Great! New challenge already to the Cali same sex marriage laws

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by darius359au

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

The majority of who?

Newsflash: Scientists have discovered there are people and geography outside of the US. Although many US citizens are still in denial, science has proven this fact to be true.


Nobody is trying to silence you. I hope they never do. I used to love watching All in the Family. Without my weekly dose of Archie Bunker there's been a void in my life. Your posts fill that void.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The majority of who?

Newsflash: Scientists have discovered there are people and geography outside of the US. Although many US citizens are still in denial, science has proven this fact to be true.


Nobody is trying to silence you. I hope they never do. I used to love watching All in the Family. Without my weekly dose of Archie Bunker there's been a void in my life. Your posts fill that void.

Glad I could help. For the rest, read up on American history. You will find your answers.

Next?

-S

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

So, Dude! Who exactly is trying to silence you and/or are gay? Certainly not me. If I were gay I'd probably have better fashion sense than I do. And all I have done is point out the logical fallacies of the law overturned by the Calif. Supreme Court and why they did what they did IN LAW. By your own admission, you stated the state's desire to support marriage. I only pointed out that the Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution held that the DOM law violated the Equal Protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional and discriminatory. I define the ruling as a strict constructionist view of the Constitution and applicable law. As far as segregation goes, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Just like the Defense of Marriage Acts in that it promotes intolerance and bigotry. So why shouldn't gay couples have the opportunity to be just as miserable as us straight married folk?

[MothBalls]

Here's an American history lesson.

I never knew England was a "Fagdom".

[Sailor Steve]

Well, in one sense PD did cover my actual attitude pretty well. Arguing against what someone says is not a personal attack - would you rather have me ignore what you say and call you names? I'm saying that your logic is flawed because you use the reverse of how the law works (at least to my mind). An example:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You butchered what I was trying to say. To start making laws that allow people to marry goats, or same sex marriages, polygamy, or incest is not the states business - period.

We create laws to protect us from each other, not to determine lifestyles. You say it's not the state's business to make laws ALLOWING people to do what they want. The reality is that we have had laws FORBIDDING people to make their own choices. You say it's not the state's business to allow freedom, and then you post lists of the freedoms we have. I say all freedom is to the people; you are the one who wants to deny them if they don't agree with your specific moral code.

Goats: animals can't speak, they can't express desire or displeasure in moral realms, so no, cross-species marriage is impossible.

Same-sex: no, I'm not gay. I find the very idea of anal sex repugnant. That said, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, nor yours. If they want to partake in the same social contract that others enjoy, who are you to deny them?

Polygamy: That problem is being tested more and more. Who knows where it will end? I like Mark Twain's observation: When asked to quote a scripture forbidding polygamy, Twain replied "Certainly - No man can serve two masters."

Incest: where do you draw the line? Some societies allow first cousins to marry; others do not. The true taboo seems to stem from early observations of deformaties and brain problems. So, is the taboo on incest because it's morally wrong or because it produces physical problems? I don't pretend to know the answer to that one.

All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods!

Actually, you do. That kind of behaviour has been observed in most species of mammals. I've seen cats do it. It's there, it's real.

How backwards have both of you become?

Hard to tell. I used to be a devout believer, but I've become more of a skeptic lately. And no, I'm not an athiest. Not even sure I could call myself agnostic. Deist?

And to add further insult to injury, the people don't want it! Period! The people voted it down! Some activist judge comes along and over-turns the will of the people? Hello?

This is a case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. Period.

That's a reasonable argument, but the Declaration and the Bill of Rights guarantee everyone the same freedoms. You talk about constitutionalism, but you still insist on denying freedom to those who disagree. If they took a vote tomorrow and found that the majority wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment, would you agree?

And quit cherry picking only one part.

Sorry, but you cover a lot of different points. It's impossible to affirm or deny them as a whole. Each one has to be taken on its own merits.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

So what if Subman's a Christian. What an absolute lame comment. Do you suppose only Christian's oppose homosexual "marriage"? If so, I don't think you get out much. BTW, how do they treat homosexual's in that backwards country you came from? How do the Mullah's treat homosexuals there? I got news for you, homosexuals, even without marriage here, live in heaven compared to that place

In the United States, Christians are typically the ones who view homosexuals as the enemy and deny them their rights. That's my point. Some Christians like them, but not many do.

My nephew goes to a church in a small Missouri town, the First Baptist Church to be exact. The pastor there commonly gets riled when it comes to the topic of homosexuals, and he has even had entire sermons about homosexuality. He says that they are all unclean and are enemies of God, which is justification for why they should be denied their rights and why they should be destroyed.

Now with that said, neither one of our countries seems to be much different. That's how it started with Iran and their killings of homosexuals and it's turning out much the same way for the United States (although the US government hasn't allowed citizens to kill homosexuals wherever they may be found).

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

...I see you defend so heartily and quite often.

Well what do you expect? I lived there for well over 30 years, more than half my life and put my life on the line for the country against the Iraqis. I'm not suddenly going to disown it and asking me to is just going to make me tell you to feck off. Iran is going through a period much like the United States was during the 1950s and 1960s, when it was perfectly legal to have segregation and when whites killing a black person were typically just given a slap on the wrist whilst blacks killing a white person were given either life in prison or the death sentence.

Your government, just 40 years ago, let police dogs maul protesters and sprayed them with powerful jets of water from fire hoses. Your government enforced segregation in the population and often denied black children the right to a fair education.

And come 40 years from now, when I'm probably dead and buried, Iran will hopefully have changed. The government and mullahs are the ones who dislike gays, Jews, and such, but the people themselves typically don't mind them.

Nobody can be certain what Iran's future will hold, but I have faith in the country and in the hearts of the people. I hope the future will bring better for her because I don't want to find out someday that the things I did for my homeland as did many other Iranians were all in vain. If it was in vain... then I won't go on living. The disappointment of it would be titanically extreme, not only in myself but in my people. So much... and all for nothing...

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

In the United States, Christians are typically the ones who view homosexuals as the enemy and deny them their rights. That's my point. Some Christians like them, but not many do.

What absolute hogwash. I think it's the other way around. Homosexual's and their fellow activists are intolerant bigots to society at large and view anybody who disagrees with their agenda in complete disdain. Wishing to keep societal norms and working to those ends is denying nobody any rights. Homosexuals can marry, but only people of the opposite sex. Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all. But marriage is a well defined institution. I don't think many of the people of this thread can see the distinction. Nor do they want to.

My nephew goes to a church in a small Missouri town, the First Baptist Church to be exact. The pastor there commonly gets riled when it comes to the topic of homosexuals, and he has even had entire sermons about homosexuality. He says that they are all unclean and are enemies of God, which is justification for why they should be denied their rights and why they should be destroyed.

Actually, sounds like the backwards country from where you came from. As a matter of fact, they stone gays to death there. We all know that. There is nothing like that in America at all other than fringe groups of many designs. Not just fanatical "Christians". Your bigotry is duly noted. And your blindness to the evil from the country you came from is noted as well.

Now with that said, neither one of our countries seems to be much different.

Then I challenge you to go home from where you came from. There is actually a world of difference between Iran and the USA. And most people know it.

Well what do you expect? I lived there for well over 30 years, more than half my life and put my life on the line for the country against the Iraqis. I'm not suddenly going to disown it and asking me to is just going to make me tell you to feck off.

My family disowned the place from where they came from. They came here to become Americans. Of course you are free to hold on to whatever you're holding on to.

Iran is going through a period much like the United States was during the 1950s and 1960s,

Nonsense. There are many differences. America had civil turmoil during these times. But nothing to the levels of stoning women in the streets for minor offenses all sanctioned by the government court system. There weren't law on the books sanctioning the lynching of innocent black men in the South. It's government sanctioned in Iran. And we fixed our abuses. Iran's regime doesn't seem likely to go in a similar direction. The Mullah's won't allow it.

Nobody can be certain what Iran's future will hold,

Iran is doomed. And it's their own government's fault.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

I only pointed out that the Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution held that the DOM law violated the Equal Protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married. But there are rules. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself. Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the gays would save themselves a lot of trouble if they said they were going for "civil union", not "marriage". Comments?

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married.

Just not with the people that they like. Yes, I know that loveless "marriages" (such as the "arranged" or "political" variety) has long and "glorious" history, but I'll be courageous and assume that most consider the increased importance of love in marriage to be an improvement on the term despite its uprise being correlated to a higher rate of divorce...

But there are rules.

Defined by whom. Were they right to begin with?

You have to marry someone from the opposite sex.

Justify this. And don't throw out "natural law". It sounds cool but what people call "natural law" is actually a very human creation. The fact they are hardly as natural as some like to think can be seen from our past and from certain parts of the world that we might call "barbaric".
If something is a real natural law, you don't have to worry about anyone violating it. They just won't be able to do so. For example, real natural law insists that when you jump out of a building, you fall. Further, It is too big to really care about humans or gays.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself.

That's cold comfort considering that you don't have an interest. It is easy to support a restriction of a freedom that you don't want and don't want others to have.

Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

So, if German 1930s-40s society defined the rules for Equal Protection as not being a Jew, will that in anyway make the Holocaust any more palatable?

[McBeck]

Hi guys....just checking in....please keep the discussion clean

[Safe-Keeper]

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married.

Religious people in the USSR had freedom of religion - they had just as much a right to be an atheist as everyone else.
"You can have any car colour you want in Russia, as long as it's black."
The citizens under Saddam all had equal voting rights - no one was barred from voting Saddam Hussein.

.

Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court.

Why? Universal suffrage, too, came about through activism, as did, as a matter of fact, most civil rights throughout history.

Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules.

Right. Just like Afro-American woman could ride buses as long as they followed the rules and sat in the back, as tradition demanded?

And society has a right to define those rules.

And unlike what's being parroted by the many right-wingers out there, the majority of Californians support gay marriage.

As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

A ridiculous argument that I've never understood. Everything changes. Democracy, marriage, cars, countries, the Internet, illnesses, everything. To pick one word or "institution" and declare it set in stone is naive and ignorant. It's like me saying "women can try all they want to get voting rights, but democracy is and will always be for men only. Allowing women would change the definition of voting rights, and we can't have that".

I think the gays would save themselves a lot of trouble if they said they were going for "civil union", not "marriage". Comments?

Yup, they certainly would. The problem is that a civil union doesn't grant them the privilegues of a marriage, so it's still discrimination. It's far better than nothing, but still not quite there.

What absolute hogwash. I think it's the other way around. Homosexual's and their fellow activists are intolerant bigots to society at large and view anybody who disagrees with their agenda in complete disdain.

The difference, of course, being that it's the homosexuals that are oppressed, and the Christian fundies (and the other anti-gays) who do the oppressing.

I'm repeatedly astounded by the ability of "certain people" forcing their religion down other peoples' throats to perceive themselves as the ones being attacked when things don't go their way. "No mandatory prayer to the Christian God before lunch for all elementary school students in Norway, regardless of their religious convictions? Why do you hate Christianity?!". Ridiculous.

Wishing to keep societal norms and working to those ends is denying nobody any rights.

Can you give me a shred of evidence that gay marriage is having negative effects on society, without invoking the correlation equals causation fallacy or just going "it's obvious!"? And why do you want to "keep societal norms"? Which norms? Don't you want your society progressing? And which norms do you think gay marriage will damage?

Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all.

What's it matter whether or not it's a right or a privilegue? Voting is a right, it's still denied to certain people (such as those who aren't citizens). And people far, far less qualified than gays to raise families, procreate, and form the "traditional family"(TM) are allowed to marry without you guys giving a hoot, which makes it fairly clear to me that this whole "sanctity of marriage" deal is just an excuse.

You can't start a family when you have two months left to live. Yet the terminally ill can marry.
Child molesters aren't exactly model parents. Yet pedophiles can marry.
The sterile won't ever procreate. They can still marry.
People with horrific genetic defects shouldn't have sex and procreate. They are still allowed to marry.
Heck, even Rush freaking Lindbaugh is allowed to marry, and he's been divorced, what, three times?

So why can't gays marry? Simple, tradition. That's all it boils down to - not making sure all the families there are happy, but making sure they stay as they currently are, just because change is viewed as hostile to those who want to "uphold the sanctity of marriage".

But marriage is a well defined institution. I don't think many of the people of this thread can see the distinction. Nor do they want to.

Explained earlier in my post.

All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods!

"If we were meant to fly, we'd have been born with wings!" What is it with fundies and the appeal to nature fallacy? And this is oftentimes the same kind of people who get outraged whenever some "Darwinist" (heh) comes about and says humans are animals.

Oh, and homosexuality is an observed trait in over half a hundred species throughout the entire animal kingdom. This is a well-established fact. I know that the instant I say this, everyone will backpedal and pretend they're not the ones who brought up the natural/unnatural question to begin with and ask me why the **** it matters, but there you have it.

But oh well, appeal to nature is a fallacy, so it's an irrelevant point anyhow.

[Safe-Keeper]

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots?

Indeed. The majority of the US people made it clear they wanted society to remain as it was, but the activist Afro-Americans demonstrated in the streets until activist judges forced their will on the US population and society was turned upside down. Same with the women - the institution of democracy has always been one man, one vote, but those stupid feminists had to wreck the institution by brainless activism.

Damned Negroes and women don't know their place.

:p

The people "marrying a goat" "marrying two transvestites" or "marrying children" should not be denied their rights....should they?

Right, if men are allowed to marry each others, they should be able to marry kids, too, despite the two being totally freaking unrelated. Just like how...

...If we allow praying in class, we'll also have to allow burning smelly incense, ritual chanting, speaking in tongues while rolling on the floor, and ritual sacrifices of cows and even humans.
...If we afford women the right to vote, we'll also have to afford the right to children and animals, and people will have to get the right to vote for two candidates at once. And after all, voting rights have always been for men only, for thousands of years, and democracy is a pillar of society, hence, allowing women to vote will wreck a pillar of society and cause catastrophe.
...If we allow Negroes into our school, we'll have to allow animals and children in too.

By your reasoning.
Seriously, can you guys using this argument hear yourselves?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married. But there are rules. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself. Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all.

You seem to have a strange perception of "rights". "Society", like "government", has no rights whatsoever. People have rights, period. Other people use society and government to deny rights to people they don't like, but that doesn't mean that they are correct to do so. If we create a set of rules for our benefit, but then deny those same rights to others, we are oppressing them, not the other way around.

The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Ninth Amendment to the Constution: "The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How exactly does upholding those principles make a court "activist"?