Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[von551]

I think we hooked a live one...

go to this SITE (http://www.icr.org/Evidence/) and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to. even darwin admitted that one day evidence may prove his theories wrong, it's sad the scientific community doesn't listen to their leader's advice...Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Kelvin and Albert Einstein are among the most famous and influential scientists who were Christians and saw God's evidence proved by their science! Darwin was an inexperienced non-scientist young man that sailed (by luck he got on the boat through a friend) for just a few years after defecting from his religous upbringing when he developed his theory of evolution, hardly a match of knowledge and experience by the above mentioned scientists. do some research and you'll see the truth...

[Kirin Lemon]

go to this SITE (http://www.icr.org/Evidence/) and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to.

Kirin Lemon 6:1

THAT'S NOT SCIENCE, YOU STUPID TWAT.

[Msut77]

go to this SITE (http://www.icr.org/Evidence/) and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to. even darwin admitted that one day evidence may prove his theories wrong, it's sad the scientific community doesn't listen to their leader's advice...Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Kelvin and Albert Einstein are among the most famous and influential scientists who were Christians and saw God's evidence proved by their science! Darwin was an inexperienced non-scientist young man that sailed (by luck he got on the boat through a friend) for just a few years after defecting from his religous upbringing when he developed his theory of evolution, hardly a match of knowledge and experience by the above mentioned scientists. do some research and you'll see the truth...

Did you really think a place that tries to push a literal six day creation a few thousand years ago among other garbage is going to be taken seriously by anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together?

You are obviously criminally ignorant, Get a clue.

[bmulligan]

The thing is that: At the moment Civil Unions do NOT work. We have Civil Unions here in NJ. The problem is, some places ..like jobs (for health insurance) and hospitals (for visitations) do not recognize civil unions, only marriage. That is the current problem we have. To me, this is basically the issue.



Your problem is that these are two separate issues.

I'm all for allowing people getting married to whomever they choose. It's called freedom of association, and the government's job is supposed to be to protect that right. The government is also supposed to refrain from "respecting the establishment of religion". Making laws that recognize marriage do just that and are violations of the constitution and violations of our freedom.

However, private insurance companies should have the freedom to choose what types of "couples" can be covered under their policies. If you don't like their policies, start your own insurance company. This is the downside of freedom, the fact that there are no guarantees and you cannot force people to provide you with service.

You seem to want more than freedom of marriage. You want to force people to give you things by owning a piece of the marriage moniker and penalize companies that refuse to serve you because of your lifestyle choices. It doesn't work that way. You can't demand freedom for yourself and then deny it to companies that wish to exercise the same freedom of choice. You can't have it both ways and claim to be asking for equal rights.

[docvinh]

Sadly, you and docvinh don't know the Bible well enough to know you're in direct contradiction to what it teaches. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "test all things", pertaining to scripture - in laymen's terms, don't believe everything you hear and think for yourself. On the contrary is you and the world that goes with the flow and believes what the majority tells you.
2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed

Right. And the majority of Americans believe in God and the Bible. So what's your point here? I think for myself. The bible is a book, no more, no less. So really, you're the one who is going with the flow my friend.

[mykevermin]

Your problem is that these are two separate issues.

I'm all for allowing people getting married to whomever they choose. It's called freedom of association, and the government's job is supposed to be to protect that right. The government is also supposed to refrain from "respecting the establishment of religion". Making laws that recognize marriage do just that and are violations of the constitution and violations of our freedom.

However, private insurance companies should have the freedom to choose what types of "couples" can be covered under their policies. If you don't like their policies, start your own insurance company. This is the downside of freedom, the fact that there are no guarantees and you cannot force people to provide you with service.

You seem to want more than freedom of marriage. You want to force people to give you things by owning a piece of the marriage moniker and penalize companies that refuse to serve you because of your lifestyle choices. It doesn't work that way. You can't demand freedom for yourself and then deny it to companies that wish to exercise the same freedom of choice. You can't have it both ways and claim to be asking for equal rights.

bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.

[UncleBob]

bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.

[VioletArrows]

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.

Except what happens when the customers don't have a choice because NONE of the businesses want to serve them?

[perdition(troy]

Right. And the majority of Americans believe in God and the Bible. So what's your point here? I think for myself. The bible is a book, no more, no less. So really, you're the one who is going with the flow my friend.

As crazy as this may sound to you, people that believe in the Bible possibly think about what they believe in? "I think for myself". That phrase is one of those phrases that is completely over used.

[JJSP]

The Bible should have NOTHING to do with this. Countless marriages performed outside of the Catholic church (Jewish ceremonies, Buddhist ceremonies, Muslim ceremonies, etc.) are recognized by the state and the nation for purposes of legality, and absolutely no one should be using the Bible as basis for any of this if it doesn't allow for glass-breaking and tea ceremonies either.

[lilboo]

It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)

[docvinh]

As crazy as this may sound to you, people that believe in the Bible possibly think about what they believe in? "I think for myself". That phrase is one of those phrases that is completely over used.

Hey, I'm just quoting what he wrote.:) I don't doubt that many people think about what they believe in, but he's acting like if you don't believe in the bible, you're not doing any critical though on it; instead, you're just going with the flow when in general, it's the exact opposite. Regardless, I say do away with recognizing anything except civil unions, that way everyone is happy.

[jlew]

It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)


I think that the civil unions would be pissed since their only option is government healthcare.

[HumanSnatcher]

bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.
Myke, how much you wanna bet that people like bmulligan would cry foul if insurance companies refused coverage to hetero couples that were legally married, irregardless of any type of status?

[UncleBob]

Except what happens when the customers don't have a choice because NONE of the businesses want to serve them?

Then two homosexual guys can get together and start an insurance company that caters to homosexual couples and they'll make a killing because they'll be the only company in town to offer it.

[VioletArrows]

With blackjack and hookers? You say that as if anyone can just pull a multi billion dollar industry out of their ass.

[Strell]

You say that as if anyone can just pull a multi billion dollar industry out of their ass.

How Freudian.

[ninju D]

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.

Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.

[UncleBob]

With blackjack and hookers? You say that as if anyone can just pull a multi billion dollar industry out of their ass.

Wow... Creating a business is hard work... who would have thought that. Now, pretend you spent all your money and all your time creating a building a business up from scratch and now the government is going to come in and tell you who you have to associate with in your business dealings.

Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.

It's also illegal for homosexual couples to get married in California. I guess that the law is the law and we should blindly abide by it - never questioning and never challenging it.

Sorry lilboo - you're SOL.

[ninju D]

It's also illegal for homosexual couples to get married in California. I guess that the law is the law and we should blindly abide by it - never questioning and never challenging it.

Sorry lilboo - you're SOL.

Since when was believing in civil rights strictly a liberal point of view?

[UncleBob]

Since when was believing in civil rights strictly a liberal point of view?

Since "Civil Rights" were expanded to the point where they trampled on the rights of private property owners and their freedom to associate with individuals of their picking.

See, the Constitution clearly defines an individual's right to own and defend property. It also protects an individual's right to choose who they wish to associate with. However, no where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to spit at these key principles and require a private individual to do business with another individual or allow that individual onto his/her property.

And before anyone pulls out the 14th Amendment, be sure to go back and read it carefully.

[Msut77]

Bob seems to have a fetish for all things "separate but equal", it is the only thing he is consistent about.

[Kirin Lemon]

irregardless

:headache:

[VipFREAK]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Ok, cool. Finally, equality for ALL.

"And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that," he said."

Erm... wait... so make up your mind, or are we going to put gays and indians together then... ?

[rickonker]

It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

How socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule individual rights because the majority said so?

[rickonker]

Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.

Did you miss the word "should" in his post?

[mykevermin]

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.

Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.

[UncleBob]

Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.

The Constitution guarantees my right to freely associate with individuals of my choosing. I do have that right - even if courts would deny it.

[bmulligan]

It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)


I'm sorry but how is this equal protection for all? Treating couples differently than individuals is also unequal protection, by law.

And let's clarify that nothing provided by the government is "free."


And Myke, you're just an asshole sometimes. Really. We all know of your blatant disdain for liberty and individual rights, so please stop pretending to be their defender by calling real liberals racists. You have no intention of letting any man, black, brown, or purple, think for himself and make free choices as long as your government can make the right choices for him.

What you really hate is that you don't yet have that sadistic, legislative control of every citizen, their thoughts, and actions. It's the modern "liberal", fascist view that's nearly identical to the views of your enemies.

[Msut77]

Amazing, people who argue the merits of torture only see freedom in terms of how much interaction they are "forced" to have with brown people.

[mykevermin]

I do have that right - even if courts would deny it.

:whee:

[UncleBob]

:whee:

My argument is the same as the argument for same-sex marriage. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot associate with. I'm not sure why that's so confusing.

[UncleBob]

Amazing, people who argue the merits of torture only see freedom in terms of how much interaction they are "forced" to have with brown people.

Amazing. I can say torture is immoral and unjustified and you can completely ignore that.

[rickonker]

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.

Except you can't. Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation.

Good try, though.

Did you miss the word "should" in his post?

Except you don't have that freedom. Not in toto, at any rate.

Sorry, Charlie.

I find it amusing that two people made almost identical, incorrect responses. And one of them was just criticizing another CAG's reading comprehension skills.

Seriously, compare the sentences in the two posts, one at a time.

Except you can't. Except you don't have that freedom.

Its illegal to refuse someone services based on something arbitrary like sexual orientation. Not in toto, at any rate.

Good try, though. Sorry, Charlie.


Coincidence? Or religious influence, perhaps?

[mykevermin]

My argument is the same as the argument for same-sex marriage. The Federal Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot associate with. I'm not sure why that's so confusing.

Do you have the right?

Or should the government not be in the business of blah blah blah?

Get your story straight. You're telling me two different things are the case.

rickoncker: selective piss-taking posts since...whenever he joined. I couldn't be arsed to actually look. When you have someone say "I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT - EVEN IF THE COURTS WOULD DENY IT" - and you instead focus on the heavy petting you've got going on with his word "should," you're just being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt.

Let me make a corollary argument: I have the right to murder you and your family, shit in your microwave, steal your xbox, eat all your food, and blow up your house - even if the courts would deny it.

If you don't take issue with that claim, you'd be a goddamned fool. More of one, at any rate.

Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG. You dance right over that and float safely down to "should" island, where you can rest haughtily on a foundation of being a complete and utter cunt focused on one semantic fucking phrase.

Make a real claim and don't hide behind such a weak-ass argument.

[UncleBob]

Do you have the right?
[...]
Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG.

Isn't this pretty much the basis of this entire thread - the law and the courts are wrong and that homosexuals should have the right to marry? Or am I wrong?

[mykevermin]

As long as your claim is that the constitution guarantees you the right to ensure people aren't necessarily equal, as that appears to be your point of contention.

[UncleBob]

Where did I say that people are not necessarily equal? Find me anywhere I said that.

Otherwise, stop putting words in my mouth and admit your argument has absolutely no merit.

[mykevermin]

You insist upon your right to discriminate. That involves inherent inequality.

Stop dodging the point that your desire to discriminate is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.

[UncleBob]

I'll stop dodging the point you're trying to make if you stop putting words into my mouth, then trying to argue against things I didn't say. :)

Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to own and protect property?

Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to choose who they wish to associate with?

[JJSP]

The fuck does any of the right to service shit have to do with two gay guys wanting to enter into a marriage that's legally recognized by the state and nation?

[mykevermin]

He don't want no queers sittin' at his woolworth's lunch counter.

[mykevermin]

Do you disagree that the Constitution provides an individual with legal rights to choose who they wish to associate with?

As a private citizen, you have those rights.

As a business, you do not.

[UncleBob]

The fuck does any of the right to service shit have to do with two gay guys wanting to enter into a marriage that's legally recognized by the state and nation?

It was discussed earlier in this thread about the differences between "Marriage" and "Civil Union" - the biggest being that some perks are given to married couples and not to couples in a "union" - like insurance.

My point is that a private company should have a right to enter into business agreements with individuals of their own choosing - just as private individuals have a right to determine which companies they wish to do business with.

He don't want no queers sittin' at his woolworth's lunch counter.

Continue to make comments like this and you better never hope I see your ass in real life. I like to think we can have a civil debate in regards to the rights we have - and should have - as US Citizens without you resorting to name calling.

Just because I believe individuals should have a right to choose who they allow on to their property or who they wish to associate with, it does not mean I'm a racist or a bigot or any such thing.

Likewise, I believe individuals should be allowed to have an abortion. Personally, I'm fully against it.
I believe individuals should have a right to assisted suicide - although I can't see myself going through with it or assisting someone else.
I believe in the state's right to administer the death penalty - although I can't imagine myself in a situation where I would ever ask for someone who has hurt me to be put to death.

If you want to have a discussion about our rights, then we can continue. If you want to call me names, then my personal cell phone number is - as always - in my signature. Call it, I'll give you my address and you can at least do it to my face.

As a private citizen, you have those rights.

As a business, you do not.

So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?

[JJSP]

So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?
If you provide a service to the public, rely on small business loans provided and funded by public institutions, and collect and pay taxes from the public and to the government, you accept the limitation that you can't turn someone away just because of skin tone/orientation/sex/whatever. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a nice concept to those who want to pretend they're allowed to be dicks, but it'd never hold up legally and is a horrible business practice.

You're not giving them up completely - don't cry wolf over something like that and let's get back to the topic, gay marriage.

Ain't got no problem with them man-snugglers getting married. Ain't got no problem them registering at the local Bed, Bath, & Beyond either.

[UncleBob]

If you provide a service to the public,

A business isn't "providing a service to the public", per say. They're entering a business deal with private individuals. If we're talking about a Public Utility or such, then I'd agree. If we're talking about the Dollar General or your grandpappy's yard sale, then I'd say no.

rely on small business loans provided and funded by public institutions,

If the funding comes from private resources (say, a group of investors), then the business owner should be held to the standards of those investors.

If the funding comes from government tax dollars, then, I would agree, the business would be giving up it's right to "discriminate" based on Civil Rights legislation. However - personally, I don't think it's the place of the government to confiscate - by force - the private property (in this case, money) of one individual and give it to another for the purpose of the second individual starting a business. Since the government *does* do this, I agree - if you take government money, you should be held accountable as the government is until such time as you can pay back every penny - plus interest.

But, if you start and run your business with your own money... then it should be your business.

and collect and pay taxes from the public and to the government,

I'm sure many businesses would be thrilled to be allowed to stop playing tax man for the government. I don't think any of us would be thrilled if the government sent someone to your home, forced you to become a government employee, then took any of your rights away from you.

[depascal22]

Bob. If you're so adamant about having a business that only deals with people of your choosing, then do so. It's not called a business, it's called a private club. Country clubs decide who they want to come in. So do some nightclubs.

Let's do an experiment then, Bob. If you feel that you are legally entitled to choose who you do business with, open a business. Make a sign on the door spelling out exactly who is allowed to come in and do business and who should not even bother stepping in the door. We'll see what happens and go from there.

Southern business used to to do it all the time. Such signs used to say:

"$$$$a, when the sun don't shine I betta not see yo black behind."

"Whites Only"

Here's the big point though. If you're in business, why should you deny anyone service? Are you trying to make money or a point?

[Strell]

No Homers Club.

[UncleBob]

Bob. If you're so adamant about having a business that only deals with people of your choosing, then do so. It's not called a business, it's called a private club. Country clubs decide who they want to come in. So do some nightclubs.

Let's do an experiment then, Bob. If you feel that you are legally entitled to choose who you do business with, open a business. Make a sign on the door spelling out exactly who is allowed to come in and do business and who should not even bother stepping in the door. We'll see what happens and go from there.

Southern business used to to do it all the time. Such signs used to say:

"$$$$a, when the sun don't shine I betta not see yo black behind."

"Whites Only"

Here's the big point though. If you're in business, why should you deny anyone service? Are you trying to make money or a point?

I have no interest in starting such a business.
And I completely agree - it doesn't (typically) make business sense to deny services to paying customers.

However - simply because I don't agree with something, it doesn't mean someone who does should be denied their freedom to associate.

I would also like to point out - if I knew of a business that clearly discriminated against a group of individuals based on race/gender/etc., I, personally, would refuse to do business with the individuals who own the business. A business who denies services to one group loses the business of a much larger group.

[depascal22]

So what's your point? We should cut off our noses to spite our face just so we can be Constitutionally (and ideolgically) pure? Sure, business theoretically have the right to deny service but what real business does so just to make a point other than the Catholic Church and various other religious organizations?

This is about ideology trumping common human decency. Two people (not four or a guy and a dog) want to get married and have the same legal rights that any hetero couple has without qualifers, buts, or also known as, or any other legal crap that tends to get in the way of people going about their lives.

I'm just tired of the conservative line of thinking that you have to deny rights to a minority so you can mistakenly guarantee rights to the majority. What sense does that make? I've never heard one real way that marriage will be weakened because gays will partake in it. Will your marriage have less of a chance of making it? Are you doomed to get a divorce just because Bob and Tom got hitched in a nice quiet backyard ceremony and honeymooned in Maui? If the Bible is your reason for denying them, practice what Jesus preached and treat them with love. If God is really against two gay people living in a peaceful loving relationship, let Him make the decision at the Pearly Gates. We should just be working to bring peace and happiness to everyone on Earth instead of misery and shame.

[Msut77]

depascal surely you have noticed that all boob ever does is argue things that he later claims "he isn't really arguing saying".

[depascal22]

It's late and I'm buzzed. I love arguing when I'm buzzed.

[Strell]

Attention people near depascal: Please take away his cell phone and/or webcams. We don't want him doing something he'll regret in the morning.

[depascal22]

Check out the "rape game" thread for my future regret. I'm the Commie bastard that doesn't mind that they get banned but I offered a new game since everyone seems to think they're Constitutionally protected AND art.

[Boeing 747]

I really don't care, if people want to be gay, go ahead, more room in heaven for me. /s

[Strell]

You jerk. I'm going to open my own heaven, specifically tailored for gay people.

And this time I'm keeping my pants on.

[JJSP]

I really don't care, if people want to be gay, go ahead, more room in heaven for me. /s
It's okay, God's a butch lesbian anyway. Have fun.

[Boeing 747]

You jerk. I'm going to open my own heaven, specifically tailored for gay people.

And this time I'm keeping my pants on.

Yeah it's called hell, enjoy it, you'll have it a lot. Since Satan will be there to ass ram all of the gays, with his giant razor blade filled boiling water semen, dick of damnation, I'm sure they will, because their gay!

[rickonker]

rickoncker: selective piss-taking posts since...whenever he joined. I couldn't be arsed to actually look. When you have someone say "I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT - EVEN IF THE COURTS WOULD DENY IT" - and you instead focus on the heavy petting you've got going on with his word "should," you're just being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt.

Let me make a corollary argument: I have the right to murder you and your family, shit in your microwave, steal your xbox, eat all your food, and blow up your house - even if the courts would deny it.

If you don't take issue with that claim, you'd be a goddamned fool. More of one, at any rate.

Nevertheless, you dance right over UncleBob's claim that he has the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of civil rights and antidiscriminatory legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG. You dance right over that and float safely down to "should" island, where you can rest haughtily on a foundation of being a complete and utter cunt focused on one semantic fucking phrase.

Make a real claim and don't hide behind such a weak-ass argument.

I guess I really do need to explain this to you.

Maybe an example will help.

Dude: Gay people should be allowed to marry each other.

Homophobe: Except they don't have that freedom. Sorry, Charlie.

Dude: Uh, I said they should be allowed to do it, not that they're allowed to do it now.

Homophobe: You dance right over your claim that you have the right to ignore the various and myriad bits of legislation passed throughout US history, AND THAT THE COURT, AND THUS THE LAW, ARE IN THE WRONG.

Dude: Uh, no, I'm actually saying the law is wrong.

Homophobe: Semantics! You cunt!


I'm curious to see if you'll try to ignore the argument and resort to name-calling as usual, or if you'll just run away from the thread again.

[mykevermin]

Continue to make comments like this and you better never hope I see your ass in real life.

tee-hee.

So, you believe, as a business, you give up your rights?

No, but I do *know* (as long as rickonker's havin' hisself a good ol' time with semantics) that you do give up some rights as a business/incorporated body.

But, no, I don't *believe*. I don't believe in the laptop in front of me. I know it is there.

[UncleBob]

So what's your point? We should cut off our noses to spite our face just so we can be Constitutionally (and ideolgically) pure? Sure, business theoretically have the right to deny service but what real business does so just to make a point other than the Catholic Church and various other religious organizations?

This is about ideology trumping common human decency. Two people (not four or a guy and a dog) want to get married and have the same legal rights that any hetero couple has without qualifers, buts, or also known as, or any other legal crap that tends to get in the way of people going about their lives.

I'm just tired of the conservative line of thinking that you have to deny rights to a minority so you can mistakenly guarantee rights to the majority. What sense does that make? I've never heard one real way that marriage will be weakened because gays will partake in it. Will your marriage have less of a chance of making it? Are you doomed to get a divorce just because Bob and Tom got hitched in a nice quiet backyard ceremony and honeymooned in Maui? If the Bible is your reason for denying them, practice what Jesus preached and treat them with love. If God is really against two gay people living in a peaceful loving relationship, let Him make the decision at the Pearly Gates. We should just be working to bring peace and happiness to everyone on Earth instead of misery and shame.

I believe, if two consenting individuals of sound mind wish to enter a contractual agreement, the government should not be allowed to deny them this due to the genders of the two individuals who wish to enter into the agreement.

You'll get no argument out of me on that one.

As for private business - let's look at two different cases.

Let's pretend you're a member of a minority. For the sake of not offending anyone, I'm going to say you're a Green Martian. Now, there's a lot of hate toward you Martin folk. You're lazy. You take our jobs. You steal our women. You cause violence and use our social services without paying taxes. You spread disease. In all, you're a filthy, disgusting creature. ;)

Now, you want to buy a game. You have the option from three different stores.

The first store has a sign on the door "Greenies stay out!". You try to walk in, but the guy behind the counter yells at you and kicks you out.

At the second store, the guy behind the counter hates you. It's quite obvious. But, he wants your money. He's "nice" - faked through his gritted teeth the entire time you're in there.

Then, there's a third store that is ran by other Martians and welcomes all people into the store. It used to be ran by Americans, but the Martians took our jobs.

So, do you really, really want to give your hard earned cash to the guy at the second store? He hates you and probably imagines several different ways of hanging you without getting caught.

In a world where our government takes away our right to associate, the first store and the second store are one and the same. The guy in the first store has to fake being nice for fear that his store could get into legal trouble. Do you really want to give him your money? Do you really want to support his business? Wouldn't it be much nicer to just know which stores are ran by ignorant people so you can stay away from them and not support them?

[mykevermin]

^ So do you think residential covenants that exclude people based on race should be made legal again?

[perdition(troy]

what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.

[mykevermin]

there is variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but sexual orientation is covered virtually everywhere as a subset of EEOA laws.

Seeing as how the law looks at it that way, I compare the two. Like the law does.

[UncleBob]

there is variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but sexual orientation is covered virtually everywhere as a subset of EEOA laws.

Seeing as how the law looks at it that way, I compare the two. Like the law does.

The law (In California, at least) also does *not* compare Homosexual Marriage to Heterosexual Marriage. I assume you're okay with them not being equal then?

[mykevermin]

Of course not. But that's because it is unconstitutional to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes.

[UncleBob]

Of course not. But that's because it is unconstitutional to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes.

Incorrect.

There are two ways of fixing this statement:

"It is unlawful to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes."

"It is unconstitutional for the State to legally define classes of citizenry and delegate differential rights based on those classes."

[mykevermin]

Demonstrate how it is incorrect. Make like a math student and show your work.

[UncleBob]

The Federal Constitution does not deny the individual the ability to define classes of citizens.

I cannot prove a negative here, short of posting the entire Constitution and saying "See, it isn't there!".

If you disagree, then point out the exact part of the Constitution where it says individuals cannot do this.

[mykevermin]

You would argue, then, that the Civil Rights Act, FHAA, and EEOA are all unconstitutional?

You would also consider, (if you look at a community as a cluster of individuals), racially discriminatory residential covenants to be perfectly fine and legal? Speaking not on law, but on the constitution.

[UncleBob]

You would argue, then, that the Civil Rights Act, FHAA, and EEOA are all unconstitutional?

Parts of them, yes. The parts dealing with Federal, State and Local governments, no - they're perfectly Constitutional.

You would also consider, (if you look at a community as a cluster of individuals), racially discriminatory residential covenants to be perfectly fine and legal? Speaking not on law, but on the constitution.

See, this is where you need to watch your wording. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's perfectly fine". For example, Abortion is legal - and should be. But I would hardly say it's "perfectly fine" in the majority of cases.

As for residential covenants - it depends - were tax payer dollars used in the construction of the neighborhood?

[depascal22]

In a world where our government takes away our right to associate, the first store and the second store are one and the same. The guy in the first store has to fake being nice for fear that his store could get into legal trouble. Do you really want to give him your money? Do you really want to support his business? Wouldn't it be much nicer to just know which stores are ran by ignorant people so you can stay away from them and not support them?

First of all, your Green Martians are a horrible analogy. No one takes jobs. A job is offered and people apply. Maybe if the White Martians didn't act like real work was demeaning and too hard, then they'd still have some jobs.

Second, I'll respond to the quote above. I don't care if a person is ignorant. I don't take someone's religious/social/political beliefs when I go into a store because then I'd never buy anything. Walt Disney was a vicious anti-semite but I still like Pinocchio. Lion King was a great movie. I'm not supporting his point of view by buying his product. I'm supporting his product. The only time I'll boycott is when someone is using sweatshop labor or destroying the environment to produce the product. I'm not disagreeing with their political views. I'm disagreeing with their business practices. Sometimes the two are muddled but I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

[mykevermin]

Parts of them, yes. The parts dealing with Federal, State and Local governments, no - they're perfectly Constitutional.

Elaborate on this argument.

As for residential covenants - it depends - were tax payer dollars used in the construction of the neighborhood?

At what point in time? That's hardly a useful or definable metric to base the strength of race-restrictive covenants. If you want to parse things down to a point of absurd hypotheticals (e.g., no tax dollars were used), then you might as well argue that parts of the USA aren't parts of the USA.

[UncleBob]

First of all, your Green Martians are a horrible analogy. No one takes jobs. A job is offered and people apply. Maybe if the White Martians didn't act like real work was demeaning and too hard, then they'd still have some jobs.

Second, I'll respond to the quote above. I don't care if a person is ignorant. I don't take someone's religious/social/political beliefs when I go into a store because then I'd never buy anything. Walt Disney was a vicious anti-semite but I still like Pinocchio. Lion King was a great movie. I'm not supporting his point of view by buying his product. I'm supporting his product. The only time I'll boycott is when someone is using sweatshop labor or destroying the environment to produce the product. I'm not disagreeing with their political views. I'm disagreeing with their business practices. Sometimes the two are muddled but I'm pretty sure you can figure it out.

The "They took our jobs", of course, being a throwback to those who claim the illegals are taking jobs - not my personal point of view. I'm personally sad you didn't catch the "They took our jobs" along with the "They're lazy" comment. ;)

So, basically, you're perfectly okay with handing money over to individuals who hate because of race, religion or sexual orientation. I'm not. Because I have no idea what they're going to do with that money once I give it to them.

As for Disney - since he's dead, I guess you're not really supporting his POV by buying stuff with his name on it. But, let's say we were in the 40's and it turned out Disney was sending his wealth to Hitler (</end thread>) to kill Jews. Would you *still* buy that copy of Pinocchio?

[depascal22]

How much double talk are you going to throw into a discussion without actually discussing what you mean? Quit making Internet jokes that no one will get because irony and sarcasm do not translate here. Make your point and move.

You personally think it's perfectly LEGAL to discriminate against someone because of race/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. You also think that every major piece of Civil Rights Legislation over the history of this country is Unconstitutional. According to your logic, the only people that have the right to run businesses, vote, own a gun, or do anything guaranteed by the Constitution are White land owning males. Neighborhoods and businesses should be resegregated. Blacks should only go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Native Americans will have to go back to those awful reservation schools or "Indian Universities" like Carlisle. Women will be back in the kitchen....blah blah blah. It's just more conservative bullshit.

[perdition(troy]

I love when people blow things completely out of proportion by "using someone else's logic". Whether it be a liberal or conservative doing it, it always gives me something to laugh about.

[rickonker]

How much double talk are you going to throw into a discussion without actually discussing what you mean? Quit making Internet jokes that no one will get because irony and sarcasm do not translate here. Make your point and move.

You personally think it's perfectly LEGAL to discriminate against someone because of race/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. You also think that every major piece of Civil Rights Legislation over the history of this country is Unconstitutional. According to your logic, the only people that have the right to run businesses, vote, own a gun, or do anything guaranteed by the Constitution are White land owning males. Neighborhoods and businesses should be resegregated. Blacks should only go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Native Americans will have to go back to those awful reservation schools or "Indian Universities" like Carlisle. Women will be back in the kitchen....blah blah blah. It's just more conservative bullshit.
Where did you get the "White land owning males" stuff from?

[Magus8472]

The Federal Constitution does not deny the individual the ability to define classes of citizens.

I cannot prove a negative here, short of posting the entire Constitution and saying "See, it isn't there!".

There generally aren't many provisions in the Constitution that restrict private parties. I can only think of the 13th Amendment off the top of my head; it may be the only one.

That doesn't translate to a negative grant in terms of Congress's legislative authority, however. It certainly doesn't have the power to restrict private action persuant to the 5th/14th Amendments if that's what you're getting at, but that doesn't close out every other avenue (e.g. Commerce power). Or is your point that Congress has no power to regulate private activity at all?

[JJSP]

what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.
Please show me where it was proven that sexual orientation and physical attraction are a conscious choice made by anyone. With the amount of constant crap thrown at homosexuals and the LGBT community, I don't think anyone of sound mind and body would choose to endure that.

Once again, let's stop pretending that the gay community are okay to make fun of. Ignorance still isn't okay, regardless of who it's directed at.

[Survivalism]

what does homosexuality have to do with race?

race = no choice in the matter
sexual orientation = choice in the matter

don't even bother comparing the two. if you want to make comparisons, at least use something that is relatively similar to homosexuality such as overweight people.

That's an unfair comparison. That would be like comparing apples to oranges, or comparing you to someone who isn't an absolute moron.

[lordwow]

:rofl:

[mykevermin]

New Hampshire up in this motherfucker.

Sorry your freedoms are being trampled on, homophobes.

[Strell]

New Hampshire up in this brotherfucker.


There we are.

[homeland]

Thought this thread would appreciate this story:

Gay Penguin dads in German Zoo Hatch Chick

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/06/gay-penguin-dads-in-german-zoo-hatch-chick.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef011570bfdf76970b-800wi (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef011570bfdf76970b-pi) Z and Vielpunkt, two male Humboldt penguins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Penguin) at Germany's Bremerhaven Zoo (http://www.zoo-am-meer-bremerhaven.de/), are the proud new parents of a healthy penguin chick.
"Another couple threw the egg out of their batch. We picked it up and put it in the nest of the gay penguins," veterinarian Joachim Schöne told the German newspaper Bild (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/06/04/gay-penguins-adopt-baby-chick/two-proud-dads-at-zoo-after-hatching-egg.html) of the pair's entry into parenthood. Z and Vielpunkt faithfully cared for their adopted egg for more than a month; in late April it hatched. Since then, they've been taking care of their chick around the clock; it's still too young to feed itself, so the dads feed him fish mash, Schöne explained.
"Since the chick arrived, they have been behaving just as you would expect a heterosexual couple to do," the zoo said in a statement.
The Bremerhaven Zoo's same-sex penguin couples (there are three such pairs in residence there, all males) first made news back in 2005, according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm). At the time, the zoo announced plans to "test" the sexual orientations of the six penguins, who'd been seen engaging in mating rituals and trying to incubate rocks as if they were eggs. Gay rights advocates were outraged when the zoo brought four new female penguins into the colony in a bid to encourage the penguins to reproduce, and the zoo later nixed the idea. (In the zoo's defense, Humboldt penguins are classified as vulnerable to extinction, so it does make a certain amount of sense to be concerned about them reproducing. And since Z and Vielpunkt have done just that, everyone wins!)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01156fcacf51970c-800wi (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01156fcacf51970c-pi) Z and Vielpunkt aren't the first same-sex penguin pair to successfully care for a chick. Another such couple were male chinstrap penguin residents of New York's Central Park Zoo (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/04/penguins.html) named Roy and Silo. Roy and Silo, much like the Bremerhaven penguins, were so anxious to hatch an egg that they tried incubating a rock. They were eventually given an "orphaned" fertile egg and successfully raised a female chick named Tango.
Another male penguin couple were removed from their colony in a Chinese zoo last year when they repeatedly tried to steal eggs from male-and-female pairs. (In a rather ingenious move, they actually replaced the eggs they were stealing with rocks.) But visitors complained when the penguins were removed, and eventually they were given two eggs of their own. Since then, a keeper told the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1094977/Gay-penguins-expelled-zoo-colony-stealing-eggs-given-look-following-animal-rights-protest.html), "they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo."

[mykevermin]

The only penguins I like are from Pittsburgh. Gay or not.

And they're the ONLY thing I like from Pittsburgh.

[Friend of Sonic]

I do NOT like this. A baby penguin cannot be raised by homosexual parents! It's perverted.

[Quillion]

The only penguins I like are from Pittsburgh. Gay or not.

And they're the ONLY thing I like from Pittsburgh.

They're not gay, they're ghey. Not sexual, pejorative.

Go Red Wings.

[Darrith]

I support same sex marriage, even adoption, 100%. Any bans on either will ultimately fail in the USA, quite likely in my lifetime.

[DJSteel]

The only penguins I like are from Pittsburgh. Gay or not.

And they're the ONLY thing I like from Pittsburgh.

Hey Thanks!

[mykevermin]

Oh, yes.

Anti-Flag. They're an ok band.

;)

[QiG]

These poll results are encouraging. It's nice to see the prejudice and hate withering away with a younger, more tolerant, generation. It seems to be the people who are afraid of change and other views that are the loudest and more likely to stir the pot. Obviously I support it and when I think about it, I've found that all of the gay people (men or women) I've met in my life are quite friendly, down to earth and likeable.

[mykevermin]

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2009/06/6a00d83451c45669e2011570b1f019970b-800wi.gif

[perdition(troy]

looks good to me.

[lilboo]

:lol: @ people who care so much about what other people do :rofl:

[mykevermin]

So you're thrilled that people are uninformed bigots. Fair enough.

[perdition(troy]

Extremely thrilled.

[mykevermin]

And you're thrilled to be amongst the uninformed majority, as well.

[perdition(troy]

Nah, my aunt is a lesbian. But thanks for being uniformed about my life and making a stupid assumption.

[mykevermin]

What's her take on same-sex marriage?

[perdition(troy]

http://www.linshingthailand.com/images/1209372251/gal_Glasgow_big_snore.jpg

[Strell]

Translation: I don't talk to that bitch dyke.

[RAMSTORIA]

year old bump.

looks like a judge is about to rule that prop 8 is unconstitutional. next stop, supreme court?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[bvharris]

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

Amen.

[IRHari]

Amen brother. I'm happy the ruling came out this way, though it wasn't entirely unexpected. A lot of the things the judge was doing made it seem like he was sympathetic to the gay marriage peeps.

Yeah definitely going to the Supreme Court. The deciding vote will be Kennedy. Last time this issue of gayness came up was criminalizing (!) sodomy. Kennedy was the 5th vote.

[RAMSTORIA]

A lot of the things the judge was doing made it seem like he was sympathetic to the gay marriage peeps.



like the judge being gay ;)

[Purple Flames]

I'm really happy for the ruling, now the slow plodding crawl towards the Supreme Court begins.

[Kirin Lemon]

I can hear Fox News now - "Activist judge! Activist judge!"

[RAMSTORIA]

im wondering if this means gays can line up at the court house and get married tomorrow? facebook is blowing up with my gay friends posts, sounds like theres gonna be a party tonight.

[Sporadic]

sorry guys the judge is a bias queer. thank god fox news gave me the REAL STORY THE LIEBERAL MEDIA REFUSES TO REPORT!!!!!!!!

Why Has Media Ignored Judge's Possible Bias In California's Gay Marriage Case?

Any minute now we will hear the result of another lawsuit about same-sex marriage.

This month a federal judge in Massachusetts threw out a Congressional law which defined marriage as the union of man and woman.

Soon a federal judge in California is going to rule in a lawsuit challenging “Proposition 8," the referendum by which California’s voters kept the traditional meaning of marriage in their law.

If the pending ruling throws out Prop. 8 – as it very likely will – it would be the biggest victory so far for those promoting same-sex marriage in the United States.

These high stakes have attracted a lot of attention to the California case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But not enough attention – in fact, almost none – has been paid to one very troubling aspect of the case.

This is the question of the judge’s bias due to his possible interest in which side wins the case.

Judge Vaughan Walker has surprised just about everyone with his unorthodox handling of the Prop. 8 trial.

Supporters describe him as iconoclastic and creative. Those less enamored have charged him with turning the proceedings into a sensationalized show-trial.

Both sets of observers could probably agree with the explanation offered by conservative commentator Ed Whelan who has observed that Walker has been determined from the outset “to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.�

I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trial began.

But that is not the bias that has received too little attention.

Battalions of commentators have wondered about his bizarre handling of the case, and many have attributed it to Walker’s belief that it is unjust for the law to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Nor is the neglected bias related to the fact that (as several newspapers have reported) the judge is openly gay.

Of course, Walker’s opinions about marriage and sexual preference could be related to his own homosexuality.

But even if they are, it does not follow that he would be incapable of being impartial and of rendering a judgment in accord with the law in the Prop. 8 case – any more than a happily married heterosexual would necessarily be.

In fact, all judges have beliefs and personal habits which intersect from time to time with the matters in dispute before them. We do not require judges to be blank slates without a personal life. Judges are not automatons.

All we ask and what we rightly expect is that judges put aside those things insofar as they might interfere with deciding a case fairly and in accord with the law.

But no one is immune to all conflicts of interest or of belief.

So our law rightly requires that public officials – judges included – stay out of matters in which they have a financial stake. It is not that everyone would be corrupted by the prospect of financial gain. Not at all.

But some people would be corrupted. And everyone can have greater confidence in the outcome of public deliberations when they know that at least one temptation towards corruption has been removed.

The neglected bias in the Prop. 8 trial has instead to do with the fact that – as reported in The Los Angeles Times last month – Judge Walker “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician.�

If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California.

This raises an important and serious question about his fitness to preside over the case. Yet it is a question that received almost no attention.

When a judge is obliged to withdraw from a case due to a conflicting interest we call it “recusal.�

Federal law requires that, whenever a judge knows that he has “any other interest [ that is, besides a financial interest] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding� at hand, or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned�, he must recuse himself.

I am not saying that Judge Walker should have refused himself in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

I am not saying so because nowhere (as far as I know) has Judge Walker volunteered or been made to answer questions about how the outcome of that case would affect his interest (whatever it is) in marrying, and thus his interest in the manifold tangible and intangible benefits of doing so.

That is a conversation worth having.

And, sadly, it is quite too late to have it.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/gerard-bradley-proposition-marriage-sex-california-judge/

- edit I can hear Fox News now - "Activist judge! Activist judge!"

close :lol:

[Kirin Lemon]

close :lol:

Ooh, I should have foreseen the jab at the "liberal media" too. Classic Fox.

[thrustbucket]

You silly kids playing in in the mud did notice it says OPINION at the top of the article, right?

[Kirin Lemon]

You silly kids playing in in the mud did notice it says OPINION at the top of the article, right?

I don't recall specifying exactly *who* at Fox News I expected to throw a tantrum about this. Their bread and butter has never been facts so much as it's been opinions, anyways.

[mykevermin]

^ Because it's a pants-shittingly STUPID opinion, thrustie, darling.

The opinion is premised on this: the judge has a sexual orientation, therefore the judge can not rule in a judicious manner.

So, go find me a fuckin' eunuch judge and we'll send it in his...err...her...crap...*its* direction.

Seriously, the judge is a problem because of who he wants to fuck or share a dirty martini with? That voids EVERYONE with a sexual orientation.

FOX News' argument is this: having a sexual orientation = having a bias.

And that is why liberals are condescending: because the lot of you righties are fucking incomprehensibly stupid.

[Brownjohn]

Apparently voting no longer matters.

[Clak]

Why is it that things which seem sensible to, well sensible people, always seem incredible to fox news?

[Access_Denied]

This is just my opinion, but, shouldn't the church control all this? I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church. If they want to control it, let them. We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.

[IRHari]

Apparently voting no longer matters.

If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will.
There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision. I joked in the beginning about being an activist judge; had I decided this case in a different way, had I disregarded the facts, had I disregarded existing precedent, had I 'taken one for the team,' as it were, I would have truly been an activist judge in that case.


It's weird to have civil rights decided by a majority vote.

Can we have interracial marriage on the ballot next?

[Clak]

This is just my opinion, but, shouldn't the church control all this? I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church. If they want to control it, let them. We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.
...ummm...we already have. You know you can get married without ever setting foot in a church or other religious setting, right?

[Access_Denied]

...ummm...we already have. You know you can get married without ever setting foot in a church or other religious setting, right?

Not if you're gay you can't, and that's my point. Have it so anybody can get 'married', but call it something different so the church can't bitch and put claims on it.

[Clak]

I don't think you understand my point, marriage is only connected to religion if you believe it is, at least in the U.S.. Marriage already is a legal matter in this country, you can do it without the need for any representative of a religion being present. If churches don't want to perform the ceremonies, fine, they can just go to a justice of the peace.

[Kirin Lemon]

I mean, I'm for gay marriage, but marriage IS a religious ceremony and was created by the church.

Except that it wasn't. So there goes your premise.

We just need to create a legal equivalent to marriage, but call it something different. Problem solved.

This exists, and religious types *still* object to same-sex civil unions, proving that their interest in "protecting the sanctity of marriage" is all smoke and mirrors. Oh, and separate-but-equal solves no problems.

I don't think you understand my point, marriage is only connected to religion if you believe it is, at least in the U.S.. Marriage already is a legal matter in this country, you can do it without the need for any representative of a religion being present. If churches don't want to perform the ceremonies, fine, they can just go to a justice of the peace.

Bingo.

[HotShotX]

Not if you're gay you can't, and that's my point. Have it so anybody can get 'married', but call it something different so the church can't bitch and put claims on it.

We already have that separation (Separation of Church & State).

However, we have integrated marriage so deeply into our society that many people forget that marriage in itself is both a religion ceremony and a state function.

As far as I'm concerned however, this is a very simple and easily rectifiable issue:

As per the Constitution on either a Federal or State level, the state must treat all of its citizens equally. In short, it must grant marriage licenses (and all associated state benefits) to any pair of consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The church however, may grant marriage ceremonies to whomever they see fit, and may refuse such a ceremony to anyone whom they view do not align with their religious beliefs (which in turn, may explain why we don't hear of too many churches performing the marriage ceremonies of opposing faiths).

The problem today lies in the idea that far too many people have, in that "church = state" when it comes to deciding who can get married and who can't, and that is not the case. A church has zero congressional authority at either the state or federal level (officially), and as such cannot determine the rights of individual citizens.

~HotShotX

[speedracer]

The defense presented virtually no case. They called two witnesses, both of whom said VERY little more than "teh gays r bad mmmmk".

The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate and marks the latest in a long line of high-profile legal decisions for the longtime federal judge.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.
Jesus H. You couldn't find a more company man Republican judge if you caught him giving hand jobs in an airport bathroom.

[IRHari]

Sad part is, these days he would be known as a 'lib$$$ Obummer loving communist' to the modern Republican party.

[Clak]

:rofl: That's just the icing on the cake. Notice that's completely missing from the fox article above.

[KingBroly]

If California's lawyers were smart, repeat, WERE SMART, they could get this ruling thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

But yeah, Supreme Court, blah blah blah.

[UncleBob]

I really hope this makes it to the Supreme Court. I can't wait for some official ruling to smack the hammer down on crap like this.

[mykevermin]

:rofl: That's just the icing on the cake. Notice that's completely missing from the fox article above.

It's natural that they'd overlook him being a Republican or a Reagan nominee, since they're typically unconcerned with either of those two things.

[KingBroly]

I really hope this makes it to the Supreme Court. I can't wait for some official ruling to smack the hammer down on crap like this.

The probability this makes it to the Supreme Court is 100%. Even if they uphold the ruling (remember, it'll be 5-4 either way because, well, you know...) California (or some other state) will do something else, and it'll be much harsher than you think.

[Dr Mario Kart]

The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting regardless of the outcome, since someone is actually going to have to write an argument for prop 8. Theres no way that wont be hilarious.

[depascal22]

The defense will be the majority voted and that should be it. There will be some other references to a Christian nation and all the other crap we hear when religious dogma gets mixed up with politics.

[lordwow]

I read the ruling last night, absolute gold. The judge completely wrecked the defense's witnesses for their contradicting statements.

[mykevermin]

I read the ruling last night, absolute gold. The judge completely wrecked the defense's witnesses for their contradicting statements.

Yep. The defense brought an absolute shitshow to court and now they're appalled they didn't uphold the outcome of the vote.

[Clak]

It's natural that they'd overlook him being a Republican or a Reagan nominee, since they're typically unconcerned with either of those two things.
Oh I know, but it would also be an embarrassment to conservatives, and even if they did usually mention it, I doubt they would have then. Better to let people assume he must be a liberal activist then one of the boys.

[berzirk]

Apparently voting no longer matters.

That's my confusion with it. If it was unconstitutional, then why was it ever raised as a measure? Whether I were on the winning or losing side of a vote, I'd be a bit peeved knowing that the State allowed me to vote on a measure, then once the outcome occurred months later a judge says your vote was worthless.

[bvharris]

If California's lawyers were smart, repeat, WERE SMART, they could get this ruling thrown out on a technicality. It happens all the time.

But yeah, Supreme Court, blah blah blah.

California declined to contest the lawsuit. Despite the state being listed as the respondent, the people arguing for Prop 8 were the same group who originally campaigned to put it on the ballot.

That's my confusion with it. If it was unconstitutional, then why was it ever raised as a measure? Whether I were on the winning or losing side of a vote, I'd be a bit peeved knowing that the State allowed me to vote on a measure, then once the outcome occurred months later a judge says your vote was worthless.

Part of the message of this ruling was that voters shouldn't have the right to vote on curtailing the civil rights of their fellow citizens without a compelling reason, which was found spectacularly lacking in this case. Bigotry is not a sufficient reason it turns out.

[dustdust]

We already have that separation (Separation of Church & State).

However, we have integrated marriage so deeply into our society that many people forget that marriage in itself is both a religion ceremony and a state function.

As far as I'm concerned however, this is a very simple and easily rectifiable issue:

As per the Constitution on either a Federal or State level, the state must treat all of its citizens equally. In short, it must grant marriage licenses (and all associated state benefits) to any pair of consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The church however, may grant marriage ceremonies to whomever they see fit, and may refuse such a ceremony to anyone whom they view do not align with their religious beliefs (which in turn, may explain why we don't hear of too many churches performing the marriage ceremonies of opposing faiths).

The problem today lies in the idea that far too many people have, in that "church = state" when it comes to deciding who can get married and who can't, and that is not the case. A church has zero congressional authority at either the state or federal level (officially), and as such cannot determine the rights of individual citizens.

~HotShotX
I agree with this notion. It still seems that the church influences the way society thinks, and that is something that may or may not help lead to tolerance. Also, gay couples about to be wed don't need to be married in a church; all they need is a licensed marriage officiant that has been issued a license by the government

[Clak]

Almost forgot about that justice of the peace who refused to marry that interracial couple, I'm sure you'd have some refuse to wed a gay couple too.

[berzirk]

Part of the message of this ruling was that voters shouldn't have the right to vote on curtailing the civil rights of their fellow citizens without a compelling reason, which was found spectacularly lacking in this case. Bigotry is not a sufficient reason it turns out.

Is it a civil right to be married to whoever you want, wherever you want? I truly don't know. Also, I would suspect that if this case goes to the Supreme Court it's not going to be because a couple of fringe weirdos are afraid of the gay, but rather because there was a compelling reason for this to be contested further.

[dorino]

Quick question, since I can't be arsed to read 82 pages: Is Bob for gay marriage? Or against it?

I need to know whether he's the crazy person in this topic.

[bvharris]

Is it a civil right to be married to whoever you want, wherever you want? I truly don't know. Also, I would suspect that if this case goes to the Supreme Court it's not going to be because a couple of fringe weirdos are afraid of the gay, but rather because there was a compelling reason for this to be contested further.

And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"

[dorino]

That's all it is nation-wide. Minus the fringe, of course.

The compelling reason is that there are a lot of weirdos afraid of the gay.

[berzirk]

And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"

I'm no legal expert, nor am I involved with any political group for or against gay marriage, but to me, if a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's probably for a fairly valid reason.

[dorino]

I'm no legal expert, nor am I involved with any political group for or against gay marriage, but to me, if a case makes it to the Supreme Court, it's probably for a fairly valid reason.
Not necessarily. If it makes it to the supreme court, it's because enough people are screaming. Whether there's any validity on either side is irrelevant.

[mykevermin]

If there is a compelling reason, it would have been (well, should have been) presented in the court trial.

Given Judge Walker's numerous and blistering statements of fact, dipshit Republicans couldn't even gain the sympathy of a Republican, Reagan-nominee judge, let alone anything resembling agreement with their claims.

EDIT: dorino is right. an appeal is simply that; an appeal. doesn't have to be grounded in anything coherent. given Walker's ruling and the coherence of his ruling, i wouldn't be too surprised if the supreme court refused to even hear this case. they *will* because of political pressure, but given how solid the case that prop 8 is unconstitutional is, and how dismally inept, dishonest, and full of conjecture and presumptuousness the defense was, this is not a case that needs to be represented or reheard.

[bvharris]

To me that valid reason will be that the ruling is just and deserves to be the law of the land. I'm not saying that will be the reason they hear it (which I'm sure they will), but that's what the result should be.

[berzirk]

Not necessarily. If it makes it to the supreme court, it's because enough people are screaming. Whether there's any validity on either side is irrelevant.

When has that happened before? Again, not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious to hear a time where a lot of people screaming made the Supreme Court hear a case they wouldn't have otherwise.

[dorino]

This time, for one. I could go digging myself, but it's really not worth it. There have been ridiculous supreme court cases, heard for no reason other than unwarranted outcry.

[IRHari]

I heard on NPR that there may be a good reason to keep Prop 8 as is until the 9th Circuit hears it. Apparently if Walker overturns it immediately, the Prop 8 supporters can appeal directly and immediately to the SCOTUS. This would mean that they would interrupt Kennedy's vacation, and he is undoubtedly the deciding vote in this case.

Kinda sad that you'd keep a law because you don't want to make a judge angry, but I guess if this is what it takes...

[speedracer]

apparently voting no longer matters.
qq

[Strell]

I'm on a train outside San Luis Obispo on a temporary network while on vacation, and this is the only thread I wanted to show up in.

[dorino]

qq
Not if the vote is for something unconstitutional.

[depascal22]

And that would be?

I really wish it were just fringe weirdos who were "afraid of the gay"

Why else would you ban gay marriage? Why else would you ban a practice that has zero effect on your marriage or how the state treats you? At this point, God hates gays is getting pretty fringe.

[UncleBob]

Okay, what happens if this was to go to the Supreme Court and they ruled on it 4:4, with Kagen recusing herself?

Edit: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_in_the_case_of_a_tie_vote_in_the_Supr eme_Court

[bvharris]

Okay, what happens if this was to go to the Supreme Court and they ruled on it 4:4, with Kagen [sic] recusing herself?

Edit: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_in_the_case_of_a_tie_vote_in_the_Supr eme_Court

Why in the world would Kagan recuse herself?

[UncleBob]

I'm not saying she /should/.

But, to keep appearances fair, I could see the issue coming up.

[bvharris]

I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume you're alluding to rumors that Kagan herself is gay. Even if that were true, I don't see how it would matter one way or the other to her ability to hear the case.

[speedracer]

I'm not saying she /should/.

But, to keep appearances fair, I could see the issue coming up.
What appearances? What issue?

edit: you can't be serious.

no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Gays, please go sit in the corner and be quiet. Straights are going to decide your rights over her.

[Msut77]

I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume you're alluding to rumors that Kagan herself is gay. Even if that were true, I don't see how it would matter one way or the other to her ability to hear the case.

That is like saying the straight justices should recuse themselves in case of bias.

[UncleBob]

Again, I'm not saying she should.

But my random musings on CAG won't be the only place you'll hear about this, I'm willing to bet.

[bvharris]

Again, I'm not saying she should.

But my random musings on CAG won't be the only place you'll hear about this, I'm willing to bet.

Oh, I agree with that. Fox News still exists after all.

But the fact that you're bringing it up suggests you think it's a legitimate question, which it isn't.

[mykevermin]

Everybody knows Scalia is a bear, so you'd have seven votes to work with.

Any - *ANY* -

A
N
Y

suggestion that Kagan can not judge fairly, like any suggestion the Reagan-nominated Republican Walker was not able to judge fairly, is precisely why the right in this country is the subject of derision.

The right insists upon having legal parity on this issue, yet the Walker ruling (read it if you dare, read it if you can) shows that the right - those who supported upholding Prop 8 - don't know how to prepare, present, or defend anything resembling a coherent legal argument.

This is not a legal matter of two equally valid viewpoints - that's precisely Walker's case. His point is that what was legal was preposterous and unsupportable by the tenets of our nation. This is the Harlem Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals.

You don't even have to read Walker's ruling - because let's be honest, you're afraid to read it and discover a legal argument you disagree with, yet one you can't actually argue against - to realize how vapid the pro-prop 8 crowd is. Simply put, at no point has anyone against gay marriage put forth a coherent, valid argument as to why it should be illegal, other than to say that it garnered the necessary votes to pass (which is hardly the issue).

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost.

[bvharris]

Simply put, at no point has anyone against gay marriage put forth a coherent, valid argument as to why it should be illegal, other than to say that it garnered the necessary votes to pass (which is hardly the issue).

qft. Though I'm wildly liberal (duh) on every issue, I can at least see a valid other viewpoint on most issues, but not in this case. You're either in favor of equal rights or you're a bigot. There's no third option.

[IRHari]

I think someone mentioned this but if being gay means you're biased in a gay marriage case, wouldn't being straight mean you're biased as well?

Antonin Scalia loves to shoot thing with guns. Does this mean he might want to recuse himself in 2nd Amendment cases? Just saying. Appearances and such.

non-issue. I'm fairly confident Kennedy will be the 5th vote agreeing with Walker's ruling to overturn Prop 8. Walker's opinion borrowed a lot from Kennedy's opinions, which is definitely a good thing.

[Brownjohn]

I think someone mentioned this but if being gay means you're biased in a gay marriage case, wouldn't being straight mean you're biased as well?

Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.

[UncleBob]

Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.

Exactly. Those in favor have spent a lot of time and effort trying to convince those opposed that allowing same-sex marriages won't effect them - so asking heterosexual individuals to recuse themselves would be self-defeating.

But, obviously, the ruling in this case will have a direct effect on the opportunities Kagen will have open to her (if the rumors are true).

Now, I don't think she should recuse herself. In fact, I'd just prefer the Supreme Court decline to hear the case altogether, upholding the lower court's correct ruling. However, if the case does make it's way there, I can assure you, you'll be hearing more about this.

[IRHari]

Gillers pointed to two cases in particular in which the federal courts rejected arguments that a judge's identity requires recusal, Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell and MacDraw, Inc. v. The CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc. In Blank, the judge rejected a suggestion that she should recuse herself because she was an African American woman who had worked on civil rights cases. In MacDraw, the judge rejected a motion to recuse himself, in part, because he was Asian American, and sanctioned the attorneys who made the motion.
Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell was a sex discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought in federal court in Manhattan. The defendants sought to recuse the judge in the case, Constance Baker Motley. Motley was the first African American woman (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brownat50.org%2FbrownBios%2 FBioJudgeCBakerMotley.htm) ever appointed to the federal bench. The defendants argued in part that Motley should be disqualified from the case on the ground that she "strongly identifies with those who suffer discrimination in employment because of sex or race."
Motley denied the recusal motion, noting that (via Nexis), "if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050037

I guess what matters is if you see sexual orientation on par with race or gender

[thrustbucket]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050037

I guess what matters is if you see sexual orientation on par with race or gender

That's a good point. Because each side of this issue can be defined by those that do and those that don't.

[UncleBob]

Awesome:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/06/2942696/let-gays-begin-marrying-schwarzenegger.html

[gargus]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

[spmahn]

Not at all. Obviously, if you're gay, you'd be in favor of overturning prop 8, however, just because you're straight, doesn't mean you'd want to uphold it. Just look at all the straight people cheering on this board, as an example.

There are plenty of gay people out there who couldn't care less about marriage, and while not outwardly supporting it, are otherwise indifferent to the proposition. Ideally it shouldn't matter whether or not a Judge supports gay marriage Judges are supposed to be apolitical. The issue before them is not "should we allow gay marriage" but "does the constitution give anyone the authority to prohibit, it, and if so, then with whom does that power lie"

[Kirin Lemon]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

Please stop breathing until forever.

[bvharris]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

This might be the stupidest thing I have ever read. And this is the internet.

[SpazX]

This might be the stupidest thing I have ever read. And this is the internet.

Stupid, sure, but expected.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Wall of text, I choose you.

I hate how aggressive the queers are. I have this horrible, loveless marriage. So, I go to the bar after work. But I can't go to any bar. Most bars have women and those women always want you to buy them drinks so they can tell you how men have shit all over them their whole lives. So, I go to a males only bar. They play nothing but techno music and the booze is mixed heavily with fruit juice. Most of the men there are friendly. They'll hand you a drink and make honest, pleasant conversation that doesn't involve wives or girlfriends. After six or seven drinks, I have to piss. When I get to the bathrooms, I see the urinals are just holes in the walls. So, I plug in there and let it rip. I hear "Eww! Groth-th-th." and somebody grabs my dick. I finally get free ten minutes later and get ready to leave. I'm way drunk and this very athletic man stops me from driving home. He offers to call a cab, but I ain't got no money for a cab. So, the nice guy says he can take me back to his place. We get back there, but he doesn't have a long enough couch for me to sleep on and my back is too messed up to sleep on the floor. So, he says I can sleep in his bed. Well, I can't sleep in my clothes because I have work the next day. So, I don't. I figure the guy would just sleep on the floor, but do you know what happens? After a full night's rest in the most comfortable mattress a large amount of disposable income can buy, this guy starts kissing on me and he's been sleeping in that bed all night naked. That's just fucking sick.

[iKilledChewbacca]

I support it for women but definitely not men

......but if I was a women I would probably think the total opposite ? idk...could care less

[xycury]

glad to see this overturned.

too bad my state passed a similar stupid ban.

[depascal22]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

Did you just go on an anti-gay rant and then say that gays are like everyone else?

[mykevermin]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Florence-yall.jpg

[lordwow]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.


Maybe, they need to be in people's faces about it, because otherwise they get oppressed by the general populous?

[Clak]

Yeah, acting like you're entitled to equal rights is no way to go about getting them.

[mykevermin]

Gay pride parades are outrageous.

I prefer the parades that look like they were planned by the Lancaster Amish Fun Brigade.

[cindersphere]

Gay people (I mean the majority not all of them) mostly have themselves to blame for it. If they didnt have constant gay pride marches, didnt run around preaching about gay rights, didnt run around telling everyone in a 30 foot radius they are gay and just generally trying to act like gay people they wouldnt be in this mess. If they would just act like a human being instead of trying to be some stereotype and getting in peoples faces then they would be treated like everyone else. Really most people dont care if your gay but soon as you start acting your entitled to something (whether are or not doesnt matter its the fact you act like it) then no one is really going to want to give you anything because your acting like a entitled asshole, its not what you deserve its how you go about getting it.

In the end though gay people should be allowed to marry, they are just people. Despite what they think they arent special unique snowflakes. They are just bags of walking meat like anyother person and should be treated the same.

Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if you replaced the words in that paragraph with black instead of gay. The funniest is if you replace the words with fatties or Christians.

[VipFREAK]

I don't get why this is such a big issue? The "straight" people getting married can't even follow it... I know three "couples" now that got married, had a kid, and are now divorced. I bet the gay's will do a hell of a lot better.

Not to mention this whole law being glaringly obvious to be unconstitutional...

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

If the same sex couples wanna experience the misery of marriage like straight couples, then who are we to deny them the neverending torture of matrimony.

[UncleBob]

Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if you replaced the words in that paragraph with black instead of gay. The funniest is if you replace the words with fatties or Christians.

There are "Fattie Pride" marches?

[bvharris]

There are "Fattie Pride" marches?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6yubLpdezfQ/SZEElS4KlBI/AAAAAAAAAOk/555hTx5YvYM/s400/NY+Comic+Con+2009.JPG

[UncleBob]

That was mean. ;)

[Gorgasm]

So why the shit can't I vote?

[Dr Mario Kart]

So why the shit can't I vote?
You dont get to vote to take away people's rights.

[IRHari]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/08/olson-wallace-fns/

OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?

Definitely worth taking a look.

Also David Boies was on Face the Nation debating Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Too lazy to find that link but it's worth watching as well.

[Kirin Lemon]

Also David Boies was on Face the Nation debating Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Too lazy to find that link but it's worth watching as well.

I managed to catch the last half of that this morning. I was wondering who the d-bag arguing against same-sex marriage was and why he was so fucking retarded. Now I know.

[dorino]

You dont get to vote to take away people's rights.
This! Your vote doesn't count if it's unconstitutional!

[depascal22]

The right doesn't care about the entire Constitution. Just the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the 14th. The rest is just fluff.

[thrustbucket]

And the left would prefer to rename our country to The United Courts of America.

[Kirin Lemon]

And the left would prefer to rename our country to The United Courts of America.

:roll:

[dorino]

And the left would prefer to rename our country to The United Courts of America.
I don't get it. Are you saying the left values the justice system, and, you know, the laws and rights which make this country great?


Okay.

[thrustbucket]

I don't get it. Are you saying the left values the justice system, and, you know, the laws and rights which make this country great?


Okay.

No I'm not saying that at all.

But I am saying that the left clearly (to me) values the modern court system and the ability to change what they view "inherently flawed foundations" a lot more than they value any founding document as it's written now.

I am not saying that's related, much, to the OP though. Just making a counter statement to the one about the right.

[bvharris]

No I'm not saying that at all.

But I am saying that the left clearly (to me) values the modern court system and the ability to change what they view "inherently flawed foundations" a lot more than they value any founding document as it's written now.

You're not wrong. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, so it's not unreasonable to believe there are portions of it which are no longer relevant to our society today. So yes, while I value the Constitution and the ideas behind it, I think there are many areas in which modern opinions are more valid than those of the founders, and you're correct that this is a prevalent opinion on the left.

[thrustbucket]

You're not wrong. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, so it's not unreasonable to believe there are portions of it which are no longer relevant to our society today. So yes, while I value the Constitution and the ideas behind it, I think there are many areas in which modern opinions are more valid than those of the founders, and you're correct that this is a prevalent opinion on the left.

And that's all fine and dandy. The founders intended the Constitution to be changeable; they provided clear method (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm) to do so.

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.

[mykevermin]

Oh, goodie, thrustbucket's plying his trade as a part-time constitutional scholar again. today's lesson, we learn about how things that are deemed 'unconstitutional' are 'circumventing the system.'

[bvharris]

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.

I can't deny that you've provided a clear summation of my feelings. Obviously we've veered away from the OP, but take the issue of gay marriage: It's not really a debatable issue as far as I can tell. People who believe in marriage equality are right, people who don't are wrong. So from there, at least to me, it doesn't really matter how many people there are on each side of it, doing the right thing is more important than how you do it.

[Quillion]

And that's all fine and dandy. The founders intended the Constitution to be changeable; they provided clear method (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articleV.htm) to do so.

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.
I fail to see how a decision guaranteeing due process for all citizens circumvents the constitution.

Please clarify, and explain why phooey-baloney state laws, such as Prop 8, are not themselves attempting to circumvent the constitution.

[speedracer]

Unfortunately, we don't follow the intended process to change or add to it. We use the courts and the law-system to circumvent and bend it as much as possible - which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough - but they are so convinced they are right and anyone that disagrees is just too stupid to understand, they can and should circumvent the system.
Supremacy clause, sweetie. It specifically addresses states that attempt to "circumvent the system" or in this case, circumvent the Constitution itself.

I'll never get you thrust. A con law warrior that doesn't understand even basic principles of the Constitution. Supremacy is about as basic as it gets man.

Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed. BEING THAT IT WHOLLY VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION, Boies and Olsen (a staunch conservative omglol!) sue to have it over turned and to have the Constitutionally correct action take place. Federal judge agrees.

Naturally, you blame liberals and the courts for.... upholding the Constitution.

It's like dropping a note tied to a rock into an abyss and wondering if you'll be alive when it hits the bottom.
The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word "shall" is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)
Bizarro thrust reads this. He realizes the courts are here to protect and defend the Constitution to which he professes love. He realizes that the only thing a Constitutional lover could do is support the overturning of Prop 8 by a federal judge who's job it is to do exactly that. Bizarro thrust then shakes the shit out of real thrust.

Just because it should logically follow that your stated position is that an activist court and liberals are "circumventing" this and that and the other, I got a question for ya thrust. Should blacks and whites be allowed to marry in the state of Virginia where no vote was taken as to whether they should be allowed, but was made legal via a federal legal challenge that went to the Supreme Court? Clearly an activist judge taking a massively activist position by any measure. Liberals helped the legal challenge. It was (is?) wildly unpopular by margins far wider than the current gay marriage issue.

Should we put it to a vote now and adhere to the results?

[thrustbucket]

I fail to see how a decision guaranteeing due process for all citizens circumvents the constitution.

Please clarify, and explain why phooey-baloney state laws, such as Prop 8, are not themselves attempting to circumvent the constitution.

My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

Supremacy clause, sweetie. It specifically addresses states that attempt to "circumvent the system" or in this case, circumvent the Constitution itself.

I'll never get you thrust. A con law warrior that doesn't understand even basic principles of the Constitution. Supremacy is about as basic as it gets man.

Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed. BEING THAT IT WHOLLY VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION, Boies and Olsen (a staunch conservative omglol!) sue to have it over turned and to have the Constitutionally correct action take place. Federal judge agrees.

Naturally, you blame liberals and the courts for.... upholding the Constitution.

It's like dropping a note tied to a rock into an abyss and wondering if you'll be alive when it hits the bottom.

Bizarro thrust reads this. He realizes the courts are here to protect and defend the Constitution to which he professes love. He realizes that the only thing a Constitutional lover could do is support the overturning of Prop 8 by a federal judge who's job it is to do exactly that. Bizarro thrust then shakes the shit out of real thrust.

Just because it should logically follow that your stated position is that an activist court and liberals are "circumventing" this and that and the other, I got a question for ya thrust. Should blacks and whites be allowed to marry in the state of Virginia where no vote was taken as to whether they should be allowed, but was made legal via a federal legal challenge that went to the Supreme Court? Clearly an activist judge taking a massively activist position by any measure. Liberals helped the legal challenge. It was (is?) wildly unpopular by margins far wider than the current gay marriage issue.

Should we put it to a vote now and adhere to the results?

See above. My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

I have no problem with gay marriage. None of my statements of the last 3 pages have meant to illustrate that I do. I was responding to all the talk of the Courts deciding what the constitution means, which is largely irrelevant, imo, in this instance.

My own personal opinion on this issue is that the Government has no business defining marriage. Civil Unions are about the extent of what a government should recognize, and what those are up to individuals and/or their religions to define. Marriage has always been a glaring exception to church mixed with state in this country (simply because, overwhelmingly, marriage and even the act of getting married is associated with religion to most people). That doesn't come to a head until now.

That's both the crux of the problem, and the solution. Any other solution will lead to far more persecution of gays; which is why I find it ironic that trying to force the majority of America to redefine what they believe the word "marriage" means by selling it as comparable to the civil rights movement, is somehow the only acceptable outcome.

It's sickening that the 'race card' gets played in every single issue these days.

[myl0r]

I can't deny that you've provided a clear summation of my feelings. Obviously we've veered away from the OP, but take the issue of gay marriage: It's not really a debatable issue as far as I can tell. People who believe in marriage equality are right, people who don't are wrong. So from there, at least to me, it doesn't really matter how many people there are on each side of it, doing the right thing is more important than how you do it.
I don't know, but what exact part of the Constitution gives the right to marriage? I always assumed that was something that States granted, not the Federal Government, but I could be way wrong.
But if that's the case, then I can see how this is unConstitutional to deny CA the right to vote on this.

BTW-I actually think that Prop 8 should have been overturned, so I'm not just saying these things with an anti-gay marriage goal in mind.


Right wing nutters attempt to vote an amendment to their state constitution that prima facia violates the Constitution. Nutters get the amendment passed.
Again, not trying to start arguments about things, since I think the courts made the right choice, but this was voted on by the people of CA. Is CA not considered a pretty liberal state?

[bvharris]

I don't know, but what exact part of the Constitution gives the right to marriage? I always assumed that was something that States granted, not the Federal Government, but I could be way wrong.
But if that's the case, then I can see how this is unConstitutional to deny CA the right to vote on this.


We were talking about two different things, as thrust pointed out. My comments in that context weren't specific to the Constitution. Though I do think the Equal Protection Clause applies to rights enjoyed by some (ie, marriage) not being denied to others. Obviously the judge agreed.

[dmaul1114]

We were talking about two different things, as thrust pointed out. My comments in that context weren't specific to the Constitution. Though I do think the Equal Protection Clause applies to rights enjoyed by some (ie, marriage) not being denied to others. Obviously the judge agreed.

Yep. Equal protection under the law. As long as marriage has legal benefits tied to it, then the equal protection law applies to marriage--or at least can be convincingly argued to apply IMO.

And yeah, marriage laws are generally state laws, but state laws have to meet constitutional requirements--which is why states get sued to the supreme court over laws. The constitution supersedes any state laws.

[dorino]

Again, not trying to start arguments about things, since I think the courts made the right choice, but this was voted on by the people of CA. Is CA not considered a pretty liberal state?
Irrelevant, California somehow managed to pass prop 8, but the issue is that it's an unconstitutional law. As everyone has agreed, utilizing the courts to uphold the constitution was called for in this instance.


Also, I find it funny that the 14th Amendment not only is upsetting right-wingers because of its granting citizenship to people born in the states, but also that it's the amendment's Equal Protection Clause that's ruining gaybans.

[IRHari]

See above. My statements were not in relation to prop 8.

I have no problem with gay marriage. None of my statements of the last 3 pages have meant to illustrate that I do. I was responding to all the talk of the Courts deciding what the constitution means, which is largely irrelevant, imo, in this instance.

You say in this instance. You're going to have to explain what 'this instance' is.


which is what bothers me most about the left; they know they can't amend the constitution with their ideals because they aren't popular enough

It doesn't matter if its popular, it matters if it passes constitutional muster. In this case Prop 8 didn't.

[myl0r]

Irrelevant, California somehow managed to pass prop 8, but the issue is that it's an unconstitutional law. As everyone has agreed, utilizing the courts to uphold the constitution was called for in this instance.


Also, I find it funny that the 14th Amendment not only is upsetting right-wingers because of its granting citizenship to people born in the states, but also that it's the amendment's Equal Protection Clause that's ruining gaybans.
You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.

Dmaul and BV, thanks for the clarification on the 14th amendment. I think when we were taught the Constitution, we were simply told to memorize that it had something to do with slavery ending. Public school, yay!

[thrustbucket]

Yep. Equal protection under the law. As long as marriage has legal benefits tied to it, then the equal protection law applies to marriage--or at least can be convincingly argued to apply IMO.

And yeah, marriage laws are generally state laws, but state laws have to meet constitutional requirements--which is why states get sued to the supreme court over laws. The constitution supersedes any state laws.

I like dmaul's stance on this. This also illustrates my main issue with the whole subject: that the WORD "marriage" has legal benefits. Therein lies the problem and therein lies the solution.

You say in this instance. You're going to have to explain what 'this instance' is.[/q]
I was referring to the instance of Prop 8/Gay marriage issue. See above as to why.

[q]It doesn't matter if its popular, it matters if it passes constitutional muster. In this case Prop 8 didn't.

Agreed. Which is why I have always advocated we change every instance of the word "Marriage" to "Civil Union". The problem would be fixed overnight and all party's would be happy.

But that can never happen because we like to do things the hard way. Instead, it's a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court will rule that gay people can have "Marriage" and all that it entails legally, and much persecution will follow, unfortunately.

The entire issue of gay marriage rights for both sides, imo, can be summed up with the term: "Word Pride".

[dorino]

You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.
No, I'm not. That's why I said it was irrelevant.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I would be fine with getting rid of the word marriage, or at least stripping it of its rights and giving all the rights to the term civil unions. But we cant have two words. Its more than word pride, its avoiding a return to separate but equal.

All parties wouldnt be happy though, considering that one party considers marriage sacred, and stripping all benefits from it or not using the word would certainly be an affront to its sanctity.

[cindersphere]

You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.


California is a mixed state. The central part of the state is very conservative with the coastal and urban areas usually trending to the left. However this issue is a cross cutting issue and has no relation to parties per se. There are people on both sides that want gay marriage and those that do not, such as the large catholic population in California made up by many Hispanics who usually vote Democrat but would be against gay marriage.

[speedracer]

My own personal opinion on this issue is that the Government has no business defining marriage. Civil Unions are about the extent of what a government should recognize, and what those are up to individuals and/or their religions to define.
The entire issue of gay marriage rights for both sides, imo, can be summed up with the term: "Word Pride".
It doesn't make logical sense to me to change the name of what it is. It is a marriage. Marriage is the legal conferring of extremely personal decisions and financial access to another person. I get that the religionists get all nuts about it but like you said, it's just a word game to call it something else, isn't it?

It's just a contract, like a sole proprietorship or a power of attorney. It's a contract between consenting of age adults. That's it. We can call a sole proprietorship something else but if it's the same thing, it's the same thing. Ya feelin me dawg? So why call a marriage a civil union?
You really didn't address anything that I brought up in my quote. I was simply pointing out that speedracer said right wing nutters got this bill passed, but I thought CA was considered a liberal state. So if it IS considered a liberal state, then it wasn't just the right wing nutters.
Sure. Shitbags (I'm sorry, America's values voters) that voted for Prop 8 are overwhelmingly old. Support for it cuts about 50-50 across all other segments. Old people are the last to adapt to change and they just don't want nothin to do with teh gays, liberal or conservative.

No worries, they'll be dead soon like everyone's racist great-grandparent.

[fullmetalfan720]

In a republic, you don't get to deny equal rights to a group of people because 51% of people think they shouldn't have equal rights.

[BigT]

It doesn't make logical sense to me to change the name of what it is. It is a marriage. Marriage is the legal conferring of extremely personal decisions and financial access to another person. I get that the religionists get all nuts about it but like you said, it's just a word game to call it something else, isn't it?

It's just a contract, like a sole proprietorship or a power of attorney. It's a contract between consenting of age adults. That's it. We can call a sole proprietorship something else but if it's the same thing, it's the same thing. Ya feelin me dawg? So why call a marriage a civil union?

Yeah, pretty much. The word is a matter of contention, but it should not really matter much... ideally, I believe that the government should have a very limited role in marriage - mainly one of record-keeping that does not provide any significant perks and does not get into moral arguments of who can marry whom. It is strange to me that now gay marriages are becoming more and more acceptable, but there is still a large stigma to polygynous or polyandrous unions - where in fact our natural state throughout most of evolution was that of a mildly to moderately polygynous species. And, in fact a large number of people indirectly practice serial or even simultaneous polygyny through divorce, remarriage, mistresses, etc.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

:lol:Time for a little derailing.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover-speaks-up/

Obama is a half homo.

[UncleBob]

:lol:Time for a little derailing.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover-speaks-up/

Obama is a half homo.

I like this rumor! Let's not verify it!

[dorino]

Why bother with "facts" when Obama is now a communist witch doctor nazi queer?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Why bother with "facts" when Obama is now a communist witch doctor nazi queer?

Self-hating communist witch doctor nazi queer.

[dorino]

Thanks, foc, knew I was forgetting something.

Also, he's black.

[UncleBob]

Thanks, foc, knew I was forgetting something.

Also, he's black.

I just assumed "witch doctor" was double-secret dog whistle code for "black".

[dorino]

No, though it's synonymous with "minority".

[Clak]

Foc always finds the craziest shit.

[Beorach]

Remember when we learned in school about how institutional racism was conquered? Remember marveling at how uncivilized we used to be? We're still doing it to the gay community (though I suppose there might not be something analogous to the Uganda death penalty thing some congressionals engendered before the "babe in the woods" routine). I hope there's a day when our kids learn of how we managed to get to equal rights under the law for all regardless of things people didn't choose (like sexual orientation, resembling an illegal immigrant, etc.).

[Sarang01]

Uganda is something to be proud of! It's a showing of how a White European religion conquered most of the religion of said place, replacing it instead with a religion you can use to justify bigotry.
Look at India, who was colonized too by the British, where male to female Transsexuals could choose the third sex and have some honor about them and be considered special. Now most are just considered freaks! Hooray European colonialism!
Hooray Islam colonialism too! X-(

Let us not forget how Japan changed in terms of sexuality in response to the increasing United States and European influence in the world.

[ATK]

If Prop. 8 loses, churches likely will face lawsuits and persecution if they don't perform same-sex ceremonies.
Churches, synagogues, mosques and other centers of worship have beliefs, practices, and traditions they use to determine what heterosexual couples must meet prior to marriage. That isn't bias; that's freedom of religion.
The government doesn't (as of yet) tell faith-based groups who they can...
baptize
confirm
accept for a bar mitzvah
qualify for any other religious function.


I have nothing against Gays getting married. If they want to then so be it. But I don't think churches should necessarily be forced to perform marriages. If they would like to then so be it. But the majority should be reserved to court marriages. That would kind of help out with the debate, although not much.

By allowing Same-Sex marriage in California they will see some amount of economical uplift..everyone(at least at first) will trail it out there to get married. Which isn't bad.

[mykevermin]

But I don't think churches should necessarily be forced to perform marriages.

Well, then, good thing they won't have to. Now, if you please, don't bring in citations and claims from dumbass websites and act like they're legitimate, ok?

[Clak]

Who said churches would even have to? I mean besides the moronic fear mongers who actually think so. Although I'm sure some churches will, those that are progressive enough.

[UncleBob]

Well, then, good thing they won't have to. Now, if you please, don't bring in citations and claims from dumbass websites and act like they're legitimate, ok?

I wonder how long before someone brings a lawsuit against a church for discriminating against them based on sexual orientation though...

[SpazX]

I wonder how long before someone brings a lawsuit against a church for discriminating against them based on sexual orientation though...

I wonder how long before somebody calls the cops because McDonald's ran out of chicken nuggets...

Does it matter?

[UncleBob]

I wonder how long before somebody calls the cops because McDonald's ran out of chicken nuggets...

Does it matter?

In a world where "discrimination" is decided by fools and buffoons - yes.

Question: Is there anyone here who is not okay with a private church being allowed to deny rental or other use of it's facilities to a homosexual couple who wishes to use them to get married?

[lordwow]

Since a private church can deny usage of its facilities to heterosexual people for whatever reason it sees fit, it's not really discrimination.

[UncleBob]

Since a private church can deny usage of its facilities to heterosexual people for whatever reason it sees fit, it's not really discrimination.

A private business, say, Walmart - can deny someone entry for whatever reason they see fit...


... so long as that "reason" is one that discriminates against a protected class.

So, you could tell someone they can't come in because they're wearing an offensive shirt or they have been caught shoplifting before and they're no longer welcome in the store. But you can't say "You can't come in here because you're >insert protected class here<."

So, again - is there anyone who's willing to say they're not okay with a private church saying "We won't rent the use of our facilities out to you because you're gay."?

[UncleBob]

Likely, neither does the church clerk that would process the paperwork to rent the property.

Ministerial exception is a tricky thing. And it doesn't address sexual orientation at all. (Although it does address gender, which *could* be a work around "We're not discriminating against sexual preference! We're discriminating against two guys.") Also, it pretty much only applies to employees that spend more work time directly tied to religious-based tasks than ones that are not religious based.

Basically, ministerial exception isn't a fool proof plan for letting a church decide which parties they want to discriminate against.

Wasn't there a thread on here about church-operated soup kitchens not wanting to hire homosexual employees?

[panzerfaust]

i have no problem with churches deciding to keep people of certain sexual orientations from their community, that's up to them to decide -- the bible is pretty blatant about the subject. so all of that just seems like a private church matter.

girls don't belong in the boyscouts, but that's up to each organization to decide on how they want to bend their beliefs/rules.

[phantasyx]

For the record President Obama is HALF AFRICAN.

I think Homosexuality can be treated (no not with religion) Its a disorder when people are attracted to the wrong pheromone's thus establishing a attraction to the opposite sex. We already know that its not natural and it has very harmful affects to the community. Now its anyones choice if they was to get it treated (when treatment becomes available) but I don't think people need to parade around and advertise it, I don't want my kid thinking its ok to eat a...ick.

[lordwow]

I think Homosexuality can be treated (no not with religion) Its a disorder when people are attracted to the wrong pheromone's thus establishing a attraction to the opposite sex. We already know that its not natural and it has very harmful affects to the community. Now its anyones choice if they was to get it treated (when treatment becomes available) but I don't think people need to parade around and advertise it, I don't want my kid thinking its ok to eat a...ick.

Unfortunately for you, the APA disagrees. Which is why homosexuality is no longer present in the DSM.

[UncleBob]

girls don't belong in the boyscouts, but that's up to each organization to decide on how they want to bend their beliefs/rules.

No one would ever sue over that!

Wait.... (http://www.bsalegal.org/gender-cases-226.asp)

Granted, they won... but how much in legal fees did it cost them? Including the one where the state's Department of Human Rights sued... that one was probably expensive...

[ATK]

Well, then, good thing they won't have to. Now, if you please, don't bring in citations and claims from dumbass websites and act like they're legitimate, ok?

I don't know where you got the citation from....That was from OP..

EDIT: Partly my fault for you not recognizing that (from the OP I mean). I did a raw quote. I didn't use the quote button but rather just typed the BBcode. And the fact that I just now noticed that the OP was from 2008... :P

[SpazX]

People can sue for pretty much whatever the hell they want Bob.

[Knoell]

People can sue for pretty much whatever the hell they want Bob.

And sadly enough sometimes they win, which leads to more ridiculous regulation to prevent it from recurring. See coffee is hot text on coffee cups.

[Clak]

For the record President Obama is HALF AFRICAN.

I think Homosexuality can be treated (no not with religion) Its a disorder when people are attracted to the wrong pheromone's thus establishing a attraction to the opposite sex. We already know that its not natural and it has very harmful affects to the community. Now its anyones choice if they was to get it treated (when treatment becomes available) but I don't think people need to parade around and advertise it, I don't want my kid thinking its ok to eat a...ick.
Not natural, despite the fact that it happens in nature. What kind of fucked up definition of natural are you using?

[Kirin Lemon]

Not natural, despite the fact that it happens in nature. What kind of fucked up definition of natural are you using?

I think that inaccuracy is one of the lesser problems in his ridiculously retarded argument.

[SpazX]

Well yeah 1) it is natural, 2) whether it's natural or not is irrelevant, natural != good and unnatural != bad. It's just stupid all around. Like saying a white house isn't sturdy because it's pink.

[mykevermin]

I don't know where you got the citation from....That was from OP..

EDIT: Partly my fault for you not recognizing that (from the OP I mean). I did a raw quote. I didn't use the quote button but rather just typed the BBcode. And the fact that I just now noticed that the OP was from 2008... :P

fair 'nuff, my bad for jumping down your throat.

I think Homosexuality can be treated (no not with religion).

treat how? treat what? based on what evidence is it treatable?

Its a disorder when people are attracted to the wrong pheromone's thus establishing a attraction to the opposite sex.

a disorder according to which science?
attracted to the 'wrong pheremones', again, based on what evidence

We already know that its not natural

based on what evidence?

and it has very harmful affects to the community.

based on what evidence? also, *e*ffects.

Now its anyones choice if they was to get it treated (when treatment becomes available)

you haven't defined 'treatment' yet. you're essentially claiming we can engineer sexual preferences. if we can make gay people straight, then we can make hot chicks moist for overweight unemployed otaku. is that what we're really hoping for here?

but I don't think people need to parade around and advertise it

elaborate 'parade around' and 'advertise it.' are we talking billboards on highways, or two people holding hands in public? somewhere in between? give examples.

I don't want my kid thinking its ok to eat a...ick.

what kind of oral sex are you excited about your children having?

[BigT]

For the record President Obama is HALF AFRICAN.

I think Homosexuality can be treated (no not with religion) Its a disorder when people are attracted to the wrong pheromone's thus establishing a attraction to the opposite sex. We already know that its not natural and it has very harmful affects to the community. Now its anyones choice if they was to get it treated (when treatment becomes available) but I don't think people need to parade around and advertise it, I don't want my kid thinking its ok to eat a...ick.

It's a complicated but interesting question.

I personally do not think that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, per se. If that is what someone chooses to do, they should be allowed to do it.

Attraction is a complicated issue as well... different people have different turn-ons and perhaps even fetishes that may change over the course of a lifetime.

The concept of treatment for homosexuality is an interesting one. My hunch is that it probably is possible through conditioning to change one's sexual turn-ons and perhaps even preferences... but I don't have any proof for that and I doubt that any IRB would let me study it - even with full consent from the participants. The bigger question is whether homosexuality should be defined as a disease or disorder. On the one hand if someone is homosexual, well adjusted, and enjoys his or her lifestyle, then I would have to say no. However, from a basic evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is a potentially terminal disorder for ones genes as it increases one's risk of being a reproductive failure.

Please don't succumb to any moralistic fallacies while reading and analyzing the above.

[IRHari]

The bigger question is whether homosexuality should be defined as a disease or disorder.

Or neither.