though? Is there any answer that you would deem acceptable? I don't need to be personally affected either to speak out against something.

I agree, you don't need to be personally affected to speak out against something. You DO however need to be personally affected , or be able to show that others are without wanting to be, in order to declare something needs to be made illegal.

So go ahead and tell us how much it disgusts you, but that doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.

[jimnyc]

I agree, you don't need to be personally affected to speak out against something. You DO however need to be personally affected , or be able to show that others are without wanting to be, in order to declare something needs to be made illegal.

So go ahead and tell us how much it disgusts you, but that doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.

Whatever.

[OCA]

It's not a special right, but an identical one.

They currently posess every identical right that you posess, granting them marriage rights is a special right.

[OCA]

And if the right is extended to include gay marriage, they'll continue to have an identical right. And I think we've seen enough evidence recently to say the bolded part is at the very least, suspect.

What evidence? Do you posess evidence that no other scientist in the world has discovered?

[OCA]

There have been several links posted...remember the one about pheremones? I didn't say "absolute proof", and IMO, reasonable doubt has been established against it being "choice".


LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.:laugh2:

[Missileman]

What evidence? Do you posess evidence that no other scientist in the world has discovered?

I didn't say proof, I said evidence, and it exists.

[OCA]

^ Red herring alert.

It doesn't matter if it's choice or not. Can you show me in my DNA where there is a head over heels hot for Latina woman gene? No , of course not. And you certainly can't tell me with any certainty that attraction is in our genes. That is your OPINION, and you don't get to make law based on OPINION.

But we do make law based on whats best for society and what the majority votes in.:dance:

[Missileman]

LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.:laugh2:

Unlike yourself, when I post a link it actually supports my case. Follow the link, read it, and learn something.

[OCA]

It's not just mice, they've documented a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain's response to male pheremones.

:link:


Then show where its definitive and fact.

Then call leading scientists because they'd like to know.

[Missileman]

They currently posess every identical right that you posess, granting them marriage rights is a special right.


Extending marriage to gays results in the same exact situation where everyone possesses the identical right. Noone will have a special right.

[OCA]

WTF does that have to do with mice and proof?

Not a damn thing Jimmy. Connie is so all over the place on this issue he doesn't know up from down. At least Missle has always liked pole smokers.

[Missileman]

:link:


Then show where its definitive and fact.

Then call leading scientists because they'd like to know.


There's no helping the fact that you can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof.

[OCA]

Extending marriage to gays results in the same exact situation where everyone possesses the identical right. Noone will have a special right.

They currently poseess the right to marry, only the law and the people say its correct that they must marry someone of the opposite sex.

I've got an idea, queers can marry a dyke, just live together and go out and eat pipes as much as they want because thats all they are going to do anyway.

See? A win-win situation.

[OCA]

There's no helping the fact that you can't grasp the difference between evidence and proof.

There has always been maybes and supposition, i'm only interested in definitive proof like the proof that we are all born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex.

It surprises me that you are too dumb to comprehend any of this, maybe your "evidence" validates something about you that you haven't shared yet?

[jimnyc]

LMFAO! Dumbass, the pheromones were about opposite sex attraction....lol.....dumbass.:laugh2:


Unlike yourself, when I post a link it actually supports my case. Follow the link, read it, and learn something.

OCA: The link does discuss pheremones tested on 24 or each: straights, gays, women (something like that). The gay men apparently were attracted to the armpit pheremones, just like the women, where the men were attracted to the womens pheremones from her urine. I would admit that this study gets entered as evidence, but I just think it's very, very thin and flimsy at best.

[OCA]

OCA: The link does discuss pheremones tested on 24 or each: straights, gays, women (something like that). The gay men apparently were attracted to the armpit pheremones, just like the women, where the men were attracted to the womens pheremones from her urine. I would admit that this study gets entered as evidence, but I just think it's very, very thin and flimsy at best.

Jimmy i've always said that there has always been supposition and maybes on their side but you think with all the millions spent and time spent on finding this "gene" that they would've found it now. It doesn't exist.

If queers respond differently to armpits maybe they should see a shrink............or a whore.

[ConHog]

Whatever.

It's not whatever Jim. What if someday the majority disagree with you and want to take away your rights because of something you CHOOSE? I hope you believe I would defend your choice as well. That's all this debate is about to me, I couldn't care less about "gay rights."

[Missileman]

the proof that we are all born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex.

As I recall, not only did you fail to post proof of this assertion of yours, you couldn't even muster any evidence to support it.

[OCA]

It's not whatever Jim. What if someday the majority disagree with you and want to take away your rights because of something you CHOOSE? I hope you believe I would defend your choice as well. That's all this debate is about to me, I couldn't care less about "gay rights."

Then Jimmy would abide by the majority is my guess.

I think you need to live in a different country because we operate, when voting, on a majority wins basis.

[OCA]

As I recall, not only did you fail to post proof of this assertion of yours, you couldn't even muster any evidence to support it.

Apparently your recall is as fucked up as your position on this subject.

I will not repost stuff for your benefit as I feel you are unworthy of the effort, go back and research on your own.

[Missileman]

Jimmy i've always said that there has always been supposition and maybes on their side but you think with all the millions spent and time spent on finding this "gene" that they would've found it now. It doesn't exist.


Which gene causes autism?

[Sir Evil]

I hope you believe I would defend your choice as well.

:laugh2:

that's worth a donut......NOT!

[ConHog]

Then Jimmy would abide by the majority is my guess.

I think you need to live in a different country because we operate, when voting, on a majority wins basis.

True, sort of.............

The majority is NOT allowed to trample on the constitutionally protected rights of the minority.

[Missileman]

Apparently your recall is as fucked up as your position on this subject.

I will not repost stuff for your benefit as I feel you are unworthy of the effort, go back and research on your own.

You don't need to repost it, I pointed out the the fact your link was shit the first time you posted it. Two times nothing is still nothing.

[OCA]

True, sort of.............

The majority is NOT allowed to trample on the constitutionally protected rights of the minority.

Can you show me where in the Constitution queers are afforded the right to marriage?

[Missileman]

Can you show me where in the Constitution queers are afforded the right to marriage?

It's right beside the clause that affords the right to heterosexuals.

[OCA]

You don't need to repost it, I pointed out the the fact your link was shit the first time you posted it. Two times nothing is still nothing.

That and 5 cents will get me well.............nothing.

I...........and others pointed out that your pheromones crap is saran wrap flimsy at best..........but thats what your side has been hanging on for decades.

[OCA]

It's right beside the clause that affords the right to heterosexuals.

Quote it.

[ConHog]

Can you show me where in the Constitution queers are afforded the right to marriage?

Can you show me were in the COTUS straights are afforded the right to marry? Oh that's right , you can't because the COTUS doesn't grant rights fool.

[Missileman]

Quote it.


Dense? Much?

[OCA]

Can you show me were in the COTUS straights are afforded the right to marry? Oh that's right , you can't because the COTUS doesn't grant rights fool.

It doesn't because we left that issue up to states and the people............and we know where they stand on that.

You can't win.............unless lib judges override the wishes of the people.

[OCA]

Dense? Much?

You are a joke, I believe there is an underlying reason for your irrationality on this issue.

Come out.......Dr. OCA can exercise your demons.

[Missileman]

That and 5 cents will get me well.............nothing.

I...........and others pointed out that your pheromones crap is saran wrap flimsy at best..........but thats what your side has been hanging on for decades.

Flimsy maybe, but exponentially stronger than anything you posted that supports "everyone is born heterosexual".

[ConHog]

It doesn't because we left that issue up to states and the people............and we know where they stand on that.

You can't win.............unless lib judges override the wishes of the people.

No it wasn't . Do you really suppose that EVERYTHING that isn't assigned to the federal government by the COTUS is automatically left to the states? The federal government doesn't control my right to breathe, that doesn't mean the State of Arkansas does. Same with marriage. Government OUT of marriage.

[OCA]

Queers are not being denied any right that they aren't already born with. That is to say they have every inalienable right as every other American is born with including marriage.

[Missileman]

You are a joke, I believe there is an underlying reason for your irrationality on this issue.

Come out.......Dr. OCA can exercise your demons.


Quit trying to change the subject...BTW...which gene is it that causes autism?

[OCA]

No it wasn't . Do you really suppose that EVERYTHING that isn't assigned to the federal government by the COTUS is automatically left to the states? The federal government doesn't control my right to breathe, that doesn't mean the State of Arkansas does. Same with marriage. Government OUT of marriage.

Apparently they do...............that Prop.8 fiasco is goung to the S.C.............the Feds will be the deciding voice..........that is to say government will decide who gets to marry and who doesn't and believe me there will be plenty of pressure to vote against applied.

[ConHog]

Flimsy maybe, but exponentially stronger than anything you posted that supports "everyone is born heterosexual".

An interesting side debate, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. OCA KNOWS that he can't legitimately give a an example of a way gay marriage affects him, so he instead delves into this side argument.

[OCA]

Quit trying to change the subject...BTW...which gene is it that causes autism?

Autism...........talk about changing the subject.

[Sir Evil]

The never ending queer debate....:uhoh:


Wanna support gay marriage then go fly the rainbow flag in a gay parade and show your support...:gay:

[OCA]

Flimsy maybe, but exponentially stronger than anything you posted that supports "everyone is born heterosexual".

Go to "queers made not born".

[OCA]

An interesting side debate, but completely irrelevant to this discussion. OCA KNOWS that he can't legitimately give a an example of a way gay marriage affects him, so he instead delves into this side argument.

Things do not have to affect you personally for you to take a stand.

You've already been told that once today.

[ConHog]

The never ending queer debate....:uhoh:


Wanna support gay marriage then go fly the rainbow flag in a gay parade and show your support...:gay:


Supporting the government not being involved in what they not ought be involved in is not the same as supporting gay marriage.

[Missileman]

Autism...........talk about changing the subject.

Relevant because you insist that since a gene hasn't yet been found that causes homosexuality that it doesn't exist. By that standard, autistic kids are choosing to be autistic, right?

[ConHog]

Relevant because you insist that since a gene hasn't yet been found that causes homosexuality that it doesn't exist. By that standard, autistic kids are choosing to be autistic, right?

Well, some have opined that OCA chooses to be a retard. Myself I think he can't help it, but to be fair he himself did state that he chooses to act the way he does, so he's being consistent.

[Sir Evil]

Supporting the government not being involved in what they not ought be involved in is not the same as supporting gay marriage.

The comment was not aimed at you, it was a general statement. I certainly believe that you wear pink panties and fly the rainbow flag proudly.

[OCA]

Relevant because you insist that since a gene hasn't yet been found that causes homosexuality that it doesn't exist. By that standard, autistic kids are choosing to be autistic, right?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/09/autism-study-genetic-causes

[OCA]

Like shooting fish in a barrel

[ConHog]

The comment was not aimed at you, it was a general statement. I certainly believe that you wear pink panties and fly the rainbow flag proudly.

Who gives a shit what you think. Oh and as I've read on here before you make a post you don't get to control who answers it.

[Abbey Marie]

Finding a gay gene would not mean we should support it and treat it like a normal thing.
There is a gene for pancreatic cancer, and as soon as we can, I am certain we will use that knowledge to try to eradicate any resultant cancer.

[OCA]

Finding a gay gene would not mean we should support it and treat it like a normal thing.
There is a gene for pancreatic cancer, and as soon as we can, I am certain we will use that knowledge to try to eradicate any resultant cancer.

That is correct Abbey....................it wouldn't really matter, right is right and wrong is wrong. We need a costitutional amendment banning it.

[ConHog]

Finding a gay gene would not mean we should support it and treat it like a normal thing.
There is a gene for pancreatic cancer, and as soon as we can, I am certain we will use that knowledge to try to eradicate any resultant cancer.

True enough, but in the mean time we don't prevent cancer patients from marrying each other do we?

[ConHog]

That is correct Abbey....................it wouldn't really matter, right is right and wrong is wrong. We need a costitutional amendment banning it.

A US constitutional amendment banning it?

[OCA]

True enough, but in the mean time we don't prevent cancer patients from marrying each other do we?

Not if they are man and woman.

[Sir Evil]

Who gives a shit what you think. Oh and as I've read on here before you make a post you don't get to control who answers it.

Could care less is you reply to my post or not colonel cornhole, now go fly your flag creampuff....

[OCA]

A US constitutional amendment banning it?

Yep

[OCA]

Could care less is you reply to my post or not colonel cornhole, now go fly your flag creampuff....

:laugh2:
:laugh2:

[ConHog]

Yep

That's odd b/c didn't you just about 10 posts ago say it's left up to the states? Hmm, guess that only counts if the states vote your way?

[ConHog]

Could care less is you reply to my post or not colonel cornhole, now go fly your flag creampuff....

I know you could care less, because currently you care quite a bit. In contrast, I could NOT care less about you. Meaning I have the least amount of care about you that is possible. None in fact.

[OCA]

That's odd b/c didn't you just about 10 posts ago say it's left up to the states? Hmm, guess that only counts if the states vote your way?

Well they do but its about time we just nuke this thing, let the S.C. rule against it and have Congress amend the Constitution accordingly.

No more overrules of the people by lib judges AKA Connie's friends.

[ConHog]

Well they do but its about time we just nuke this thing, let the S.C. rule against it and have Congress amend the Constitution accordingly.

No more overrules of the people by lib judges AKA Connie's friends.

LOL I see in other words just do what OCA wants LOL

[Missileman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/09/autism-study-genetic-causes


Sorry Charlie...


In the largest study ever into the genetics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/genetics) of autism, the scientists identified rare genetic variations that were 20% more frequent in children with autism than in children without the disorder


If they had found THE gene that causes autism, it would be present in 100% of the children with autism.

[Missileman]

Finding a gay gene would not mean we should support it and treat it like a normal thing.
There is a gene for pancreatic cancer, and as soon as we can, I am certain we will use that knowledge to try to eradicate any resultant cancer.

That suggests an interesting hypothetical. Let's say they find THE gene that causes homosexuality and the condition is untreatable. They develop a safe, 100% accurate test that can identify gays in-utero. Do we mandate testing and abort all of those fetuses with the goal of eradicating homosexuality?

[ConHog]

That suggests an interesting hypothetical. Let's say they find THE gene that causes homosexuality and the condition is untreatable. They develop a safe, 100% accurate test that can identify gays in-utero. Do we mandate testing and abort all of those fetuses with the goal of eradicating homosexuality?

Gay is the disease, and Abbey is the cure.



No, seriously I have heard it said from reliable sources that Abbey is so hot that literally one look at her is enough to turn Richard Simmons straight.

[fj1200]

I agree. and couldn't that be accomplished sans government involvement? I mean yes of course if one party won't abide then the government might need to get involved. But despite all the horror stories, there are SOME couples who split amicably and having the government perform the divorce circus is a waste of government resources on something that has nothing to do with their responsibilities.

Courts resolve disputes, that's their job if it comes to that, unless they are able to mediate their differences.

[fj1200]

But we do make law based on whats best for society and what the majority votes in.:dance:

Actually most law is based on the votes of representatives via our republican form of government. Representatives who are increasingly voting to provide the same privilege to those who wish to marry someone of their own choosing, not your choosing.

[fj1200]

Queers are not being denied any right that they aren't already born with. That is to say they have every inalienable right as every other American is born with including marriage.

I suppose you won't be too disappointed when gays get to marry seeing as how you won't be denied the right to claim marriage as you see fit nor the right to marriage which is not in the constitution.

[logroller]

Queers are not being denied any right that they aren't already born with. That is to say they have every inalienable right as every other American is born with including marriage.

So then, everyone is entitled to marry anyone they so choose. Got it!

[OCA]

I suppose you won't be too disappointed when gays get to marry seeing as how you won't be denied the right to claim marriage as you see fit nor the right to marriage which is not in the constitution.

Oh they will be able to marry.......someone of the opposite sex. In fact they can do that as of right now.

[OCA]

So then, everyone is entitled to marry anyone they so choose. Got it!

Nope..........................someone of the opposite sex.

[logroller]

Nope..........................someone of the opposite sex.

Then its not a right. Its not like you have the right to vote for one type person, or a right to a jury of bigots or right to speak freely solely on matters socially acceptable. So what is marriage then, if its not a right... a privilege-- with the sole test being one dick and one pussy--- what about hermaphrodites? Enquiring minds...