California gay marriage ban overturned

[gabosaurus]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,2637476,full.story

[BoogyMan]

Once again Gabs shows how in vogue it is to be down right dishonest if you are a member of the loony left wing fringe.

One who does not want marriage to be redefined based on the debauchery of the modern leftist does not qualify as a homophobe.

Dictionary.com defines "homophobe" thusly:


ho·mo·phobe   /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Show Spelled[hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

There is no fear or hate involved.

Since the judge who handed down this ruling is a homosexual I think we will see this one in front of the Supreme Court fairly soon. The fact that San Franciscans find no issue with this obvious ethical conflict simply points out how out of touch they are with the real world. (http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-07/bay-area/17848482_1_same-sex-marriage-sexual-orientation-judge-walker)

[Little-Acorn]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

[KarlMarx]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,2637476,full.story

Gabby... don't you get astigmatism looking down your nose at everyone?

Well, let me post this in a big font so that you can see it better.

Radical Gay Rights Activists 1
The California Voters 0

You know, this was that Proposition 80(?) that was overturned, right? You know which segment of the California population was most in favor of banning gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos.

Had this been a ruling over illegal immigration or some other Politcally Correct rallying point, some of us (Gabby most likely) would have been prattling on about how racist this decision was.

I guess Gay is the New Black... Gay trumps Black in the Politically Correct Poker Game... and White is something like the 2 of spades.

Don't worry, it won't stop here... the gays will be demanding something else before too long...

I wonder how Gabby will feel when she has to share the lavatory with men... don't think I'm making that up... New York had a "gender fairness" bill in consideration.. that would have been one of the consequences.

[KarlMarx]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

Someone who is much more eloquent that I had a name for this phenomenon... "Defining Deviancy Down".

[Missileman]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

Is that really that much different than the opponent's arguments (like, allowing gays to marry will destroy heterosexual marriage), but when pressed by the judge to explain just how that might come about, the opponents were unable to offer anything to support that "invention"?

[gabosaurus]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one. :D

[KarlMarx]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one. :D

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

[SassyLady]

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

Must spread rep.....:thumb:

[bullypulpit]

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Vaughn Walker, U.S. District Chief Judge."

A view I have long expressed regarding bans on same-gender marriages. Never mind that the opponents of same gender marriage utterly failed to provide any evidence of objectively quantifiable harm to, either the individuals involved or the community at large, also a view long expressed by me, here.

But this rational, sensible, legal analysis crafted by Judge Walker will do nothing to blunt the fear, insecurity and bigotry of those who oppose the right of same gender couples to marry. Never mind that marriage is a religious institution. Never mind that the only compelling interest the state has in the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals.

Those opposed to the marriage of same gender couples haven't a leg to stand on. But like the "Black Knight" in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", they will continue to insist "It's only a flesh wound!", and irrationally continue their fight.

The full text:

<a title="View Prop 8 Ruling FINAL on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Prop 8 Ruling FINAL</a> <object id="doc_263782217653490" name="doc_263782217653490" height="500" width="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" > <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=35374462&access_key=key-svga9mgedaz1bibr18j&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_263782217653490" name="doc_263782217653490" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=35374462&access_key=key-svga9mgedaz1bibr18j&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="500" width="100%" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed> </object>

Of particular interest to both supporters and opponents of same gender marriage, begins on page 60 of the decision. This begins the legal analysis of the evidence presented, and demolishes the arguments of those opposing the marriage of same gender couples.

[red states rule]

Once again liberals show how they support their talking point anout counting every vote

Yea, count those votes as long as we approve of what they are voting for or against

You do know alot of blacks, and Dems voted against gay marriage - right?

This is only piss off voters even more as Nov 2, 2010 approaches

[red states rule]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one. :D

and a gay Judge at that

[bullypulpit]

Legislating morality, let's look at that.

Yes...Let's...


1. There is legislation against lying. For instance, lying on your income tax statement, lying on a timecard if you're charging a government contract, lying under oath.

Your examples involve fraud and perjury, both with centuries of legal and objectively quantifiable evidence of harm to those involved and the community at large.


2. There is legislation against murder. Murder of any sort, unless of course, you're talking about unborn kids.

Again, murder is a clear cut case of demonstrable harm.


3. There is legislation against stealing. Embezzlement, grand larceny, you name it...

Yet again, these crimes cause demonstrable harm to those immediately involved and the community at large...seeing the pattern yet?


So, you see, that's what the law *is*. It is a reflection of the morals of the governed.

Now, when you have judges overturning the will of the people.. isn't that also legislating morality from the bench?

A reflection of the morals where those morals argue against objectively quantifiable and demonstrable harm to individuals and the community at large.

As for "overturning the will of the people", Brown v. Board of Education overturned "the will of the people". In striking down anti-miscegenation laws, the courts overturned "the will of the people". The instances where the courts have overturned "the will of the people", when the "will of the people", causes harm to individuals and society at large are too numerous to mention.

[red states rule]

Yes...Let's...



Your examples involve fraud and perjury, both with centuries of legal and objectively quantifiable evidence of harm to those involved and the community at large.



Again, murder is a clear cut case of demonstrable harm.



Yet again, these crimes causes demonstrable harm to those immediately involved and the community at large...seeing the pattern yet?



A reflection of the morals where those morals argue against objectively quantifiable and demonstrable harm to individuals and the community at large.

As for "overturning the will of the people", Brown v. Board of Education overturned "the will of the people". In striking down anti-miscegenation laws, the courts overturned "the will of the people". The instances where the courts have overturned "the will of the people", when the "will of the people", is causes harm to individuals and society at large are too numerous to mention.

You know many blacks are pissed over libs comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement. You guys just keep pising off your base more and more

How is that hope and change going for you BP? Are you looking forward to November as you were 2 years ago? :laugh2:

As millions lose their jobs, as the economy tanks, as our debt soars - libs are more interested in flipping off the voters of CA to advance their social agenda

[bullypulpit]

and a gay Judge at that
And that is an issue why? Would a straight judge have rendered a different decision?

Probably not. Read the ruling. It is clear and provides explicit rationals for the judge's decision in the case. Which is more than can be said for the Prop 8 supporters.

[bullypulpit]

You know many blacks are pissed over libs comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement. You guys just keep pising off your base more and more

How is that hope and change going for you BP? Are you looking forward to November as you were 2 years ago? :laugh2:

As millions lose their jobs, as the economy tanks, as our debt soars - libs are more interested in flipping off the voters of CA to advance their social agenda

Again, Red, read the ruling. If you have trouble with the big words, lemme know, and I'll 'splain them to you.

[red states rule]

And that is an issue why? Would a straight judge have rendered a different decision?

Probably not. Read the ruling. It is clear and provides explicit rationals for the judge's decision in the case. Which is more than can be said for the Prop 8 supporters.

Conflict of interest perhaps?

Not to liberals like you as long as rules the "correct" way

This will be overturned BP - enjoy the time you have left to gloat

Much like Obamacare lost in MO - you people do not get it. People are opposed to your agenda

[red states rule]

Again, Red, read the ruling. If you have trouble with the big words, lemme know, and I'll 'splain them to you.

Nice way to duck the fact libs are digging their political hole even deeper.

[KarlMarx]

Yes...Let's...



Your examples involve fraud and perjury, both with centuries of legal and objectively quantifiable evidence of harm to those involved and the community at large.



Again, murder is a clear cut case of demonstrable harm.



Yet again, these crimes cause demonstrable harm to those immediately involved and the community at large...seeing the pattern yet?



A reflection of the morals where those morals argue against objectively quantifiable and demonstrable harm to individuals and the community at large.

As for "overturning the will of the people", Brown v. Board of Education overturned "the will of the people". In striking down anti-miscegenation laws, the courts overturned "the will of the people". The instances where the courts have overturned "the will of the people", when the "will of the people", causes harm to individuals and society at large are too numerous to mention.

"Demonstrable harm" is the term you use. That's what I mean. Marriage is beneficial to society. Anything that harms it is therefore harmful. When you open the door to allowing two men or two women to marry, you then open the door to allowing other abuses of the institution.

Bigamists will now petition to allow their unions to be recognized, people involved in incestuous relations will also follow suit. Eventually, people who want to marry their pet cocker spaniels will want to be married to them.

The argument that gays are not being given equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment is ludicrous. They already have equal protections. They have the right to a trial by jury, the right to vote, the writ of habeas corpus, the right to free speech, and all the other rights given us by the Bill of Rights.

Marriage is not a legal protection by any means. It is an institution. Gays can already leave their property to their partners, have their partners covered under health care benefits, have their partners make health care decisions for them.

[namvet]

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-08/55366915.jpg

flabby's pals. the VD and HIV rate will skyrocket. how many new free health clinics for the taxpayer ?????

[bullypulpit]

Nice way to duck the fact libs are digging their political hole even deeper.

Project much Red? Why do you continue to duck the facts I have presented and were presented in the court ruling? I'll tel ya why, Red...Ya got nothing. You, and your fellow travelers, have absolutely no facts to support your arguments against same-gender marriage. And you know it. This is why you fail to address the facts as presented in the ruling. Dismissed.

[bullypulpit]

"Demonstrable harm" is the term you use. That's what I mean. Marriage is beneficial to society. Anything that harms it is therefore harmful. When you open the door to allowing two men or two women to marry, you then open the door to allowing other abuses of the institution.

Bigamists will now petition to allow their unions to be recognized, people involved in incestuous relations will also follow suit. Eventually, people who want to marry their pet cocker spaniels will want to be married to them.

The argument that gays are not being given equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment is ludicrous. They already have equal protections. They have the right to a trial by jury, the right to vote, the writ of habeas corpus, the right to free speech, and all the other rights given us by the Bill of Rights.

Marriage is not a legal protection by any means. It is an institution. Gays can already leave their property to their partners, have their partners covered under health care benefits, have their partners make health care decisions for them.

The facts do not support your assertions, never have. NO evidence has been obtained to show any demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, society at large or the institution of marriage by allowing same gender couples to marry.

Bigamy or polyandry, so long as the parties are consenting adults who are competent is not an issue. Those who constantly refer to the notion of marriage to animals and children ignore the fact that in neither case can these parties give legal, informed consent. And in all 50 states, you have to be an adult to sign a contract, whether it be for a loan or a marriage contract.

Same gender couple DO NOT have equal protection under the law. In many states and localities they are denied the right to marry their partners...They can be denied visitation rights in the hospital...they cannot claim dependent benefits in the event of their partners death...and so much more.

Indeed, same gender couples can pay attorney's fees to secure rights granted freely to traditional couples. So, again, they are denied the same rights as their straight counterparts.

Your arguments lie in tatters. Consider yourself pwned.

[HogTrash]

If Loose Bruce can marry his butt-buddy then why can't I wed my parakeet?

By the way, is there anyway to determine if my beautiful bird is indeed a chick?

Oh what the hell, if gender isn't an issue for Bruce, why should I give a flying fuck?

[red states rule]

Project much Red? Why do you continue to duck the facts I have presented and were presented in the court ruling? I'll tel ya why, Red...Ya got nothing. You, and your fellow travelers, have absolutely no facts to support your arguments against same-gender marriage. And you know it. This is why you fail to address the facts as presented in the ruling. Dismissed.

What facts? Your inability to understand legal rulings based on the law is limited (givien your rant about the USSC overturning a century of legal precedent when they clearly did not)

All we had was another liberal Judge (and a gay Judge at that) tell 7 million voters to go to Hell. He basicly ruled the resaon gays have not been allowed to get married in the past was because the rest of us were bigots. He basicly ruled that marriage is an act of discrimination against gays

He put all of the 7 million voters and the institution of marriage on trial in his kangaroo court

The Judge was out to make a name for himself and have his 15 minutes of fame - OK he had done both

Now the voters are no longer pissed off - they are boiling and will speak again on Nov 2.

[jimnyc]

The facts do not support your assertions, never have. NO evidence has been obtained to show any demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, society at large or the institution of marriage by allowing same gender couples to marry.

I can easily come up with other scenarios of actions that are illegal, or "not allowed", when there is no harm to others or the person themselves. If they fit within the parameters you outlined, should they all be legal and have courts protect them?

[bullypulpit]

If Loose Bruce can marry his butt-buddy then why can't I wed my parakeet?

By the way, is there anyway to determine if my beautiful bird is indeed a chick?

Oh what the hell, if gender isn't an issue for Bruce, why should I give a flying fuck?

Ummm...You really are that stupid, aren't you. As I said in a previous post, neither animals nor children are competent to give the informed consent necessary to enter into the contract of marriage. And, in ALL 50 states, one MUST be a competent adult to enter into ANY contract...be it a payday loan or marriage.

That you and your fellow travelers continue to bring up this stupid notion does, however, leave me wondering what y'all do with animals in your free time.

[bullypulpit]

I can easily come up with other scenarios of actions that are illegal, or "not allowed", when there is no harm to others or the person themselves. If they fit within the parameters you outlined, should they all be legal and have courts protect them?

Fire when ready...

[bullypulpit]

What facts? Your inability to understand legal rulings based on the law is limited (givien your rant about the USSC overturning a century of legal precedent when they clearly did not)

Red, the facts are cited in the judges decision. Sorry, but past mistakes on my part do not justify further stupidity on yours.


All we had was another liberal Judge (and a gay Judge at that) tell 7 million voters to go to Hell. He basicly ruled the resaon gays have not been allowed to get married in the past was because the rest of us were bigots. He basicly ruled that marriage is an act of discrimination against gays

No, Red, the ruling does not cast marriage as discrimination against same gender couples. It rules that denying the institution of marriage to same gender couples is baseless discrimination. Typical right wing-nut pretzel logic on your part. As for your bigotry comment...If the shoe fits, buy the other one.


He put all of the 7 million voters and the institution of marriage on trial in his kangaroo court

So the judges that ruled in Brown v. Board of education...striking down anti-miscegenation laws...put all those voters and the institution of racism in a kangaroo court?


The Judge was out to make a name for himself and have his 15 minutes of fame - OK he had done both

No, Red, he was out to see that justice was done.


Now the voters are no longer pissed off - they are boiling and will speak again on Nov 2.

Which voters? The slack-jawed, slope-headed, mouth-breathers who compromise the red-meat GOP base? They've always been pissed off about something.

[MtnBiker]

The voters of California should stop wasting money on elections and just let Judges decide things for them.

[Kathianne]

The voters of California should stop wasting money on elections and just let Judges decide things for them.

Indeed. The politicians and judges know best. The rest should just go to work and stfu. ;)

[Binky]

Was there ever any doubt as to the outcome of that case? Come on here. The judge was gay. The case was about removing the ban on homosexual marriages. It was rigged in their favor right from the get go......

[HogTrash]

Ummm...You really are that stupid, aren't you. As I said in a previous post, neither animals nor children are competent to give the informed consent necessary to enter into the contract of marriage. And, in ALL 50 states, one MUST be a competent adult to enter into ANY contract...be it a payday loan or marriage.Neither are fags, einstein.


That you and your fellow travelers continue to bring up this stupid notion does, however, leave me wondering what y'all do with animals in your free time.I think you may have underestimated the competence of my parakeet, tweety. :gay:

[namvet]

don't they have an illegal alien running for Gov out there??? :thumb:

[KarlMarx]

The facts do not support your assertions, never have. NO evidence has been obtained to show any demonstrable harm to the individuals involved, society at large or the institution of marriage by allowing same gender couples to marry.

Bigamy or polyandry, so long as the parties are consenting adults who are competent is not an issue. Those who constantly refer to the notion of marriage to animals and children ignore the fact that in neither case can these parties give legal, informed consent. And in all 50 states, you have to be an adult to sign a contract, whether it be for a loan or a marriage contract.

Same gender couple DO NOT have equal protection under the law. In many states and localities they are denied the right to marry their partners...They can be denied visitation rights in the hospital...they cannot claim dependent benefits in the event of their partners death...and so much more.

Indeed, same gender couples can pay attorney's fees to secure rights granted freely to traditional couples. So, again, they are denied the same rights as their straight counterparts.

Your arguments lie in tatters. Consider yourself pwned.

Baloney. We are not talking about consenting partners in the privacy of their own homes. We are talking about public policy.

Your arguments about being denied visitation rights and so on are *not* a reasons to reinvent marriage. They are a reason to change policies so that gays can have visitation rights, etc.

Gays can and do get coverage under their partners' health benefits. Almost all, if not all, corporations already provide this benefit.

[bullypulpit]

The voters of California should stop wasting money on elections and just let Judges decide things for them.

So, we dispense with the judicial system altogether? Vigilante justice and mob rule? How very Bolshevik of you.

[bullypulpit]

Was there ever any doubt as to the outcome of that case? Come on here. The judge was gay. The case was about removing the ban on homosexual marriages. It was rigged in their favor right from the get go......

Given that the judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush for three separate posts, culminating in his current posting...against Democratic opposition...one should think his conservative pedigree to be impeccable.

But more to the point, how does his being gay...nothing but an unproven, unfounded rumor at this point...affect his ability to render an objective judgment? Does the specious accusation that he may be gay and thus should have recused himself from the case mean that black judges cannot hear civil rights cases?...That female judges should refrain from hearing cases involving women's rights?

This line of reasoning in the effort of an intellectually bankrupt movement to smear a judge who rendered a decision they find distasteful. Read the decision...<a href=http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28832-California-gay-marriage-ban-overturned&p=436764#post436764>#10</a>. It is based in legal precedent and Constitutional law. I know it sucks being you given the liberal bias reality has, but ya know, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own set of facts to try, in vain, to justify that opinion.

[bullypulpit]

Baloney. We are not talking about consenting partners in the privacy of their own homes. We are talking about public policy.

Your arguments about being denied visitation rights and so on are *not* a reasons to reinvent marriage. They are a reason to change policies so that gays can have visitation rights, etc.

Gays can and do get coverage under their partners' health benefits. Almost all, if not all, corporations already provide this benefit.

Ummm...Yes, we are talking about consenting partners. Many on the right keep trotting out boogey man of people marrying their pets and other such silliness if same gender couples are allowed to marry.

Marriage isn't being reinvented. It is being extended to those for whom it is denied...without rational justification. And, as I said, the list of rights denied same-gender couples, but given freely to traditional couples is too lengthy to list here, but here are some resources for you.

<a href=http://preview.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm>Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners</a>

<a href=http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons>1138 Reasons Equality Matters</a>

[Sweetchuck]

Neither are fags, einstein.

I think you may have underestimated the competence of my parakeet, tweety. :gay:

Hater statement of the day.

I gotta side with Bully. I'm not pro-gay by any stretch, but neither am I anti-gay and doing the simple math, I can't come up with a formula that would disallow gay marriage unless you put the forcing of someone's beliefs on other sects of our society into the equation.

I'm much more opposed to someone jamming their morality down other peoples throats than gay people wanting to simply coexist as married partners. The morality assholes can go take a flying fuck through a rolling donut for all I care.

[BoogyMan]

Marriage is an institution between man and woman. Homosexual union does not meet that standard. The debauchery of the modern American liberal should not be equated with truth such that it becomes the standard bearer of change that actually DOES destroy the institution of marriage, because it completely redefines what it is.



Ummm...Yes, we are talking about consenting partners. Many on the right keep trotting out boogey man of people marrying their pets and other such silliness if same gender couples are allowed to marry.

Marriage isn't being reinvented. It is being extended to those for whom it is denied...without rational justification. And, as I said, the list of rights denied same-gender couples, but given freely to traditional couples is too lengthy to list here, but here are some resources for you.

<a href=http://preview.hrc.org/issues/5478.htm>Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners</a>

<a href=http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons>1138 Reasons Equality Matters</a>

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,2637476,full.story

If you truly think we should be a democracy, then you are actually the loser.

[Sweetchuck]

Marriage is an institution between man and woman. Homosexual union does not meet that standard. The debauchery of the modern American liberal should not be equated with truth such that it becomes the standard bearer of change that actually DOES destroy the institution of marriage, because it completely redefines what it is.

Who's standard?

Yours?

Mine?

Osama bin Laden's?

A few decades ago, voting blacks didn't meet "standards" also.

[bullypulpit]

Marriage is an institution between man and woman. Homosexual union does not meet that standard. The debauchery of the modern American liberal should not be equated with truth such that it becomes the standard bearer of change that actually DOES destroy the institution of marriage, because it completely redefines what it is.

It would seem that straight folks, like Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, David Vitter, and many others have been doing a perfectly good job of destroying the institution of marriage all on their own.

How is a life-long commitment, in the form of marriage, to someone you love debauchery? Quite the opposite.

The change in the definition of marriage would read something like this...

Current: "The union of a man and a woman in the state of marriage..."

New: "The union of two people in the state of marriage..."

Not nearly as scary as you'd make it out to be.

Being as loudly "pro-family" as the right is, one would think they'd be doing all they could to promote marriage, even amongst same gender couples.

Face it folks...there is no rational basis for denying the institution of marriage to same gender couples. There is no compelling evidence for continuing to do so. The view that same gender couples marrying is "Icky", based on your own insecurities, or those of various religious leaders does not count as evidence...beyond the insecurities of those who hold such beliefs.

[BoogyMan]

I fail to see what doing the right thing and allowing an oppressed people to vote has to do with the redefinition of marriage.


Who's standard?

Yours?

Mine?

Osama bin Laden's?

A few decades ago, voting blacks didn't meet "standards" also.

[LuvRPgrl]

Who's standard?

Yours?

Mine?

Osama bin Laden's?

A few decades ago, voting blacks didn't meet "standards" also.

blacks absolutely HATE it when people use that analogy with homos

[LuvRPgrl]

Again, Red, read the ruling. If you have trouble with the big words, lemme know, and I'll 'splain them to you.

The only think you know is that you think a guy butt fucking another guy is normal

Hey, do you think shit tastes bad? How do you know? Have you ever tasted it? There are some things that smell bad, but actually taste good

So, bottom line is simple, COMMON SENSE tells you homosexuality is abnormal and to promote it and homo marriage is contrary to common sense, which is simply lacking in liberals

[LuvRPgrl]

Is that really that much different than the opponent's arguments (like, allowing gays to marry will destroy heterosexual marriage), but when pressed by the judge to explain just how that might come about, the opponents were unable to offer anything to support that "invention"?

Did you say something here??????

[LuvRPgrl]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one. :D


Do away with legislation against immoral activity and do away with all criminal laws

[LuvRPgrl]

And that is an issue why? Would a straight judge have rendered a different decision?

Probably not. Read the ruling. It is clear and provides explicit rationals for the judge's decision in the case. Which is more than can be said for the Prop 8 supporters.


When FACISM COMES TO AMERICA, IT WILL BE WRAPPED IN A JUDGES ROBE

[DragonStryk72]

"Demonstrable harm" is the term you use. That's what I mean. Marriage is beneficial to society. Anything that harms it is therefore harmful. When you open the door to allowing two men or two women to marry, you then open the door to allowing other abuses of the institution.

Bigamists will now petition to allow their unions to be recognized, people involved in incestuous relations will also follow suit. Eventually, people who want to marry their pet cocker spaniels will want to be married to them.

The argument that gays are not being given equal protection under the law per the 14th Amendment is ludicrous. They already have equal protections. They have the right to a trial by jury, the right to vote, the writ of habeas corpus, the right to free speech, and all the other rights given us by the Bill of Rights.

Marriage is not a legal protection by any means. It is an institution. Gays can already leave their property to their partners, have their partners covered under health care benefits, have their partners make health care decisions for them.

Wait, hold on here, were the gay people otherwise going to marry women, and be straight? Cause otherwise, there's no harm other than offending certain people, but if we legislate that, then we're totally screwed, cause no one would be able to do anything anymore. Is this what you're putting up? And wow, you went for the bestiality and incest arguments? Do I even have to mention how idiotic that argument is, or do you just want to let that one go?

Incest= obvious demonstrable harm
Bestiality= obvious demonstrable harm, plus no capacity for informed consent.

Get better arguments

How is marriage harmed? Oh, and don't bother with bigamist arguments, since polygamist marriage has been since, oh, ancient Egypt (Ever heard of a harem? Yeah, those existed). Strangely, it seems to have survived. Just because you have no faith in marriage does not translate to everyone having no faith in it.

Let them get married, it really in no way effects christian marriage, or any other form of marriage.

[Gaffer]

Do away with legislation against immoral activity and do away with all criminal laws

She equates sharing a bathroom with strange men and sharing with her husband as the same thing. Go figure.

[DragonStryk72]

Neither are fags, einstein.

I think you may have underestimated the competence of my parakeet, tweety. :gay:

Okay, fine, we'll ask the same thing as the judge asked: What is the demonstrable harm of Gay marriage? How can gay marriage destroy marriage?

Let's keep in mind that marriage has survived 12,000 years of human history, it has been polygamist in nature at times, and polygamist marriage is still practiced today in some cultures, it has been an exchange of property bereft of the honor and commitment called for in the bible, it has been a thing to do when hammered/stoned, it has been a way to hide the fact you're gay, it has been used to legitimize the birth of a child conceived out of wedlock, and absolutely none has destroyed marriage in the least. It's as strong, if not stronger than ever

[LuvRPgrl]

. Never mind that the only compelling interest the state has in the marriage of two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals.

<para.

Why does the State have a compelling interest in marriage between any consenting adults whatsoever?

Im assuming you are not opposed to polygamy?

[Sweetchuck]

blacks absolutely HATE it when people use that analogy with homos

Tough shit.

[Sweetchuck]

The only think you know is that you think a guy butt fucking another guy is normal

Hey, do you think shit tastes bad? How do you know? Have you ever tasted it? There are some things that smell bad, but actually taste good

So, bottom line is simple, COMMON SENSE tells you homosexuality is abnormal and to promote it and homo marriage is contrary to common sense, which is simply lacking in liberals

So is anal sex between a man and a woman not up to your "standards" also?

The fact that someone draws a line in the sand and suggests it's an absolute only proves how oppressive or how stupid a person is.

[bullypulpit]

Why does the State have a compelling interest in marriage between any consenting adults whatsoever?

Im assuming you are not opposed to polygamy?

The marriage contract...the disposition of property and assets upon a spouse's death, medical and legal powers of attorney, the care and support of children...whether natural or by adoption...These are but a few of the contractual issues which concern the state with regards to marriage.

And polygamy and polyandry should not be issues so long as all of the parties involved are competent, consenting adults.

[bullypulpit]

The only think you know is that you think a guy butt fucking another guy is normal

Sex IS a normal, valid means of expressing one's love for one's partner, regardless of gender. Unless, of course you've never had sex.



Hey, do you think shit tastes bad? How do you know? Have you ever tasted it? There are some things that smell bad, but actually taste good

And this has exactly what to do with the discussion at hand?


So, bottom line is simple, COMMON SENSE tells you homosexuality is abnormal and to promote it and homo marriage is contrary to common sense, which is simply lacking in liberals

And "Common Sense" is often as misguided and wrong headed as those who base their arguments upon it. There is nothing "contrary to common sense" about letting same gender couples marry. The whole "common sense" argument about marriage being essential for procreation is exploded by the fact that infertile couples and couples past their child bearing years marry every day.

So, if you are basing the argument against same-gender couples marrying on "common sense", you have built it on quicksand.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry homophobes, you have lost another round:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,2637476,full.storyCon

so, you are claiming more than 2/3rds of voting Americans in 2006 are homophobes?

Consider that the % of voters who oppose same gender marriage has been as high as 81% in a state

[bullypulpit]

When FACISM COMES TO AMERICA, IT WILL BE WRAPPED IN A JUDGES ROBE

The purpose of rhetoric and argument is logically dismantle your opponents arguments in an irrefutable manner...as I have done with each of your..."arguments". But that's really not such a high bar as the arguments of you, and your fellow travelers, are of the same class as the child's argument "SO THERE! NYAAAAAH!". :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

The marriage contract...the disposition of property and assets upon a spouse's death, medical and legal powers of attorney, the care and support of children...whether natural or by adoption...These are but a few of the contractual issues which concern the state with regards to marriage.

And polygamy and polyandry should not be issues so long as all of the parties involved are competent, consenting adults.

Why arent polygamy laws unconstitutional then? Or at least why arent your beloved judges declaring it so?

All of those issues can be handled by a legal contract.
What compelling interest does the state have in extending a legal contract to involve vows to being committed to each other and living together exclusively for life?

[LuvRPgrl]

The purpose of rhetoric and argument is logically dismantle your opponents arguments in an irrefutable manner...as I have done with each of your..."arguments". But that's really not such a high bar as the arguments of you, and your fellow travelers, are of the same class as the child's argument "SO THERE! NYAAAAAH!". :laugh:

considering we havent even argued the topic yet, you sure are quick to claim victory.

Of course this only shows your desperation to win an arguement

[DragonStryk72]

Why does the State have a compelling interest in marriage between any consenting adults whatsoever?

Im assuming you are not opposed to polygamy?

Income tax, and if gays marry, there'll be less coming in. I am opposed to polygamy, actually, but that's personal morality, not Constitutional idealism. See, I have enough trouble trying to get one woman, I can't imagine the degree of difficulty in getting multiple, and staying married to them all.

[DragonStryk72]

Why arent polygamy laws unconstitutional then? Or at least why arent your beloved judges declaring it so?

All of those issues can be handled by a legal contract.
What compelling interest does the state have in extending a legal contract to involve vows to being committed to each other and living together exclusively for life?

I am about to go out on the Libertarian limb here, and state that yes, laws against polygamy are unconstitutional. Polygamy is not inherently harmful. As I stated in prior posting, it's not something I believe in, or have the capability of pulling off, but again, that's my personal beliefs, and have nothing to do with the constitutionality of it.

Yes, abusive polygamy is wrong, and inherently harmful, but most of that occurs in places where there are no laws protecting those who practice it. Do you notice that you never really hear about straight couples marrying in secret, and watching every day for the cops coming to take them down? Well, same thing here, is that because it is illegal, it creates a black market society for it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Income tax, and if gays marry, there'll be less coming in. I am opposed to polygamy, actually, but that's personal morality, not Constitutional idealism. See, I have enough trouble trying to get one woman, I can't imagine the degree of difficulty in getting multiple, and staying married to them all.

Again, as with the issues Bullypisshead brought up, tax issues can be covered by legal contracts.

Interestingly enough, I think being married to more than one woman would be easier than only one.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am about to go out on the Libertarian limb here, and state that yes, laws against polygamy are unconstitutional. Polygamy is not inherently harmful. As I stated in prior posting, it's not something I believe in, or have the capability of pulling off, but again, that's my personal beliefs, and have nothing to do with the constitutionality of it.

Yes, abusive polygamy is wrong, and inherently harmful, but most of that occurs in places where there are no laws protecting those who practice it. Do you notice that you never really hear about straight couples marrying in secret, and watching every day for the cops coming to take them down? Well, same thing here, is that because it is illegal, it creates a black market society for it.

As for its constitutionality, I would agree if marriage was a "right", but its not, its a privledge. It requires getting a license, no? Is there any right which requires a license? (this is a legitimate question on my part, as it is not the definitive reason why marriage is a privledge and not a right, so if it turns out there is a right which requires a license, it wont negate my arguement).

Current laws re: marriage, including denial of marriage to persons of the same gender, do not discriminate. Anyone, adult, is allowed to marry anyone else of the opposite gender.

However, if marriage were a right, then virtually any kind of restriction would be unconstitutional, including polygamy and beastiality.

Part of the destruction of our society and country is the extension of the defintion of what "rights" are. What the signers of the COTUS intended to be "rights" does not include some of what our current legal status includes.
Our courts, supreme and otherwise, no longer operate under the Constitution, it is a sham.
If they wind up ruling marriage is a right, then they are simply ignoring the original intent of the COTUS.

As for the black market, is there really one regarding marriage? I mean, is there any advantage to "secretly"
being married?

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz080610dAPR20100806024649.jpg

[bullypulpit]

Why arent polygamy laws unconstitutional then? Or at least why arent your beloved judges declaring it so?

Because no cases have been brought before the courts?


All of those issues can be handled by a legal contract.
What compelling interest does the state have in extending a legal contract to involve vows to being committed to each other and living together exclusively for life?

And financial expense to the parties involved. An expense not born by married couples. The only compelling interest the state has in marriage is in the contractual relationship it establishes between the consenting adults involved. As to the gender or number involved...the state has no interest.

As to being "... committed to each other and living together exclusively for life...". That is up to the individuals involved in the marriage, and is often a part of the religious aspects of the marriage ceremony...Something which the state should definitely not be meddling in.

[bullypulpit]

considering we havent even argued the topic yet, you sure are quick to claim victory.

Of course this only shows your desperation to win an arguement

Speaking to the general tone and tenor of your posts, I stand by my statement. As for winning and losing...It's not about that. It's about sharpening my rhetorical claws on the tattered old furniture of your (and your fellow travelers) uninformed, and rather sad, attempts at argument.

[HogTrash]

Hater statement of the day.I suppose I do harbor a bit of animosity for these filthy desease infested human cockroaches.


I gotta side with Bully. I'm not pro-gay by any stretch, but neither am I anti-gay and doing the simple math, I can't come up with a formula that would disallow gay marriage unless you put the forcing of someone's beliefs on other sects of our society into the equation. "Anti-gay"???..."Gay" is the PC sanitized term that has been programmed into our post-1970 vocabulary.

I prefer the more accuarate term of, 'anti-sick disgusting perversion'.


I'm much more opposed to someone jamming their morality down other peoples throats than gay people wanting to simply coexist as married partners. I'm much more opposed to someone jamming their "immorality" down our throats.

There most certainly has been a rash of that going on for the last 40 years.


The morality assholes can go take a flying fuck through a rolling donut for all I care.My-Oh-My?.....You're taking this kinda personal aren't ya?

Is this display of emotion for the benefit of some special friend?

[DragonStryk72]

As for its constitutionality, I would agree if marriage was a "right", but its not, its a privledge. It requires getting a license, no? Is there any right which requires a license? (this is a legitimate question on my part, as it is not the definitive reason why marriage is a privledge and not a right, so if it turns out there is a right which requires a license, it wont negate my arguement).

Current laws re: marriage, including denial of marriage to persons of the same gender, do not discriminate. Anyone, adult, is allowed to marry anyone else of the opposite gender.

However, if marriage were a right, then virtually any kind of restriction would be unconstitutional, including polygamy and beastiality.

Part of the destruction of our society and country is the extension of the defintion of what "rights" are. What the signers of the COTUS intended to be "rights" does not include some of what our current legal status includes.
Our courts, supreme and otherwise, no longer operate under the Constitution, it is a sham.
If they wind up ruling marriage is a right, then they are simply ignoring the original intent of the COTUS.

As for the black market, is there really one regarding marriage? I mean, is there any advantage to "secretly"
being married?

Actually, it originally did not require license, that only really came around after the income tax, so less than 100 years now. In fact, it is covered as a right under "inherent" rights of the constitution. The "license" is just the state's way of officially recognizing the marriage for matter of paperwork. How do you get from regular, consenting adults to bestiality? That argument makes no sense in the context of what you're putting forward. Dogs and cats are not sentient, can give no informed consent, and it can be proven that harm is caused in bestiality cases.

The Right to own a gun require a permit for said gun, along with registering the gun.

For polygamy? There is one, it occurs in places such as Utah where you have mormon communes that still practice polygamy. Problem being that these places that practice it end up bringing about abuses such as underage girls getting "wed" off in secret.

Surprisingly, our founders did consider rights that were not in the constitution at the time, and the role of the government in future rights, hence why they made sure to state both inherent rights that had no need to be codified (right to have children, own property, choose your own spouse, plant gardens, etc.), and limiting the government's ability to act outside of that. Unfortunately, what the founders can not work around is the American people themselves handing off their rights to the government.

All of our rights are privileges, cause you know what? They can be taken away. Right to Life? You can shot, hung, or electrocuted. Right to Free Speech? You can be silenced. Right to Bear Arms? They can decide you're too dangerous to own a gun. Every single right you have can taken away from you, so by your definition, there are no rights, only privileges.

[DragonStryk72]

I suppose I do harbor a bit of animosity for these filthy desease infested human cockroaches.

"Anti-gay"???..."Gay" is the PC sanitized term that has been programmed into our post-1970 vocabulary.

I prefer the more accuarate term of, 'anti-sick disgusting perversion'.

I'm much more opposed to someone jamming their "immorality" down our throats.

There most certainly has been a rash of that going on for the last 40 years.

My-Oh-My?.....You're taking this kinda personal aren't ya?

Is this display of emotion for the benefit of some special friend?

Blah blah blah PC blah

That's all you've got. It's your constant watchword. There's plenty that you would find sick or disgusting, HT, but you know what? We aren't here to cater you, so take some time to grow up and accept that the world is not here to cater to your political correctness.

[LuvRPgrl]

Because no cases have been brought before the courts?.


Polygamy cases have been brought before the court, problem is, the court rulings are inconsistent on the issue, part of the reason is in the response below




And financial expense to the parties involved. An expense not born by married couples. The only compelling interest the state has in marriage is in the contractual relationship it establishes between the consenting adults involved. As to the gender or number involved...the state has no interest. .

And that can be fully covered by a legal contract, thus marriage is not necessary for same gender couples to achieve the status of the issues you describe above


As to being "... committed to each other and living together exclusively for life...". That is up to the individuals involved in the marriage, and is often a part of the religious aspects of the marriage ceremony...Something which the state should definitely not be meddling in.

It is up to the individual because the govt cannot enforce such an agreement, as it would be considered slavery

[LuvRPgrl]

Speaking to the general tone and tenor of your posts, I stand by my statement. As for winning and losing...It's not about that. It's about sharpening my rhetorical claws on the tattered old furniture of your (and your fellow travelers) uninformed, and rather sad, attempts at argument.

You continue to claim victory, then deny such a claim.
Claiming my arguements are uninformed without having finished the debate is a bit premature, of course your desperation to win such a debate is obvioius,

kinda like the underdog Raiders would be winning a game against the Chargers going into the 3Rd quarter, they would love to end the game then and there and declare victory, as they KNOW the Chargers are going to come back and beat them again, as they have done , ohh, 10-11?? times in a row now.

We shall see if you bring any NEW information to the table, which you havent so far, and if you dont, then you're just as, or more so, uninformed as those you accuse.

As long as you continue to answer my questions without dodging, we can consider the debate as ongoing, however, once you start the dodge game, you will be declaring "submission" to the real truth of the matter, not your delusional desire

[SpidermanTUba]

"Homophobe": (n) A term invented by homosexual advocates in an attempt to pretend that normal people have some kind of fear of homosexuals, since the advocates can find no other points they can refute in the people's arguments and must resort to calling names instead.

What arguments? The only arguments they present is that it will "destroy marriage" which isn't an argument at all.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, it originally did not require license, that only really came around after the income tax, so less than 100 years now..

Licenses began to be required around the mid 1800's


In fact, it is covered as a right under "inherent" rights of the constitution..

This is the usual claptrap that liberals use when trying to extend rights beyond what the founding fathers declared in writing.


The "license" is just the state's way of officially recognizing the marriage for matter of paperwork..

It is the paperwork which you and your pro same-gender marriage cohorts seek.


How do you get from regular, consenting adults to bestiality? That argument makes no sense in the context of what you're putting forward. Dogs and cats are not sentient, can give no informed consent, and it can be proven that harm is caused in bestiality cases. .

Some animals can give consent.


The Right to own a gun require a permit for said gun, along with registering the gun..


However, first, I deem that unconstitutional as do millions of others.

But, even so, the permit is a blanket requirement on all individuals, and not just certain groups.

RIghts are owned by individuals,

Licenses can be granted to certain groups.
Rights cannot be owned by certain groups.

A right cannot be granted (endowed by their creator) to a group, (two or more). If it were, then that would be discriminatory. So, therefore, your posistion that it is a right would require no govt restrictions on who or how many can be involved. (exempting age and past criminal behavior)
therefore four men can enter a marriage contract with seven women, ALL 11 persons involved in the same contract, marital.

Civil rights are conferred onto everyone equally.

A right cannot be conferred to a person or group via a contract.
A right cannot be restricted from an individual or group 'unless said individual has demonstrated some past behavior to allow such restriction.

All written legal contracts, (which is what you seek, govt recognition of the relationship, which can only occur if it is in writing, and any agreement by two or more individual in writing is a contract) inherently gives at minimum, some govt control without any person or persons in said contract having committed previoiusly, any criminal acts.

This control, immediately places the relationship under the pervue of "privledge" not a right.

All laws and govt regulations are intended to control behavior between two or more individuals, (with the bizarre laws against suicide not withstanding-thats another topic)
The rights I have are unimpeded unless and until I take such action that exercising such right shall affect another person harmfully.

The moment I enter into a contract, that affects another person, the State is compelled to intervene and prohibit any such contract that it deems unconstitutional (a slave relationship) or illegal, (harmful) to one or more of the parties.

Rights can be excercised without govt interference
A contract cannot exist without govt involvement

Because of these reasons, as soon as you enter into a contract, the relationship is not a right, but a privledge.



For polygamy? There is one, it occurs in places such as Utah where you have mormon communes that still practice polygamy. Problem being that these places that practice it end up bringing about abuses such as underage girls getting "wed" off in secret.

which is irrelevant


Surprisingly, our founders did consider rights that were not in the constitution at the time, and the role of the government in future rights, hence why they made sure to state both inherent rights that had no need to be codified (right to have children, own property, choose your own spouse, plant gardens, etc.), and limiting the government's ability to act outside of that. Unfortunately, what the founders can not work around is the American people themselves handing off their rights to the government.

Reread your statement above. I think it is incomplete.
Your making such statements without any supporting documents.
And as far as inherent rights that do not need to be codified, please indicate where in the COTUS it states such a thing.





All of our rights are privileges, cause you know what? They can be taken away. Right to Life? You can shot, hung, or electrocuted. Right to Free Speech? You can be silenced. Right to Bear Arms? They can decide you're too dangerous to own a gun. Every single right you have can taken away from you, so by your definition, there are no rights, only privileges.

If you are saying rights and privledges are one and the same, then why are there two different words for them?

AGAIN, rights are endowed to individuals, not groups.
A license, or privledge can be granted to groups,

If an activity is conferred legally by the govt to a group, then it is a privledge, not a right.

[LuvRPgrl]

What arguments? The only arguments they present is that it will "destroy marriage" which isn't an argument at all.

Uhhhh, what have you been reading?
Its simple,

what you seek is a legal contract recognizing the marital union of people of the same gender

Hence, since a contract is involved, it is no longer a right, rights cannot be established by written contracts.

marriage is not a right, its a privledge. Hence, the govt can control such a relationship, and it is not unconstitutional to do so.

The govt (or majority of people voting in such a law) can restrict who and how many can be involved in the marriage contract.

[manu1959]

so when they get divorced who pays who alimony.....

the two concenting adults thing allows brothers to marry brothers and sisters sisters and moms daugthers and fthers sons....two consenting adults argument to its conclusion....

just saying....

as for my view...marry your dog for all i care....

[gabosaurus]

What is with the prevailing backwater opinion that two humans marrying is the same as a human mating with another species? It doesn't make sense.
In case you haven't gotten caught up yet, marriage is not longer merely for procreation. A lot of straight couples marry with no intention of ever having kids. Other couples have kids without ever getting married.
There are tons of people out there who are not religious. They don't care what the Bible says about marriage. They simply believe that two people (hetero or not) who love each other should have the right to get married.
There are a lot of crazy hetero couples out there. They beat their kids, place them in microwave ovens in the name of Jesus and drown them in bathtubs because God told them to. Are you saying they are better parents than any gay couple that would want to get married?
If you do, you are a sick person. A sick, backwards, ignorant, prejudicial person.

[CockySOB]

Nice to see a fair judge screw homophobes up the butt. I don't see anything criminal about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. I find it more deviant how some adults masturbate over their gun collections.
The courts need to stop legislating personal morality. There are enough restrictions on the books as it is.
Oh, and I already share a bathroom with a man, so I am not worried about that one. :D

Talk about disingenuous... sheesh! California not only doesn't criminalize homosexual behavior, but it has taken specific steps to provide the same level of rights to civil unions and domestic partnerships as is accorded traditional marriage under the law. (By the way, several SCOTUS rulings including Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas declare that laws criminalizing private sexual behavior and choice of partner are unconstitutional. Done deal.) What is also interesting about the Lawrence case is that in her concurring opinion Justice O'Conner specifically recognizes that government has other interests in promoting [traditional] marriage that go beyond a moral interest.

Frankly I think Judge Walker was reaching to extraordinary lengths to make his equal protection justification for overturning the legislative process Californians went through to amend their state constitution with Prop 8.

Personal opinion: I think the issue of homosexual marriage is best left to the individual states, and I would vote "NO" should something akin to Prop 8 be proposed in my state.

[Sweetchuck]

What is with the prevailing backwater opinion that two humans marrying is the same as a human mating with another species? It doesn't make sense.
In case you haven't gotten caught up yet, marriage is not longer merely for procreation. A lot of straight couples marry with no intention of ever having kids. Other couples have kids without ever getting married.
There are tons of people out there who are not religious. They don't care what the Bible says about marriage. They simply believe that two people (hetero or not) who love each other should have the right to get married.
There are a lot of crazy hetero couples out there. They beat their kids, place them in microwave ovens in the name of Jesus and drown them in bathtubs because God told them to. Are you saying they are better parents than any gay couple that would want to get married?
If you do, you are a sick person. A sick, backwards, ignorant, prejudicial person.

Can't say I disagree.

Some good points here, like equating sex with marriage. Often marriage is the beginning of the end of sex for some couples.

[bullypulpit]

so when they get divorced who pays who alimony.....

Ummm, gosh...the plaintiff?


the two concenting adults thing allows brothers to marry brothers and sisters sisters and moms daugthers and fthers sons....two consenting adults argument to its conclusion...

Damn...what do you people do in your spare time that you can think up shit like this? Ask anyone with a background in animal husbandry why interbreeding is bad. All sorts of weird recessives pop up. Just look at Prince Charles...Hell, look at HawgTrash. Never mind that sex between parents, siblings and other blood relatives usually involve coercion and cause profound and demonstrable harm to the victims and perpetrators of incest.


just saying....

as for my view...marry your dog for all i care....

Not gonna happen...all that fur just gets in the way.

[Sweetchuck]

Not gonna happen...all that fur just gets in the way.

Oh man...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kR-0fYKSPMGaMM:http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg&t=1

[Missileman]

Uhhhh, what have you been reading?
Its simple,

what you seek is a legal contract recognizing the marital union of people of the same gender

Hence, since a contract is involved, it is no longer a right, rights cannot be established by written contracts.

marriage is not a right, its a privledge. Hence, the govt can control such a relationship, and it is not unconstitutional to do so.

The govt (or majority of people voting in such a law) can restrict who and how many can be involved in the marriage contract.

My rights, conferred in the UCMJ, were established when I signed my enlistment contract. That puts to bed your lame-assed attempt to differentiate rights and privileges.

[LuvRPgrl]

What is with the prevailing backwater opinion that two humans marrying is the same as a human mating with another species? It doesn't make sense..

Above you are equating marriage with a pet to sex with a pet, but below you claim marriage is not just for procreation anymore, please make up your mind,


In case you haven't gotten caught up yet, marriage is not longer merely for procreation. A lot of straight couples marry with no intention of ever having kids. Other couples have kids without ever getting married.
There are tons of people out there who are not religious. They don't care what the Bible says about marriage. They simply believe that two people (hetero or not) who love each other should have the right to get married..

again, marriage is not a right.


There are a lot of crazy hetero couples out there. They beat their kids, place them in microwave ovens in the name of Jesus and drown them in bathtubs because God told them to. Are you saying they are better parents than any gay couple that would want to get married?
If you do, you are a sick person. A sick, backwards, ignorant, prejudicial person.

So you base the morality of allowing same gender marriage, and/or homosexuals being allowed to adopt kids, on the numbers of hetero couples who are poor, at best, at parenting?

SO, if it came to be that all hetero couples were perfect parents, you would no longer believe homosexuals should be able to adopt kids?

[Missileman]

so when they get divorced who pays who alimony.....

the two concenting adults thing allows brothers to marry brothers and sisters sisters and moms daugthers and fthers sons....two consenting adults argument to its conclusion....

just saying....

as for my view...marry your dog for all i care....

Not every divorce results in alimony.

[LuvRPgrl]

My rights, conferred in the UCMJ, were established when I signed my enlistment contract. That puts to bed your lame-assed attempt to differentiate rights and privileges.

Do I have the rights conferred in the UCMJ that you have? If not, then they are not rights, as a right is something EVERYBODY has equally, age considerations not withstanding, or past criminal behavior.

If I do have those rights you have conferred in the UCMJ, then why do they have to be conferred at all? answer, they dont.

According to you then, a right and a privledge are the same?
Typical liberal method of trying to blur the difference between two things and thus allowing an expansion of the definition of what they want to accomplish.

Kinda like NOW claiming that if a woman regrets having had sex the night before, it can be considered rape.

A right is a right, a privledge is a privledge.
A privledge is doled out by the govt.
The writers of the DOI and COTUS specifically stated that rights are not given to us by the Govt.

The privledges given you by the UCMJ therefore, are not rights because they were conferred to you by the govt.

Lastly, you also appear to be desperate to win a debate, as you are prematurely declaring victory even before hearing all the other side has to say, ohhhhh, typical closed minded person.

[Missileman]

Above you are equating marriage with a pet to sex with a pet, but below you claim marriage is not just for procreation anymore, please make up your mind,



again, marriage is not a right.



So you base the morality of allowing same gender marriage, and/or homosexuals being allowed to adopt kids, on the numbers of hetero couples who are poor, at best, at parenting?

SO, if it came to be that all hetero couples were perfect parents, you would no longer believe homosexuals should be able to adopt kids?

Would you deny marriage and child-rearing to heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex? Oral sex? Anything other than the missionary position with all the lights out?

[LuvRPgrl]

Would you deny marriage and child-rearing to heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex? Oral sex? Anything other than the missionary position with all the lights out?

Irrelevant strawman

[LuvRPgrl]

Speaking to the general tone and tenor of your posts, I stand by my statement. As for winning and losing...It's not about that. It's about sharpening my rhetorical claws on the tattered old furniture of your (and your fellow travelers) uninformed, and rather sad, attempts at argument.

Dismantling your opponents arguements irrefutably,,,your words,,,,is not winning?????? Cmon man, get real, you are starting to babble and lose track of what you have previously stated

[Missileman]

Do I have the rights conferred in the UCMJ that you have? If not, then they are not rights, as a right is something EVERYBODY has equally, age considerations not withstanding, or past criminal behavior.

If I do have those rights you have conferred in the UCMJ, then why do they have to be conferred at all? answer, they dont.

According to you then, a right and a privledge are the same?
Typical liberal method of trying to blur the difference between two things and thus allowing an expansion of the definition of what they want to accomplish.

Kinda like NOW claiming that if a woman regrets having had sex the night before, it can be considered rape.

A right is a right, a privledge is a privledge.
A privledge is doled out by the govt.
The writers of the DOI and COTUS specifically stated that rights are not given to us by the Govt.

The privledges given you by the UCMJ therefore, are not rights because they were conferred to you by the govt.

While I was in the military, my right against self-incrimination, for example, was derived from the UCMJ, not the COTUS. Those rights were a direct result of the contract I entered into with the Govt.

The goverment also took away some of my rights (the right to sue the government for example) when I signed that contract.

They were indeed rights, not privileges.

[Missileman]

Irrelevant strawman

Color me unsurprised that you want to be the one who dictates what immoral behavior disqualifies someone from marrying or raising kids.

[LuvRPgrl]

While I was in the military, my right against self-incrimination, for example, was derived from the UCMJ, not the COTUS. Those rights were a direct result of the contract I entered into with the Govt.

The goverment also took away some of my rights (the right to sue the government for example) when I signed that contract.

They were indeed rights, not privileges.

Sorry, first, you failed to answer my question why are there two words if they have the same meaning? That would be a first, especially in law where very subtle differences in meanings can have a dramatic effect.

Second, read the COTUS and the DOI, it specifically states that our rights were given to us by our Creator, not the govt, and that the govt is not empowered to give us rights.
Now, that means if the govt gives you something, it cant be a right, because it says so in the documents of the founding of our nation.

The govt can take them away under special circumstances, but only then. Or you can voluntarily wave them. As you did in signing the contract.


Third, you failed to address the fact that all rights are equally enjoyed by all persons, that the govt cannot acknowledge a COTUS right to only a certain individual, or group. That is discrimination, which is illegal, unCOTUS

If you already had a right against self incrimination when enlisting, then why did you need the UCMY to usurp it?

Any extra rights granted are not rights, they are privledges, if a privledge/right was granted to you, then you must not have had it previouisly. If you didnt have it previously, it cant be a right (unless it was taken away due to criminal or age issues) because all rights are automatically endowed upon all people, NONE are granted by the govt.

What you were granted is something that is not given to all people, thus by definition, it is a privledge.

[LuvRPgrl]

Color me unsurprised that you want to be the one who dictates what immoral behavior disqualifies someone from marrying or raising kids.
Li\\

Like as though you dont. Hypocrite

[bullypulpit]

Oh man...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kR-0fYKSPMGaMM:http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg&t=1

What can I say...just had to lighten the tone a little. :laugh:

[bullypulpit]

So you base the morality of allowing same gender marriage, and/or homosexuals being allowed to adopt kids, on the numbers of hetero couples who are poor, at best, at parenting?

SO, if it came to be that all hetero couples were perfect parents, you would no longer believe homosexuals should be able to adopt kids?

No, morality is rooted in it the consequences of our actions to those around us. Actions which cause physical or psychological harm are judged to be immoral. So it doesn't matter if parents are hetero or homo-sexual, if they harm their children they are have crossed the line into immoral behavior and deserve to full weight and sanction of civil and criminal law for the harm they have caused.

Unfortunately, for the right wing-nuts at any rate, there is no evidence to support the right wing-nut contention that same gender couple raising children causes ANY harm to the children.

[LuvRPgrl]

No, morality is rooted in it the consequences of our actions to those around us. Actions which cause physical or psychological harm are judged to be immoral. So it doesn't matter if parents are hetero or homo-sexual, if they harm their children they are have crossed the line into immoral behavior and deserve to full weight and sanction of civil and criminal law for the harm they have caused.

Unfortunately, for the right wing-nuts at any rate, there is no evidence to support the right wing-nut contention that same gender couple raising children causes ANY harm to the children.

You didnt answer my question.

You stated one of the reasons why same gender couples should be able to raise kids is because a lot of hetero couples are lousy parents, so it should logically follow that under the hypothetical situation that all hetereo couples were perfect parents, then homo couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt


some hetero couples are bad = homo couples allowed to adopt

therefore if hetero couples are NOT bad = homo couples cant adopt

its basic logic 101

[Missileman]

Sorry, first, you failed to answer my question why are there two words if they have the same meaning? That would be a first, especially in law where very subtle differences in meanings can have a dramatic effect.

I'm not suggesting that rights and privileges are the same thing, soooo, there's no reason for you to ask me.




Second, read the COTUS and the DOI, it specifically states that our rights were given to us by our Creator, not the govt, and that the govt is not empowered to give us rights.

I suggest YOU read the COTUS. There's no mention of god or creator in it. The COTUS establishes a government within whose framework its citizens have certain rights.



The govt can take them away under special circumstances, but only then.

If the government can take it away under any circumstances then it can't be a right under your argument, so you've just contradicted yourself.



Any extra rights granted are not rights, they are privledges,

This statement says all anyone needs to know if they want proof of the extent of illogic used to form your bone-headed argument.

[bullypulpit]

You didnt answer my question.

You stated one of the reasons why same gender couples should be able to raise kids is because a lot of hetero couples are lousy parents, so it should logically follow that under the hypothetical situation that all hetereo couples were perfect parents, then homo couples shouldnt be allowed to adopt

Well, I never answered your question as it wasn't directed at me. But, if you insist. You've set up a hypothetical which does not exist. Ask any parent...If they're honest, they'll tell you they're not, and never have been perfect parents. Gabby's point was illustrating extremes of violent, criminal behavior amongst straight couples with children. They in no way exemplify the majority of people who are parents, be they gay or straight. You've simply presented another straw-man argument.


some hetero couples are bad = homo couples allowed to adopt

therefore if hetero couples are NOT bad = homo couples cant adopt

its basic logic 101

Logic 101...It's pretty obvious you failed the course.

[BoogyMan]

It would seem that straight folks, like Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, David Vitter, and many others have been doing a perfectly good job of destroying the institution of marriage all on their own.

You wont get any argument out of me on that point. Why do you think that their bad behavior validates your point?


How is a life-long commitment, in the form of marriage, to someone you love debauchery? Quite the opposite.

The change in the definition of marriage would read something like this...

Current: "The union of a man and a woman in the state of marriage..."

New: "The union of two people in the state of marriage..."

Not nearly as scary as you'd make it out to be.

Being as loudly "pro-family" as the right is, one would think they'd be doing all they could to promote marriage, even amongst same gender couples.

Face it folks...there is no rational basis for denying the institution of marriage to same gender couples. There is no compelling evidence for continuing to do so. The view that same gender couples marrying is "Icky", based on your own insecurities, or those of various religious leaders does not count as evidence...beyond the insecurities of those who hold such beliefs.

Why do those outside of what is natural and good feel the need to try and redefine marriage?

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not suggesting that rights and privileges are the same thing, soooo, there's no reason for you to ask me..


You said: "My rights, conferred in the UCMJ, were established when I signed my enlistment contract. That puts to bed your lame-assed attempt to differentiate rights and privileges"

PLUS another of your pro homosexual agenda partners flat out stated there is no difference.


I suggest YOU read the COTUS. There's no mention of god or creator in it. The COTUS establishes a government within whose framework its citizens have certain rights..

WRONG. The COTUS didnt ESTABLISH THE GOVT. it was established by the DOI.
DOI signed on July 4th, 1776
We officially and legally became a country on THAT DAY, when the COTUS had not even been written yet, so the COTUS could not have established our govt.

And stated in the DOI, those rights dont come from govt, but from OUR CREATOR.
So, did they have it right or wrong in the DOI? Either we get our rights from our creator, or we dont. Which is it?
The DOI was a general outline or beginning of a framework for which the COTUS was written from, partially and, in more details.




If the government can take it away under any circumstances then it can't be a right under your argument, so you've just contradicted yourself..
No wonder you cant get things right, apparently your reading comprhension is lacking. I said "under certain circumstances" whilst you responded as though I had said, "under any circumstances"
Just because the govt can at times take them away, doesnt mean they give them to you, because it was DECLARED that it is the duty of the govt to protect (NOT GIVE) our rights. And under certain circumstances, like criminal behavior, the govt no longer has to protect those rights for some individuals and in fact can take them away.
In the very first legal document of our country, it is DECLARED that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator, and not the govt.




This statement says all anyone needs to know if they want proof of the extent of illogic used to form your bone-headed argument.

Idiot. My statement was not used to form my arguement, but was the conclusion of the line of logic (arguement). You really need to learn basic debating....

By the way, you didnt answer some of my questions/comments, apparently because you dont have one, or a good one anyways:coffee:

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, I never answered your question as it wasn't directed at me..

Yea, got you confused with Gabby, pretty easy to do since you parrot each other.


But, if you insist. You've set up a hypothetical which does not exist..
DUH !!!!!!!!!!!! That is the purpose of hypotheticals, BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST. And its perfectly legitimate to propose one that couldnt exist when debating philosophy




Ask any parent...If they're honest, they'll tell you they're not, and never have been perfect parents. Gabby's point was illustrating extremes of violent, criminal behavior amongst straight couples with children. They in no way exemplify the majority of people who are parents, be they gay or straight. You've simply presented another straw-man argument..

NOPE, Gabby stated that homos often make better parents than hetero couples because some hetero couples are terrible parents, hence, establishing homo parents through unnatural means is ok because some hetero parents are bad.


Logic 101...It's pretty obvious you failed the course.
whiil
Apparently you never took it

IF< IF, I ever did fail it, it would only be because the professor would have been a closed minded bigoted liberal,
But fact of the matter is I had a 4.0 average in the semesters I took poli sci , psychology, philosophy and debate

[bullypulpit]

You wont get any argument out of me on that point. Why do you think that their bad behavior validates your point?

Why do you think it doesn't?


Why do those outside of what is natural and good feel the need to try and redefine marriage?

Homosexuality is, like it or not, a natural part of human sexuality. And marriage isn't being redefined. The definition is being expanded.

[Gaffer]

Why do you think it doesn't?



Homosexuality is, like it or not, a natural part of human sexuality. And marriage isn't being redefined. The definition is being expanded.

Being queer is not natural. It's simply deviant self gratification. Animals in nature don't do that. A man that desires a man is wired wrong, I guess that's natures way of weeding out the genetically inferior.

[LuvRPgrl]

Being queer is not natural. It's simply deviant self gratification. Animals in nature don't do that. A man that desires a man is wired wrong, I guess that's natures way of weeding out the genetically inferior.

What I find REALLY un natural about homosexuality is that they dont get stimulated by a naked woman. I mean, if Halle Berry stripped in front of a guy and he didnt get an erection, THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOIUSLY WRONG WITH THAT DUDE

[Missileman]

You said: "My rights, conferred in the UCMJ, were established when I signed my enlistment contract. That puts to bed your lame-assed attempt to differentiate rights and privileges"

PLUS another of your pro homosexual agenda partners flat out stated there is no difference.

I never stated there wasn't a difference, but was saying that you were in error in how you were determining what constitutes a right.




WRONG. The COTUS didnt ESTABLISH THE GOVT. it was established by the DOI.
DOI signed on July 4th, 1776
We officially and legally became a country on THAT DAY, when the COTUS had not even been written yet, so the COTUS could not have established our govt.

You point to ANY of the following words in the DOI and you can continue to claim that it established our government: Executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. The Continental CONGRESS ran the country until the NEW government, ESTABLISHED by the COTUS was enacted.


And stated in the DOI, those rights dont come from govt, but from OUR CREATOR.
So, did they have it right or wrong in the DOI? Either we get our rights from our creator, or we dont. Which is it?

I've no doubt that they believed in a creator, but our rights are derived from the COTUS, PERIOD!


The DOI was a general outline or beginning of a framework for which the COTUS was written from, partially and, in more details.

The DOI was a list of grievances to justify the split from England, no more, no less. It did nothing to frame a new government.



No wonder you cant get things right, apparently your reading comprhension is lacking. I said "under certain circumstances" whilst you responded as though I had said, "under any circumstances"

It's apparently your comprehension ability that is lacking. "Any circumstances" included your "certain" ones.



Just because the govt can at times take them away, doesnt mean they give them to you, because it was DECLARED that it is the duty of the govt to protect (NOT GIVE) our rights. And under certain circumstances, like criminal behavior, the govt no longer has to protect those rights for some individuals and in fact can take them away.
In the very first legal document of our country, it is DECLARED that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator, and not the govt.

The DOI didn't say ALL of our rights are endowed by a creator. It says in plain English that "certain" rights are inalienable and endowed by a creator. You are wrongly extending god-given status to ALL rights.

But hey...lets use some of your logic 101 shall we?

A right = something given by God

Something given by God = Can only be taken away by God

Something that can be taken away by the government, even under circumstances cannot = a right



Idiot. My statement was not used to form my arguement, but was the conclusion of the line of logic (arguement). You really need to learn basic debating....

By the way, you didnt answer some of my questions/comments, apparently because you dont have one, or a good one anyways:coffee:

No dumbass, you wrote a right isn't a right. When someone writes that 1 doesn't equal 1, they've got no business claiming a line of logic.

[Kathianne]

Some might wish a refresher course:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

[Missileman]

Being queer is not natural. It's simply deviant self gratification. Animals in nature don't do that. A man that desires a man is wired wrong, I guess that's natures way of weeding out the genetically inferior.

There is a difference between abnormal and unnatural and those opposed to gays confuse the two regularly. While the verdict is still out, if it turns out that gays are indeed born that way, then their condition would be abnormal, yet natural.

[Gaffer]

There is a difference between abnormal and unnatural and those opposed to gays confuse the two regularly. While the verdict is still out, if it turns out that gays are indeed born that way, then their condition would be abnormal, yet natural.

Yep they are definitely abnormal. which then says they are genetically inferior and will die out. Ending that line.

[LuvRPgrl]

I never stated there wasn't a difference, but was saying that you were in error in how you were determining what constitutes a right..
Because you say so?








Dont have to, it states in the DOI itself, that it is establishing the new govt.
That the new govt will be based on these principles.

[QUOTE=Missileman;437708I've no doubt that they believed in a creator, but our rights are derived from the COTUS period
Period? Yet below you agree at least some are derived by our Creator

So we had no rights until the COTUS was ratified?

From the DOI:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm r
eliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."








. It established our country and our govt. It says so right in the document.
. It declares "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled," when men assemble representing larger numbers of citizens, THAT IS A FREAKING GOVT YOU FUCKING IDIOT, hahahhaha

[QUOTE=Missileman;437708It's apparently your comprehension ability that is lacking. "Any circumstances" included your "certain" ones..

you are getting nonsensical



Certain means "undoubted" "sure" "without question"
Are you suggesting the founding fathers catagorized rights into two or more categories? Please show supporting documentation. I have never heard anything so bizzare in my life.


[QUOTE=Missileman;437708But hey...lets use some of your logic 101 shall we?

A right = something given by God

Something given by God = Can only be taken away by God

Something that can be taken away by the government, even under circumstances cannot = a right.

Again, you are wrong. Who says because God gives us something, only He can take it away? God gives us life, many people have their lives taken away by another person.
Basic logic really does escape you doesnt it




[QUOTE=Missileman;437708No dumbass, you wrote a right isn't a right. When someone writes that 1 doesn't equal 1, they've got no business claiming a line of logic.[/QUOTE]

You certainly have a strong need to call people names eh????

OK you idiot,,,I did not say "...a right is not a right..."
I said "....a right that is granted is not a right...."
It is your concept of a "granted right" that I am claiming isnt a right at all, and you are misnaming it, kinda like you are saying 1 doesnt equal 1

I hope your peanut brain is capable of understanding such a simple concept

[LuvRPgrl]

Some might wish a refresher course:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

Interestingly enough, in your first link, the word indubitable is used and in a dictionary of that time "Samuel Johnsons English Dictionary of 1775" the word certain was defined as "indubitable"


"All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties, which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislature. "

This basically means that their representatives can pass no law that abridges, denies or takes away these rights and liberties

Thanks for those links

[Missileman]

Because you say so?

It's the exact standard that you extend to yourself, so yeah, because I said so.




. It declares "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled," when men assemble representing larger numbers of citizens, THAT IS A FREAKING GOVT YOU FUCKING IDIOT, hahahhaha

If as you say the DOI established our government and you offer the existence of the Continental Congress as proof of such, explain how the Continental Congress existed TWO YEARS before the DOI.


Certain means "undoubted" "sure" "without question"
Are you suggesting the founding fathers catagorized rights into two or more categories? Please show supporting documentation. I have never heard anything so bizzare in my life.

Certain in this particular case means :

known but not specified or named:as in certain people may doubt this

Notice the lack of a comma or the word "and" after "certain" that would be needed if you were to attribute your definition to it.



You certainly have a strong need to call people names eh????

That's ironic coming from you...I doubt you're smart enough to figure out why.


OK you idiot,,,I did not say "...a right is not a right..."
I said "....a right that is granted is not a right...."
It is your concept of a "granted right" that I am claiming isnt a right at all, and you are misnaming it, kinda like you are saying 1 doesnt equal 1

I hope your peanut brain is capable of understanding such a simple concept

A right, whether granted or not, is still a right.

[LuvRPgrl]

If something is granted, it is not a right. We are born with those rights, which come to full maturity when we reach legal adult age. There is no "granting"involved.
_Please show me ONE RIGHT that was specifically "granted" at the writing of the Constitution.

You admit at least some of our rights are endowed to us by our Creator, please show me where some of the rights described are said to be granted or come from another source.

[Missileman]

You admit at least some of our rights are endowed to us by our Creator, please show me where some of the rights described are said to be granted or come from another source.

I admitted no such thing. I was using your definition of a right as something that MUST be endowed by a creator. As the creator is a fiction, I'm certainly not going to attribute my rights to its endowment.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's the exact standard that you extend to yourself, so yeah, because I said so.



If as you say the DOI established our government and you offer the existence of the Continental Congress as proof of such, explain how the Continental Congress existed TWO YEARS before the DOI.].


Not as I say, it states it right in the DOI
As far as I understand it, the C Congress was an extension of the British govt, Im not quite sure how they framed it, but it certainly wasnt OUR govt as a free and sovereign country.




http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
Certain in this particular case means :

known but not specified or named:as in certain people may doubt this

Certain in this particular case means :

Notice the lack of a comma or the word "and" after "certain" that would be needed if you were to attribute your definition to it.].


So what. Your definition doesnt mean "some", "not all" "partial" or anything like that as you claimed earlier.
You CONTINUE to ignore my request, if some rights are not endowed to us by our Creator, please list them.


That's ironic coming from you...I doubt you're smart enough to figure out why.].

oh,,,that hurts soooo much, you are soooo clever





A right, whether granted or not, is still a right.

Granted by whom/what?

[BoogyMan]

Why do you think it doesn't?

Stupid question quite frankly, it is the liberal equivalent of "look, something shiny!"


Homosexuality is, like it or not, a natural part of human sexuality. And marriage isn't being redefined. The definition is being expanded.

It is a part sexuality, but it is definitely not natural.

Your insistence that redefinition and expansion are different is reminiscent of "it depends of what the definition of is is."

[Missileman]

_Please show me ONE RIGHT that was specifically "granted" at the writing of the Constitution.

The initial draft of the COTUS established the framework of our government. Rights were granted in the first 10 Amendments

[LuvRPgrl]

The initial draft of the COTUS established the framework of our government. Rights were granted in the first 10 Amendments

The rights werent granted.

What the Bill of Rights, as it is called, did was to establish with certainty that the FEDERAL govt shall not infringe upon those issues. It LIMITED the power of the FEDS, it didnt grant anything.

Again, list and show where it states any rights are granted.

[Missileman]

So what. Your definition doesnt mean "some", "not all" "partial" or anything like that as you claimed earlier.

It means exactly that.



You CONTINUE to ignore my request, if some rights are not endowed to us by our Creator, please list them.

How many times do I need to say NONE of our rights are endowed by a creator before it sinks in?

[Missileman]

The rights werent granted.

What the Bill of Rights, as it is called, did was to establish with certainty that the FEDERAL govt shall not infringe upon those issues. It LIMITED the power of the FEDS, it didnt grant anything.

Again, list and show where it states any rights are granted.

Amendment 6 grants the right to a speedy and public trial and the right to an attorney.

[LuvRPgrl]

It means exactly that.?

If it means EXACTLY that, then why doesnt it simply say exactly that.?
In fact, your definition doesnt even c ome close to that






How many times do I need to say NONE of our rights are endowed by a creator before it sinks in?

Your words, not mine:
The DOI didn't say ALL of our rights are endowed by a creator. It says in plain English that "certain" rights are inalienable and endowed by a creator. You are wrongly extending god-given status to ALL rights.

I repeat, your words, not mine:that

"certain" rights are inalienable and endowed by a creator

[Missileman]

Your words, not mine:
The DOI didn't say ALL of our rights are endowed by a creator. It says in plain English that "certain" rights are inalienable and endowed by a creator. You are wrongly extending god-given status to ALL rights.

I repeat, your words, not mine:that

"certain" rights are inalienable and endowed by a creator

"The DOI says"...they aren't my words.

[LuvRPgrl]

"The DOI says"...they aren't my words.

Post number 104, read it and weep my son:lol:

[Missileman]

Post number 104, read it and weep my son:lol:

I was of course repeating your argument and applying your previously failed "logic 101".

Still waiting for you to explain how the DOI established a congress that already existed.

I also notice that you haven't posted an answer to refute the 6th Amendment "granting" the right to a speedy trial and "granting" the right to an attorney.

[LuvRPgrl]

I was of course repeating your argument and applying your previously failed "logic 101"..

Wrong, try again.



Still waiting for you to explain how the DOI established a congress that already existed..

That congress was not a duly elected group of men that represented the soveirgn country known as the United States of America, since such a country didnt exist, it couldnt have been the USA congress,



I also notice that you haven't posted an answer to refute the 6th Amendment "granting" the right to a speedy trial and "granting" the right to an attorney.

Now you are really losing it man, where in this does it use the term "grant"?

VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

[LuvRPgrl]

Good golly gosh, this thread is red hot !!!!!

Way to go gabby, U rock !!

Over 800 views in under a week.

[bullypulpit]

Yep they are definitely abnormal. which then says they are genetically inferior and will die out. Ending that line.

Hmmm...Inferior?...Abnormnal? 4th in his class at West Point, 3 tours in Iraq with THREE...COUNT 'EM THREE...bronze stars, one with valor, Up for promotion to Major a year early...He was discharged yesterday because some loser outed him under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I double dog dare you to tell him he's "inferior" or "abnormal". You schmuck.

[bullypulpit]

Being queer is not natural. It's simply deviant self gratification. Animals in nature don't do that. A man that desires a man is wired wrong, I guess that's natures way of weeding out the genetically inferior.

Your opinion...one with no basis in fact. But that doesn't stop any of you right wing-nut water-heads from regurgitating on a regular basis.

[bullypulpit]

What I find REALLY un natural about homosexuality is that they dont get stimulated by a naked woman. I mean, if Halle Berry stripped in front of a guy and he didnt get an erection, THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOIUSLY WRONG WITH THAT DUDE

Someone getting an erection at the mere sight of a naked woman, regardless of how lovely, bespeaks a degree of self-control roughly equivalent to that of an over-excited puppy peeing on the carpet.

[Gaffer]

Hmmm...Inferior?...Abnormnal? 4th in his class at West Point, 3 tours in Iraq with THREE...COUNT 'EM THREE...bronze stars, one with valor, Up for promotion to Major a year early...He was discharged yesterday because some loser outed him under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I double dog dare you to tell him he's "inferior" or "abnormal". You schmuck.

I don't know who your talking about. But if he's queer, he's abnormal. If he's queer he's wired wrong. Some "loser" was either approached by him, coerced by him, was a participant with him or just plain wanted revenge. If he was outed he was trying to keep it secret.

I don't know the circumstance of his case to tell him anything. But if he's a admitted queer I will be happy to tell him to his face. He's abnormal.

Queers, like yourself, want to make being queer appear normal, that's why all the efforts in tv and movies are going on, along with the parades and law suits. It's all about legitimizing an abnormality. Inferior genetics has nothing to do with personality or whether your a good or bad person. It just means your brain isn't wired right and you will have no descendant's to carry on your your name. Natures way of ending a line.

[pete311]

Someone getting an erection at the mere sight of a naked woman, regardless of how lovely, bespeaks a degree of self-control roughly equivalent to that of an over-excited puppy peeing on the carpet.

thank you bpp, people on this forum act like cavemen. ghandi used to sleep next to naked ladies without touching them to test his strength and self control.


I don't know who your talking about. But if he's queer, he's abnormal.

because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners that makes it unnatural?

oh and btw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[Gaffer]

thank you bpp, people on this forum act like cavemen. ghandi used to sleep next to naked ladies without touching them to test his strength and self control.



because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners that makes it unnatural?

oh and btw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

What part of sex between homos is unnatural didn't you understand?

Animals have sex for instinctual reasons. Procreation is the purpose. The weaker and abnormal ones don't procreate so that line dies out. Giving animals human characteristics just shows you watched to many cartoons as a kid. Maybe that hasn't changed.

[pete311]

Animals have sex for instinctual reasons. Procreation is the purpose. The weaker and abnormal ones don't procreate so that line dies out.


Certainly the line dies out, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural. In that sense I an also not natural because I don't wish to have kids. My line will die out as well. Maybe those people who don't have kids should be demonized as well.



Giving animals human characteristics just shows you watched to many cartoons as a kid. Maybe that hasn't changed.

Fact check, we are animals. Other animals share plenty of human characteristics.

[Gaffer]

Certainly the line dies out, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural. In that sense I an also not natural because I don't wish to have kids. My line will die out as well. Maybe those people who don't have kids should be demonized as well.

Libs naturally die out, that's why they have to recruit. Just like queers.




Fact check, we are animals. Other animals share plenty of human characteristics.

We are animals with self awareness. No other animal has that. Animals act on instinct alone while humans rationalize. Only humans can take sex to the mental level.

[pete311]

Libs naturally die out, that's why they have to recruit. Just like queers.


good story bro



We are animals with self awareness. No other animal has that. Animals act on instinct alone while humans rationalize. Only humans can take sex to the mental level.

Elephants, apes, and dolphins have some self awareness.

[Gaffer]

good story bro



Elephants, apes, and dolphins have some self awareness.

They have some self awareness but they don't butt fuck.

[pete311]

They have some self awareness but they don't butt fuck.

elephants and dolphins have displayed homosexual behavior. if you are so fixated on anal sex, that it is how you define a homosexual, then that is your problem

[Kathianne]

elephants and dolphins have displayed homosexual behavior. if you are so fixated on anal sex, that it is how you define a homosexual, then that is your problem

Actually I believe lots of animals do so, but as a way to control overpopulation is the reasoning from what I've read. There are some simpler species with the ability to change their sex from male to female and back if memory serves.

[LuvRPgrl]

Someone getting an erection at the mere sight of a naked woman, regardless of how lovely, bespeaks a degree of self-control roughly equivalent to that of an over-excited puppy peeing on the carpet.

Very typical. Distort what I said.
I said " Halle Barry STRIPS", not "mere sight of a naked woman"


You dont see nude strippers walk out on stage fully nude (not that I would know from experience :) but they erotically strip down.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know who your talking about. But if he's queer, he's abnormal. If he's queer he's wired wrong. Some "loser" was either approached by him, coerced by him, was a participant with him or just plain wanted revenge. If he was outed he was trying to keep it secret.

I don't know the circumstance of his case to tell him anything. But if he's a admitted queer I will be happy to tell him to his face. He's abnormal.

Queers, like yourself, want to make being queer appear normal, that's why all the efforts in tv and movies are going on, along with the parades and law suits. It's all about legitimizing an abnormality. Inferior genetics has nothing to do with personality or whether your a good or bad person. It just means your brain isn't wired right and you will have no descendant's to carry on your your name. Natures way of ending a line.

Trying to make it seem normal is THE reason they want same gender marriage

However, the majority of the population never has, doesnt, and never will consider butt fucking between two men normal, and for the record, I think even between a man and a woman, its pretty weird

[LuvRPgrl]

thank you bpp, people on this forum act like cavemen. ghandi used to sleep next to naked ladies without touching them to test his strength and self control.]


Yea, which proves MY point. He was attracted to them Homos arent attracted to women at all, something is serioiusly wrong.




because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners that makes it unnatural?]

No, the fact that the vagina is designed to accept the penis, and not ones rectum.


oh and btw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

are they homosexuals or bi-sexual. I doubt they would pass up an opportunity to have sex with a female of their species.
That is what I consider the most abnormal about it, they dont find women attractive.
So, if you can conclusively show where animals turn down sex with females and choose a male over them, then you MIGHT have something

[pete311]

No, the fact that the vagina is designed to accept the penis, and not ones rectum.


Nor is the nose designed to accept the finger, but everyone picks their nose.



are they homosexuals or bi-sexual. I doubt they would pass up an opportunity to have sex with a female of their species.
That is what I consider the most abnormal about it, they dont find women attractive.
So, if you can conclusively show where animals turn down sex with females and choose a male over them, then you MIGHT have something

This took me seconds to find, I doubt it's the one and only instance.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-02-07/news/17414549_1_bruce-bagemihl-homosexual-gay-penguins

[Missileman]

That congress was not a duly elected group of men that represented the soveirgn country known as the United States of America, since such a country didnt exist, it couldnt have been the USA congress,

Bingo! The US Congress, Executive, and Judicial didn't exist until the COTUS was ratified...AKA the government.





Now you are really losing it man, where in this does it use the term "grant"?

It doesn't, hence why I put it in quotes. You really are grasping at straws here.

[LiberalNation]

No, the fact that the vagina is designed to accept the penis
screw that, I'll take another chicks fingers anyday.

[bullypulpit]

Very typical. Distort what I said.
I said " Halle Barry STRIPS", not "mere sight of a naked woman"

Same thing.


You dont see nude strippers walk out on stage fully nude (not that I would know from experience :) but they erotically strip down.

Puppy.

[bullypulpit]

This just in...Judge Walker has ruled that, barring further court intervention, same gender couples can marry in California, starting Wednesday. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[LiberalNation]

W00t, one small victory.

[LuvRPgrl]

Nor is the nose designed to accept the finger, but everyone picks their nose.]


Actually, the little finger is a perfect fit for your nose, and removing ear wax





This took me seconds to find, I doubt it's the one and only instance.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-02-07/news/17414549_1_bruce-bagemihl-homosexual-gay-penguins

Two penquins in a zoo? hahhaha, yea, thats a real natural enviorment

[LuvRPgrl]

Bingo! The US Congress, Executive, and Judicial didn't exist until the COTUS was ratified...AKA the government..

Are you serious? ;You need a brain scan. Dont you even remember your own question?

That answer was referencing the congress in session before July 4,1776.
Then, once we officially and legally became a nation, the congress in place was part of the govt.



It doesn't, hence why I put it in quotes. You really are grasping at straws here.

I have never seen anyone so desperate as you.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

You asked the question : "I also notice that you haven't posted an answer to refute the 6th Amendment "granting" the right to a speedy trial and "granting" the right to an attorney"

If the 6th amendment doesnt "grant" any rights, then why did you bring it up. I think you are very confused.

You know, when the sun comes up, its daytime.

When water falls from the sky, that is rain

If you drive far enough, you come to this huge body of water with waves, that is the ocean

Look up in the sky at night (thats when the sun is no longer in the sky) those white sparkling things are mostly stars,,,,,

I HATE TO TELL YOU THIS SON, BUT YOU ARE GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED

[LuvRPgrl]

Same thing.
Puppy.
LIAR

When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in a liberal judges robe

[Missileman]

Are you serious? ;You need a brain scan. Dont you even remember your own question?

That answer was referencing the congress in session before July 4,1776.
Then, once we officially and legally became a nation, the congress in place was part of the govt.

You keep trying to have things both ways, but you can't.

You said:

Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl
That congress was not a duly elected group of men that represented the soveirgn country known as the United States of America, since such a country didnt exist, it couldnt have been the USA congress,

Newsflash dipshit! It was the same Continental Congress five minutes before and five minutes after the signing of the DOI.

The nation "The United States of America" was established when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. It also established the Congress of the Confederation, which served as the new nation's government until the COTUS.

One last time for that pea-sized brain in your skull...the DOI did not create the USA.

[LuvRPgrl]

You keep trying to have things both ways, but you can't.

You said:


Newsflash dipshit! It was the same Continental Congress five minutes before and five minutes after the signing of the DOI.

The nation "The United States of America" was established when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. It also established the Congress of the Confederation, which served as the new nation's government until the COTUS.

One last time for that pea-sized brain in your skull...the DOI did not create the USA.


You are simply wrong. The congress reresented the US only and when it came legally into existenc


The nation was established in 1781????????

Are you fucking kidding me ??????

[Missileman]

You asked the question : "I also notice that you haven't posted an answer to refute the 6th Amendment "granting" the right to a speedy trial and "granting" the right to an attorney"

If the 6th amendment doesnt "grant" any rights, then why did you bring it up. I think you are very confused.


The article doesn't have to contain the word "grant" in order to bestow the right. It was YOU who insisted that none of the Bill of Rights granted any rights, but that they only limited the federal government.

Let me refresh your memory:


If something is granted, it is not a right. We are born with those rights, which come to full maturity when we reach legal adult age. There is no "granting"involved.
_Please show me ONE RIGHT that was specifically "granted" at the writing of the Constitution.


The 6th clearly grants the right to a speedy trial and the right to an attorney even though the word grant isn't used.

I asked you to reconcile the rights granted in the 6th with your bolded statement above

[Missileman]

You are simply wrong. The congress reresented the US only and when it came legally into existenc


The nation was established in 1781????????

Are you fucking kidding me ??????

Read the Articles of Confederation and come back with your tail tucked.

[LuvRPgrl]

Read the Articles of Confederation and come back with your tail tucked.



Dont need to. The DOI established our country before the Articles.

DO we celebrate our independence on July 4th or on the day the articles were ratified?

Not to mention, you first claimed it was the COTUS that granted us rights, now ;your claiiming the articles of confed.

make up your mind.

[LuvRPgrl]

The article doesn't have to contain the word "grant" in order to bestow the right. It was YOU who insisted that none of the Bill of Rights granted any rights, but that they only limited the federal government.

Let me refresh your memory:



The 6th clearly grants the right to a speedy trial and the right to an attorney even though the word grant isn't used.

Are you taking acid? Are hullicinations always part of your repatoire?


I asked you to reconcile the rights granted in the 6th with your bolded statement above

They arent granted, they are listed.

The DOI clearly states rights come from our creator.

The COTUS clearly lists those
AND it clearly NEVER says anything about the govt granting them, nor differentiating a difference in where any of the rights come from

:You want to claim some are endowed and some granted ?
Please tell me which are which, and where it says that

[Missileman]

Not to mention, you first claimed it was the COTUS that granted us rights, now ;your claiiming the articles of confed.



I never made any such claim...it's totally ironic that you ask me if I'm high, when it's plain that you are.

Your refusal to even look at the Articles of Confederation means you're an ignorant ass who wants to remain an ignorant ass. Not that you had any chance of improving your status anyways...you've dug yourself a hole impossible to climb out of.

[LuvRPgrl]

I never made any such claim...it's totally ironic that you ask me if I'm high, when it's plain that you are.

Your refusal to even look at the Articles of Confederation means you're an ignorant ass who wants to remain an ignorant ass. Not that you had any chance of improving your status anyways...you've dug yourself a hole impossible to climb out of.

Ive disproved each of your points.

It is you who is lying on the floor

Please show me anywhere in the Articles, COTUS or DOI where it states the govt grants us any of our rights

Please

[Missileman]

The DOI clearly states rights come from our creator.

That doesn't make it true. The statement is based wholly on assumption as is your entire argument.

[Missileman]

Ive disproved each of your points.

It is you who is lying on the floor

Please show me anywhere in the Articles, COTUS or DOI where it states the govt grants us any of our rights

Please

I already have, yet you continue to deny it.

[LuvRPgrl]

That doesn't make it true. The statement is based wholly on assumption as is your entire argument.

Give it up dude, you are really looking silly now

[pete311]

Two penquins in a zoo? hahhaha, yea, thats a real natural enviorment

just as natural as two guys living in a flat in san francisco

[bullypulpit]

Yea, which proves MY point. He was attracted to them Homos arent attracted to women at all, something is serioiusly wrong.





No, the fact that the vagina is designed to accept the penis, and not ones rectum.



are they homosexuals or bi-sexual. I doubt they would pass up an opportunity to have sex with a female of their species.
That is what I consider the most abnormal about it, they dont find women attractive.
So, if you can conclusively show where animals turn down sex with females and choose a male over them, then you MIGHT have something

<a href=http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm>A wild, and gay, kingdom</a>

What is truly amusing here, is how the right wing-nut tools, and their fellow travelers, keep repeating the same, discredited, fallacious, fabricated, nonsensical and otherwise specious arguments to support their claim that same gender couples have no business marrying anyone but their beards. This despite being repeatedly beaten about the head and shoulders with the facts. This despite their utter failure to state just how same-gender couples marrying will directly and objectively impact their lives.

I mean seriously, do they think that the marriage of same-gender couples will unleash some sort of gay-ray that will turn them from raging heterosexuals to raging homosexuals? Well, maybe if they're not secure in their sexuality to begin with, but it ain't gonna happen, not even if dogs and cats cohabit in the streets and alligators walk on their hind legs eating babies like gummie bears.

IN all seriousness, there is no rational basis for prohibiting the marriage of same-gender couples. There is no demonstrable harm to the individuals involved nor the community at large.

Judge Walker said it best...

"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. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional - Judge Vaughn R Walker"

[LuvRPgrl]

<a href=http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm>A wild, and gay, kingdom</a>

What is truly amusing here, is how the right wing-nut tools, and their fellow travelers, keep repeating the same, discredited, fallacious, fabricated, nonsensical and otherwise specious arguments to support their claim that same gender couples have no business marrying anyone but their beards. This despite being repeatedly beaten about the head and shoulders with the facts. This despite their utter failure to state just how same-gender couples marrying will directly and objectively impact their lives.

I mean seriously, do they think that the marriage of same-gender couples will unleash some sort of gay-ray that will turn them from raging heterosexuals to raging homosexuals? Well, maybe if they're not secure in their sexuality to begin with, but it ain't gonna happen, not even if dogs and cats cohabit in the streets and alligators walk on their hind legs eating babies like gummie bears.

IN all seriousness, there is no rational basis for prohibiting the marriage of same-gender couples. There is no demonstrable harm to the individuals involved nor the community at large.

Judge Walker said it best...

"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. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional - Judge Vaughn R Walker"

Judge had it wrong. Homos are allowed to marry just the same as heteros.
We only ask they follow the same laws we do

Saying you have beaten us about the head doesnt make it so

The issue, as far as Im concerned isnt about the damage it will do, but the will of the American people, using judicial activism to usurp that is the most dangerous thing to true democracy

Liberals have been using that tactic for years, I have always said it will come back to bite them in the ass

Now we have it, the ruling on emminent domain. Even the liberals were pissed off about that one, but they have no right to bitch, they brougt it about

[bullypulpit]

Judge had it wrong. Homos are allowed to marry just the same as heteros. We only ask they follow the same laws we do

And what laws are those?


Saying you have beaten us about the head doesnt make it so

The issue, as far as Im concerned isnt about the damage it will do, but the will of the American people, using judicial activism to usurp that is the most dangerous thing to true democracy

It's judicial activism when it's anyone besides right wing ideologue judges do it, and then it's strict constitutionalism.


Liberals have been using that tactic for years, I have always said it will come back to bite them in the ass

Now we have it, the ruling on emminent domain. Even the liberals were pissed off about that one, but they have no right to bitch, they brougt it about

What does eminent domain have to do with the discussion at hand?

You do realize that the further we get into this topic, the more and more your posts tend to irrelevance?

[Sitarro]

Once you take away all the bullshit, the only reason homosexuals are demanding the redefinition of the word marriage for their civil unions is to feel more normal about themselves by forcing the rest of the country to acknowledge that they are the same as everyone else. It won't work, if anything, it will just reinforce just how different they are. As the world has homo weddings shoved down our throats, it will become more apparent with each just how screwed up they are.

It's about as genuine as Muslims saying that they just want a Mosque near Ground Zero to worship their pedophile leader, what a load of shit. It will be funny to see what union, if any, will except their money and build that shithole for them.

[DragonStryk72]

Licenses began to be required around the mid 1800's



This is the usual claptrap that liberals use when trying to extend rights beyond what the founding fathers declared in writing.



It is the paperwork which you and your pro same-gender marriage cohorts seek.



Some animals can give consent.




However, first, I deem that unconstitutional as do millions of others.

But, even so, the permit is a blanket requirement on all individuals, and not just certain groups.

RIghts are owned by individuals,

Licenses can be granted to certain groups.
Rights cannot be owned by certain groups.

A right cannot be granted (endowed by their creator) to a group, (two or more). If it were, then that would be discriminatory. So, therefore, your posistion that it is a right would require no govt restrictions on who or how many can be involved. (exempting age and past criminal behavior)
therefore four men can enter a marriage contract with seven women, ALL 11 persons involved in the same contract, marital.

Civil rights are conferred onto everyone equally.

A right cannot be conferred to a person or group via a contract.
A right cannot be restricted from an individual or group 'unless said individual has demonstrated some past behavior to allow such restriction.

All written legal contracts, (which is what you seek, govt recognition of the relationship, which can only occur if it is in writing, and any agreement by two or more individual in writing is a contract) inherently gives at minimum, some govt control without any person or persons in said contract having committed previoiusly, any criminal acts.

This control, immediately places the relationship under the pervue of "privledge" not a right.

All laws and govt regulations are intended to control behavior between two or more individuals, (with the bizarre laws against suicide not withstanding-thats another topic)
The rights I have are unimpeded unless and until I take such action that exercising such right shall affect another person harmfully.

The moment I enter into a contract, that affects another person, the State is compelled to intervene and prohibit any such contract that it deems unconstitutional (a slave relationship) or illegal, (harmful) to one or more of the parties.

Rights can be excercised without govt interference
A contract cannot exist without govt involvement

Because of these reasons, as soon as you enter into a contract, the relationship is not a right, but a privledge.




which is irrelevant



Reread your statement above. I think it is incomplete.
Your making such statements without any supporting documents.
And as far as inherent rights that do not need to be codified, please indicate where in the COTUS it states such a thing.






If you are saying rights and privledges are one and the same, then why are there two different words for them?

AGAIN, rights are endowed to individuals, not groups.
A license, or privledge can be granted to groups,

If an activity is conferred legally by the govt to a group, then it is a privledge, not a right.

Oh, so you pay the government for the air you breathe? What about your kids, obviously you applied to the government for that right as well? What raising those kids without the government involvement? Oh wait, all covered under the "claptrap" as you called.

So there are no rights. Period, they don't exist by your explanation. Free Speech? You can be killed, jailed, or otherwise silenced by the government. Right to Bear Arms? Nope, government can take those too. You in fact have only privileges, by your belief, so debate is useless with you, because you have no rights, and missed the entire Constitution. I can't help you with that one.

[bullypulpit]

Once you take away all the bullshit, the only reason homosexuals are demanding the redefinition of the word marriage for their civil unions is to feel more normal about themselves by forcing the rest of the country to acknowledge that they are the same as everyone else. It won't work, if anything, it will just reinforce just how different they are. As the world has homo weddings shoved down our throats, it will become more apparent with each just how screwed up they are.

So tell me, in exact and objective terms, how same gender-couples marrying will directly impact you life. Never mind, of course, that homosexuality is a part of normal human sexual expression, much as you wish it were otherwise.


It's about as genuine as Muslims saying that they just want a Mosque near Ground Zero to worship their pedophile leader, what a load of shit. It will be funny to see what union, if any, will except their money and build that shithole for them.

Gosh...I get it now...Freedom of religion in America doesn't count unless it's white and "Christian". Not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand. You walking wank-stain.

[CockySOB]

Once you take away all the bullshit, the only reason homosexuals are demanding the redefinition of the word marriage for their civil unions is to feel more normal about themselves by forcing the rest of the country to acknowledge that they are the same as everyone else. It won't work, if anything, it will just reinforce just how different they are. As the world has homo weddings shoved down our throats, it will become more apparent with each just how screwed up they are.

It's about as genuine as Muslims saying that they just want a Mosque near Ground Zero to worship their pedophile leader, what a load of shit. It will be funny to see what union, if any, will except their money and build that shithole for them.

Exactly so, and Judge Walker even said as much in his ruling.

[Nukeman]

Gosh...I get it now...Freedom of religion in America doesn't count unless it's white and "Christian". Not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand. You walking wank-stain.
It really isn't about "religous freedom" and more about tact..... You and your supporters are jsut attempting to use a broad brush to paint all objectors as rascist, bigoted, hill jacks...

I have a question for you Bully, if a group of new socialist skin heads wanted to build a community center for recruting and teaching new members right next door to a synagogue would that be okay?? After all they have the freedom to assemble and teach/preach what they like... Sometimes it is not only hate that motivate.

The question should be WHY do they wish to be stirring the pot by placing something SO controversial on that ground??????

I personally am torn, due to the freedom and what the principles of this country were founded on. I do belive they have the freedom to build but i also hope they have the compassion to realize the hurt they are causing with their demands and if they are so hardend against the feeling of their future neighbors I have to question the motive behind wanting to creat such a shit storm in the first place.

Is it a calculated attempt to show lhow bigoted we are or is it a thumb your nose in our faces, ior is it truely a want to express freedom of religion and attemtp to heal ties???? I don't know but I have my suspecions!!!!!

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh, so you pay the government for the air you breathe? What about your kids, obviously you applied to the government for that right as well? What raising those kids without the government involvement? Oh wait, all covered under the "claptrap" as you called.

So there are no rights. Period, they don't exist by your explanation. Free Speech? You can be killed, jailed, or otherwise silenced by the government. Right to Bear Arms? Nope, government can take those too. You in fact have only privileges, by your belief, so debate is useless with you, because you have no rights, and missed the entire Constitution. I can't help you with that one.

I stated we have rights, in fact, I said they DONT come from the govt, yet you are accusing me of saying the govt controls all our rights, doesnt make sense, I dont know how you got there, maybe you should re read it

[LuvRPgrl]

So tell me, in exact and objective terms, how same gender-couples marrying will directly impact you life. Never mind, of course, that homosexuality is a part of normal human sexual expression, much as you wish it were otherwise..

You really need to pick a different word than normal. Actually, it is the exact opposite of normal




Gosh...I get it now...Freedom of religion in America doesn't count unless it's white and "Christian". Not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand. You walking wank-stain.

Once again, you project something on him which is not contained in the paragraph you quoted. Im quite sure Sitarro would have no problem with a Jewish synagogue, etc

[LuvRPgrl]

I personally am torn, due to the freedom and what the principles of this country were founded on. !!!!!

My thoughts exactly......at the beginning. But after thinking it through, I remembered that local city authorities deny building permits all the time.

They can simply require them to build their mosque somewhere else far enough away to not cause insult.

That would not be abridging their freedom of religion

That would be a simple solution, unless of course they WANT to insult

[pete311]

I wish we could actually be discussing something important. Thousands of kids die each day from poverty and we're stuck arguing over a damn building.


You really need to pick a different word than normal. Actually, it is the exact opposite of normal

I think compassion is normal, something anti gays seem to lack.

[LuvRPgrl]

I wish we could actually be discussing something important. Thousands of kids die each day from poverty and we're stuck arguing over a damn building..

Not in America


I think compassion is normal, something anti gays seem to lack.

good ;you say "seem" because I assure you, we dont, but I also have a very strong passion for justice, fairness, and the American way

[Sitarro]

Once again, you project something on him which is not contained in the paragraph you quoted. Im quite sure Sitarro would have no problem with a Jewish synagogue, etc

You're right, of course, LuvRP, I wouldn't have a problem with any other church, Jewish Synagogue, Black Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, etc. I spoke to a friend of mine from Israel today, he said what most of us here already know, many in this country have no idea how Middle Eastern Muslims think. Idiots like the current President and his simpleton followers really believe that these people are just like us. If we just apologize for how we have made their countries rich beyond anything they could have ever dreamed of by buying the natural resources that we discovered, drilled for, brought to production and provided a market for. This country alone has done more to bring those asswipes into this century kicking and screaming to go back to the fourteenth.

The establishment of a Mosque at that site will act as a victory over the great Satan to those in the Middle East and will be used to recruit more suicidal maniacs. When it gets destroyed by whomever, America will get the blame. They need to get their towel heads and bee hive masks back to their homeland where they can worship goat fuckers and pedophiles all they want...... and take that joke, the UN, with them.

Where's the I'm bored smily?

[Noir]

If two consenting adults want to 'become one' in the eyes of their god so be it, who are we to stop them.

[pete311]

I spoke to a friend of mine from Israel today, he said what most of us here already know, many in this country have no idea how Middle Eastern Muslims think. Idiots like the current President and his simpleton followers really believe that these people are just like us.

A friend in Israel is likely a bit biased. I've spent a nearly a collective year in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Zanzibar (mostly muslim) and I can tell you without doubt that 99.9% of muslims are just like us (i'm not even sure what that means since america is so diverse). I think some of you need to stop being so scared and start traveling, the world is not that dangerous and you'll find that most of the world is much more hospitable than america.

[LuvRPgrl]

If two consenting adults want to 'become one' in the eyes of their god so be it, who are we to stop them.

I thought there was suppose to be seperation of church and state

So, if they want a religous ceremony, they are more than welcome to get married at their own churchassuming the church is ok with it, and say their own vows.
But to have the State sanction it is wrong and bad for the country.

If it suceeds, then it will just be another notch in the belt of those who wish to destroy it

Did this thread get combined with another?

[LuvRPgrl]

A friend in Israel is likely a bit biased. I've spent a nearly a collective year in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Zanzibar (mostly muslim) and I can tell you without doubt that 99.9% of muslims are just like us (i'm not even sure what that means since america is so diverse). I think some of you need to stop being so scared and start traveling, the world is not that dangerous and you'll find that most of the world is much more hospitable than america.

Well, according to you guys it is. There are drones sent out by Obama just looking for Americans to killl.

But you guys miss the main point of everyday muslims.

When slavery was still legal, John Brown and a huge number or other Christians spoke out and actively worked against it. Some sacrificed their lives..

I dont hear any muslims doing that

I dont know where you live, but here in San Diego, the people are more hospitable to foreigners than any of the 6 countries I have been to.

[Noir]

I thought there was suppose to be seperation of church and state

So, if they want a religous ceremony, they are more than welcome to get married at their own churchassuming the church is ok with it, and say their own vows.
But to have the State sanction it is wrong and bad for the country.

If it suceeds, then it will just be another notch in the belt of those who wish to destroy it


Did this thread get combined with another?

The state should not favour one riligion over another (even though it obviously does) but no-one should be above the law, be they religious or not. To claim that chruches can hold prejudices and not be held accountable for them just because they are churches is not a good line to take imo.

[pete311]

Not in America

and the American way

This kind of selfish tunnel vision is exactly what is wrong with america.




When slavery was still legal, John Brown and a huge number or other Christians spoke out and actively worked against it. Some sacrificed their lives..

I dont hear any muslims doing that

I dont know where you live, but here in San Diego, the people are more hospitable to foreigners than any of the 6 countries I have been to.

There are many muslims actively taking a stand, complain about the media for not reporting it. However, I do generally agree it is something that needs to happen on a unified global level. The muslim leaders need to organize it.

If you've only been you europe I would most definitely agree :)

[Nukeman]

The state should not favour one riligion over another (even though it obviously does) but no-one should be above the law, be they religious or not. To claim that chruches can hold prejudices and not be held accountable for them just because they are churches is not a good line to take imo.Actually Noir, the great thing about the US is even though you may be prejudiced or bigotted or even racist you have th RIGHT to be that way. for good or bad we have the right to be any way we wish....

Now even our religious institutions have THAT SAME RIGHT. I haven't heard anyone come out and condemn the Islamic mosgue for the way they preach that all infidels are evil and how all other religions are false....

If I want to say gay marriage is bad i can do that as a private citizen as well as a member of a church there is NO DIFFERNCE!!!!!

[Noir]

Actually Noir, the great thing about the US is even though you may be prejudiced or bigotted or even racist you have th RIGHT to be that way. for good or bad we have the right to be any way we wish....

Now even our religious institutions have THAT SAME RIGHT. I haven't heard anyone come out and condemn the Islamic mosgue for the way they preach that all infidels are evil and how all other religions are false....

If I want to say gay marriage is bad i can do that as a private citizen as well as a member of a church there is NO DIFFERNCE!!!!!

Fir the second Paragraph, you obviously haven't been reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dannet ect. Those in the atheist/anti-theist camps say such things all the time.

Fir the 3rd paragraph, you may think that gays are scum, or that black people are little better than animals ect, but you could not hold that private prejudice against them in the public sphere, for example who you are going to hire for a company or let stay in a hotel you own ect. You have the right to your beliefs, but not the right to act upon them.

[LuvRPgrl]

this kind of selfish tunnel vision is exactly what is wrong with america.

:)

not sure why you took those two out of context

[bullypulpit]

You really need to pick a different word than normal. Actually, it is the exact opposite of normal

<blockquote>"Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. - <a href=http://apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx>APA</a></blockquote>



Once again, you project something on him which is not contained in the paragraph you quoted. Im quite sure Sitarro would have no problem with a Jewish synagogue, etc

This whole controversy is a non-issue. It was created by the right wing-nut punditocracy as a tool to whip the slack-jawed mouth-breathers that constitute the red-meat base of the GOP into a frenzy of xenophobic rage. Thus far the response of the American conservative movement, debased thing that it is, has responded in the appropriately Pavlovian fashion. The pundits ring the bell of jingoism and xenophobia...the base responds with misplaced rage.

[Little-Acorn]

"Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras."

Both appetite and cancer are normal aspects of human existence. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.

Does that mean we should promote and encourage both?

[MtnBiker]

This whole controversy is a non-issue. It was created by the right wing-nut punditocracy as a tool to whip the slack-jawed mouth-breathers that constitute the red-meat base of the GOP into a frenzy of xenophobic rage. Thus far the response of the American conservative movement, debased thing that it is, has responded in the appropriately Pavlovian fashion. The pundits ring the bell of jingoism and xenophobia...the base responds with misplaced rage.

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 in the state of California. The same year Obama was elected President. There were approximately 2 million more votes for Proposition 8 then there were for John McCain in California.

2 million California Obama voters voted for Proposition 8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California, _2008

[LuvRPgrl]

<blockquote>"Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. - <a href=http://apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx>APA</a></blockquote>.

The common, or normal, usage of the term normal, these days is to refer to something that is common and in the majority. Its normal for such and such,,,to occur, as in, it happens most of the time.

You can redefine it if you like, it will follow in goose step with how you moronic elitist liberals are out of touch with reality and have to change history to conform to your desired ideals.


<This whole controversy is a non-issue. It was created by the right wing-nut punditocracy as a tool to whip the slack-jawed mouth-breathers that constitute the red-meat base of the GOP into a frenzy of xenophobic rage. Thus far the response of the American conservative movement, debased thing that it is, has responded in the appropriately Pavlovian fashion. The pundits ring the bell of jingoism and xenophobia...the base responds with misplaced rage.

Wow, speak of mis placed rage, go look in the mirror dude

[pete311]

Both appetite and cancer are normal aspects of human existence. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.

Does that mean we should promote and encourage both?

are you REALLY comparing homosexuality with cancer? shame on you

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

are you REALLY comparing homosexuality with cancer? shame on you
I didn't catch that Thanks. but it fits perfectly homo's are a cancer on society

[bullypulpit]

Both appetite and cancer are normal aspects of human existence. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.

Does that mean we should promote and encourage both?

Thanks, once again for playing "REALLY BAD ANALOGIES"! (game show music swells in background).

Your intellectual bankruptcy is complete. :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

That doesn't make it true. The statement is based wholly on assumption as is your entire argument.

DOI is a legal document, signed by representatives of the new nation.
It IS LAW.
What is in it isnt a matter of true or false. Thats like saying speeding laws are not true.
What is stated in it is law, and it is the basic outline of our federal laws.
AGAIN, you cant point out where ANY: of the documents point out specifaly that the govt grants us any rights.

[LuvRPgrl]

And what laws are those?.?ANYBODY, regardless of their sexual orientation, can apply for a marriage license. Laws that contain restrictions apply to everyone equally.




It's judicial activism when it's anyone besides right wing ideologue judges do it, and then it's strict constitutionalism.?
Its not our fault that you cant understand the difference that is explained between a strict reading of the COTUS and an expanded "interpetation" that constitutes judicial activism.
Its really plain and simple to see and observe, the fact you only reply with inaccurate silly little bumper sticker quotes doesnt change a thing.




What does eminent domain have to do with the discussion at hand??
Simple, the use of the Judiciary to circumvent the will of the people has been one of the most popular tools of the liberals in recent decades.
BUt now judicial activism has carried it to the point where they are allowing private individuals to force other private individuals to sell their property to them, ONLY FOR ECONOMIC GAIN.
IT used to be only the govt could obtain such land, now judicial activism has expanded it to the private sector.


You do realize that the further we get into this topic, the more and more your posts tend to irrelevance?

SO sorry that deeper levels of thought confuse you so

[LuvRPgrl]

Fir the second Paragraph, you obviously haven't been reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dannet ect. Those in the atheist/anti-theist camps say such things all the time.

Fir the 3rd paragraph, you may think that gays are scum, or that black people are little better than animals ect, but you could not hold that private prejudice against them in the public sphere, for example who you are going to hire for a company or let stay in a hotel you own ect. You have the right to your beliefs, but not the right to act upon them.

DUDE, what the hell is "]fir the second paragraph" & "fir the 3rd paragraph" mean??

AND etc. is ETC. not ECT.

[Missileman]

DOI is a legal document, signed by representatives of the new nation.
It IS LAW.
What is in it isnt a matter of true or false. Thats like saying speeding laws are not true.
What is stated in it is law, and it is the basic outline of our federal laws.
AGAIN, you cant point out where ANY: of the documents point out specifaly that the govt grants us any rights.

The DOI didn't establish or create any laws. You need to actually read the DOI instead of pulling what you think it said out of your ass.

[LuvRPgrl]

The DOI didn't establish or create any laws. You need to actually read the DOI instead of pulling what you think it said out of your ass.



Yes it did. WIthout it, no other laws could have been instituted.

AGAIN, show me where ;it says in any of the documents the govt "grants" us any rights.

Let me also give you a clue, the following documents of the DOI cannot and did not contradict anything in it.
Is not much of our constitutional law based on "all men are created equal"?
CHew on that for a while you fat ass brain lard

[Missileman]

Yes it did. WIthout it, no other laws could have been instituted.

The COTUS is not dependent on the existence of the DOI.


AGAIN, show me where ;it says in any of the documents the govt "grants" us any rights.

The COTUS doesn't have to specifically say "This document grants rights" in order for it to do exactly that.


Let me also give you a clue, the following documents of the DOI cannot and did not contradict anything in it.
Is not much of our constitutional law based on "all men are created equal"?
CHew on that for a while you fat ass brain lard

You know...for someone who whined like a little bitch about name calling, you're the one doing most of it.

"All men are created equal" huh? Tell that to blacks and women and Native Americans.

[Noir]

DUDE, what the hell is "]fir the second paragraph" & "fir the 3rd paragraph" mean??

AND etc. is ETC. not ECT.

"fir" is a typo for "for" (There are several typoes i make allot, fir/for, msn/man, die/did, tbe/the and so on, Thats because my only way of getting online over the summer is via my phone, so typeos are easy to make and can be time consuming to find and correct, though i try to do my best to keep it as low as possible) the ect/etc mixup is sommit i do all time (due to the two t's in et cetera) but i'm sure ya knew what i meant

[LuvRPgrl]

The COTUS is not dependent on the existence of the DOI..
hahhahah, ahahahah, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
YOU are simply soooo WRONG on this one. You need to read the history of the DOI. They even had a hard time gaining the LEGAL AUTHORITY to make it a legally binding document.

Dont for an instant think the FFathers werent concerned about the letter of the law. Without the DOI, the COTUS wouldn't, couldn't have been even considered, much less created.
COTUS depends on the DOI like a table top depends on the legs. You only use the top, admite the craftsmanship and wood, its the only part you talk about or see, yet without the legs, the table couldnt stand.





The COTUS doesn't have to specifically say "This document grants rights" in order for it to do exactly that.
And you will be the one first in line and screaming the loudest that the COTUS doesnt mention God specifically, (even though it does in terms they accepted those days)

:Yea, but yet you claim the DOI doesn't either, and use that as proof that the DOI isnt law. DOI is a legal document, it is law, we established our ability to legally create the COTUS as the CONSTITUION OF AN INDEPENDENT SOVEIRGN nation. If we didnt need the DOI, then why did they go through so much effort to get it written and signed?
Neither one of them grant rights. They can't, the FF's established that rights are NOT granted by the govt as fact and irrefutable self evident truth. THe COTUS never contradicts the DOI

You know...for someone who whined like a little bitch about name calling, you're the one doing most of it..



"All men are created equal" huh? Tell that to blacks and women and Native Americans.

It was an idealistic goal they knew they couldnt achieve at the time, one hurdle at a time. If our indpenedence hadnt been achieved, we could never adress those issues, and if we had thrown them in, we wouldnt have achieved our independence.

To see and understand this, one needs to not have very strong pre conceived ideas.

[LuvRPgrl]

I guess Gay is the New Black... Gay trumps Black in the Politically Correct Poker Game... and White is something like the 2 of spades.

Don't worry, it won't stop here... the gays will be demanding something else before too long...

.

They will always blame their feelings of abnormality on something the conservative Repubs are doing, when it is coming from within themselves and unless they admit that, they will continue to blame us.

Kinda like an alcoholic always blaiming external circumstances on why they drink.

[Pagan]

They will always blame their feelings of abnormality on something the conservative Repubs are doing, when it is coming from within themselves and unless they admit that, they will continue to blame us.

Kinda like an alcoholic always blaiming external circumstances on why they drink.

So tell me, what is "Conservative" about government dictating the most personal aspect of ones life?

Fact is Prop 8 is nothing but another liberal piece of legislation.

[Missileman]

hahhahah, ahahahah, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
YOU are simply soooo WRONG on this one. You need to read the history of the DOI. They even had a hard time gaining the LEGAL AUTHORITY to make it a legally binding document.

Dont for an instant think the FFathers werent concerned about the letter of the law. Without the DOI, the COTUS wouldn't, couldn't have been even considered, much less created.
COTUS depends on the DOI like a table top depends on the legs. You only use the top, admite the craftsmanship and wood, its the only part you talk about or see, yet without the legs, the table couldnt stand.

It's really simple to prove just how wrong you are. Assume for the sake of argument, that the colonies weren't providing a source of income and goods to England sufficient to make it worth the effort of maintaining rule over them and they just cut the colonies loose. Those colonies could still craft a COTUS to form a government and the DOI wouldn't have been necessary at all.

I still have no idea why you are compelled to deny that the DOI was anything more than a list of grievances against England that justified a parting of the ways...it was no more than that.






And you will be the one first in line and screaming the loudest that the COTUS doesnt mention God specifically, (even though it does in terms they accepted those days)

Sorry to pop that pimple between your shoulders, but there is no mention of God except "year of our lord" as a reference of time in the COTUS and I have no need to scream to establish it as a fact.


:Yea, but yet you claim the DOI doesn't either, and use that as proof that the DOI isnt law. DOI is a legal document, it is law, we established our ability to legally create the COTUS as the CONSTITUION OF AN INDEPENDENT SOVEIRGN nation. If we didnt need the DOI, then why did they go through so much effort to get it written and signed?

One more time for the intentionally or inherently retarded. The nation was founded by the Articles of the Confederation, not the DOI. As I've explained to you several times now, the DOI was a list of grievances against England with which the colonists justified their leaving British rule...no more, no less.






It was an idealistic goal they knew they couldnt achieve at the time, one hurdle at a time. If our indpenedence hadnt been achieved, we could never adress those issues, and if we had thrown them in, we wouldnt have achieved our independence.

To see and understand this, one needs to not have very strong pre conceived ideas.

OMG...you truly are deluded.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's really simple to prove just how wrong you are. Assume for the sake of argument, that the colonies weren't providing a source of income and goods to England sufficient to make it worth the effort of maintaining rule over them and they just cut the colonies loose. Those colonies could still craft a COTUS to form a government and the DOI wouldn't have been necessary at all..

Well, England DIDNt just let us go, hence the need for the DOI, and you ob vioiusly dont know the history of it, as the signers were EXTREMELY CAREFUL to make sure everyone who signed was legally qualified, which is why it wasnt all signed at one time by all signers

Just like the southern states tried to go their seperate way, but they are still a part of the US

ALso, the term UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was first used in the DOI, it ESTABLISHED US AS A COUNTRY, NOT just a federation of colonies, again we celebrate our INDEPENDENCE DAY on the day when it has been considered that the DOI was signed, NOT ANY OTHER DOCUMENT, so just because you claim it was ONLY a document to state the grievences, IT WASNT, as you can read the technical legal language in it and clearly see it wasnt what you claim, oh, but I should change my mind because YOU say so????


I still have no idea why you are compelled to deny that the DOI was anything more than a list of grievances against England that justified a parting of the ways...it was no more than that...
Try reading it, it says it is "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station"
that is what it was doing, and the list of grievences was also included.
What kind of myoptic brain dead tunnel vision do you have to not see that.
The whole document is littered with jargon stating the purpose of the DOI is to disolve the bands that unite and creat a new nation, NOT that its sole purpose is to list the grievences.

Funny,I can provide quotes showing you that it wasnt just a list of grievences, but you cant provide one scintilla of evidence or statement claiming it was ONLY a list of grievences.
Do a google check, "is the DOI a legal document", it is overwhelmingly accepted as such


Sorry to pop that pimple between your shoulders, but there is no mention of God except "year of our lord" as a reference of time in the COTUS and I have no need to scream to establish it as a fact...

Yea, too bad for you there is that one direct reference there, eh:coffee:
which is what I was talking about




One more time for the intentionally or inherently retarded. The nation was founded by the Articles of the Confederation, not the DOI. As I've explained to you several times now, the DOI was a list of grievances against England with which the colonists justified their leaving British rule...no more, no less..

You keep saying that but dont answer my rebuttals.
You lose


OMG...you truly are deluded.

You dont seem to understand that there is also a difference between "nation" and "govt", in 1776 the NATION was born, a govt, provisional was in place. Itr was replaced by a govt under the articles of confederation which werent drafted and ratified for some years after that. Then the Cotus brought in the last govt we have had since,

[Missileman]

Well, England DIDNt just let us go, hence the need for the DOI, and you ob vioiusly dont know the history of it, as the signers were EXTREMELY CAREFUL to make sure everyone who signed was legally qualified, which is why it wasnt all signed at one time by all signers

The question was whether the COTUS could exist without the DOI, and I have sufficiently proven it could. Now, about this "EMTREMELY CAREFUL. legally qualified" nonsense...WTF are you babbling about? Your mommy give you a "Spongebob Squarepants History of the U.S." for your birthday? Break out the links.

Just like the southern states tried to go their seperate way, but they are still a part of the US


ALso, the term UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was first used in the DOI, it ESTABLISHED US AS A COUNTRY, NOT just a federation of colonies, again we celebrate our INDEPENDENCE DAY on the day when it has been considered that the DOI was signed, NOT ANY OTHER DOCUMENT, so just because you claim it was ONLY a document to state the grievences, IT WASNT, as you can read the technical legal language in it and clearly see it wasnt what you claim, oh, but I should change my mind because YOU say so????

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The first sentence of the Declaration asserts as a matter of Natural law the ability of a people to assume political independence, and acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.

The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.

The next section is a list of charges against King George III, which aim to demonstrate that he has violated the colonists' rights and is therefore unfit to be their ruler:

Many Americans still felt a kinship with the people of Great Britain, and had appealed in vain to the prominent among them, as well as to Parliament, to convince the King to relax his more objectionable policies toward the colonies. The next section represents disappointment that these attempts had been unsuccessful.

In the final section, the signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion incorporates language from Lee's resolution of independence that had been passed on July 2.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Notice that the word united isn't captilized in the first line of the last section...it's merely an adjective, not the name of a nation. Also notice that they don't declare independence for a nation, but individual states.





Try reading it, it says it is "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station"
that is what it was doing, and the list of grievences was also included.
What kind of myoptic brain dead tunnel vision do you have to not see that.
The whole document is littered with jargon stating the purpose of the DOI is to disolve the bands that unite and creat a new nation, NOT that its sole purpose is to list the grievences.

Funny,I can provide quotes showing you that it wasnt just a list of grievences, but you cant provide one scintilla of evidence or statement claiming it was ONLY a list of grievences.
Do a google check, "is the DOI a legal document", it is overwhelmingly accepted as such



Yea, too bad for you there is that one direct reference there, eh:coffee:
which is what I was talking about





You keep saying that but dont answer my rebuttals.
You lose



You dont seem to understand that there is also a difference between "nation" and "govt", in 1776 the NATION was born, a govt, provisional was in place. Itr was replaced by a govt under the articles of confederation which werent drafted and ratified for some years after that. Then the Cotus brought in the last govt we have had since,

From the Articles of Confederation:


1.Establishes the name of the confederation as "The United States of America".

2.Asserts the equality of the separate states with the confederation government, i.e. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."

3.Establishes the United States as a new nation, a sovereign union of sovereign states, united ". . . for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them . . . ," while declaring that the union is "perpetual," and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures.

This was written by the same people who wrote the DOI. If the DOI established the USA as you errantly suggest, why would they RE-establish it here without a whisper about the DOI?

[LuvRPgrl]

The question was whether the COTUS could exist without the DOI, and I have sufficiently proven it could. Now, about this "EMTREMELY CAREFUL. legally qualified" nonsense...WTF are you babbling about? Your mommy give you a "Spongebob Squarepants History of the U.S." for your birthday? Break out the links.

Just like the southern states tried to go their seperate way, but they are still a part of the US



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence


Notice that the word united isn't captilized in the first line of the last section...it's merely an adjective, not the name of a nation. Also notice that they don't declare independence for a nation, but individual states.





From the Articles of Confederation:



This was written by the same people who wrote the DOI. If the DOI established the USA as you errantly suggest, why would they RE-establish it here without a whisper about the DOI?

You havent answered why we celebrate our independence as July 4th, 1776, the day when it is accepted as the day the DOI was signed, NOT the date of the Articles.

THe nation was 200 years old in 1976, 200 years after the DOI, not the ARTICLES OR COTUS.

You need to explain that before asking any questions

[LuvRPgrl]

From your own beloved Wikpedia

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

The political push for the colonies to increase cooperation began with the Albany Congress in 1754 when Benjamin Franklin proposed an intercolonial collaboration that resembled the Articles. Starting in 1775, the Second Continental Congress acted as the provisional national government that ran the American Revolutionary War. It was an era of constitution writing--most states were busy at the task--and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution, even though they were uncommon in other nations. Meanwhile, Congress exercised an unprecedented level of political, diplomatic, military, and economic authority over the colonies. It adopted commercial codes, established and maintained an army and selected its generals, issued money, created a military code of law, defined crimes, and negotiated with foreign governments[3

[Missileman]

You havent answered why we celebrate our independence as July 4th, 1776, the day when it is accepted as the day the DOI was signed, NOT the date of the Articles.

THe nation was 200 years old in 1976, 200 years after the DOI, not the ARTICLES OR COTUS.

You need to explain that before asking any questions

They celebrate Christ's birth on Dec 25 even though he wasn't born then either.

The DOI got the ball rolling, but as I have PROVEN, with the founding father's OWN WORDS, the nation we call the United States of America was not established with the DOI, but with the Articles of Confederation. The DOI established 13 individual independent states and says so in plain English.

I know it's difficult to have REAL evidence to refute, but in this case you have a mountain to overcome.

I know why you didn't attempt to answer any of the points in my last post...you can't, so instead try to change the subject.

[Missileman]

From your own beloved Wikpedia

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

The political push for the colonies to increase cooperation began with the Albany Congress in 1754 when Benjamin Franklin proposed an intercolonial collaboration that resembled the Articles. Starting in 1775, the Second Continental Congress acted as the provisional national government that ran the American Revolutionary War. It was an era of constitution writing--most states were busy at the task--and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution, even though they were uncommon in other nations. Meanwhile, Congress exercised an unprecedented level of political, diplomatic, military, and economic authority over the colonies. It adopted commercial codes, established and maintained an army and selected its generals, issued money, created a military code of law, defined crimes, and negotiated with foreign governments[3

Can't have it both ways, although I'm certain you think you can. Are you now arguing that the nation existed PRIOR to the writing of the DOI?

[LuvRPgrl]

Can't have it both ways, although I'm certain you think you can. Are you now arguing that the nation existed PRIOR to the writing of the DOI?

"...and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution..."

this clearly states two facts:
1. We were currently a nation
2. No Constitution existed

We can logically extrapolate that the Nation did in fact exist without a Constitution

The DOI was the establishment of the nation. WHat it was prior to that, after that, and the previous, current and future status of the govt that would run the nation, is irrelevant to WHEN the nation was established

[Kathianne]

"...and leaders felt the new nation must have a written constitution..."

this clearly states two facts:
1. We were currently a nation
2. No Constitution existed

We can logically extrapolate that the Nation did in fact exist without a Constitution

The DOI was the establishment of the nation. WHat it was prior to that, after that, and the previous, current and future status of the govt that would run the nation, is irrelevant to WHEN the nation was established

Actually there was a constitution, The Articles of Confederation. Lots of problems with them, but they sufficed until something better was created.

[LuvRPgrl]

They celebrate Christ's birth on Dec 25 even though he wasn't born then either.

The DOI got the ball rolling, but as I have PROVEN, with the founding father's OWN WORDS, the nation we call the United States of America was not established with the DOI, but with the Articles of Confederation. The DOI established 13 individual independent states and says so in plain English.

I know it's difficult to have REAL evidence to refute, but in this case you have a mountain to overcome.

I know why you didn't attempt to answer any of the points in my last post...you can't, so instead try to change the subject.

So,;your answer to why we celebrate July 4th, 1776 in error is because we dont know, or cant deduce through historical documents, when JESUS was born????????

hahahhahah, HAhHHhaHAhahahahah, BWAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

We have all of the documents necessary to determine the date of the birth of the nation

nice try though

[Kathianne]

and yes, memory does serve. There was a tide me over document before 1776, that set up the process that would eventually lead to the Continental Congress:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp

Articles of Association.

Reading them, one can understand why the Articles of Confederation seemed pretty good to the Founders, comparatively.

[Missileman]

We have all of the documents necessary to determine the date of the birth of the nation



That's the first thing you've gotten right. The Articles of Confederation established the "United States of America" in plain English as written by the same founders who drafted the DOI when it was ratified in 1781. I guess they were mistaken.

[Kathianne]

We do. Here's a great timeline, with links to documents:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/revwartimeline.htm

I think the Avalon site much better, but it's alphabetical rather than chronological. Fine if one knows what they're looking for, but rather pointless without.