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

[fj1200]

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

Seeing as how marriage is not an inalienable right then the state can change the definition as it sees fit. Seven states so far?

[jimnyc]

Seeing as how marriage is not an inalienable right then the state can change the definition as it sees fit. Seven states so far?

And 29-0 in states where the people themselves had a say in the matter.

[fj1200]

And 29-0 in states where the people themselves had a say in the matter.

We elect representatives to handle much of the dirty work of creating laws.

[jimnyc]

We elect representatives to handle much of the dirty work of creating laws.

So long as you remain consistent, that the government and judges should have the final say, and not the people of the US.

[fj1200]

So long as you remain consistent, that the government and judges should have the final say, and not the people of the US.

The people say every 2/4 years. Do you wish every issue be subject to direct democracy? What happens when 1 state approves a measure by popular vote? Do you lose the basis for that argument or do you fall back on 29-1?

[jimnyc]

The people say every 2/4 years. Do you wish every issue be subject to direct democracy? What happens when 1 state approves a measure by popular vote? Do you lose the basis for that argument or do you fall back on 29-1?

Sure, we vote in the officials, but we also have the ability to overrule them by special elections and special votes, which activist judges like to overrule. As for the different states - we already have a shitload of laws where things are completely different state by state.

[ConHog]

Seeing as how marriage is not an inalienable right then the state can change the definition as it sees fit. Seven states so far?

I still maintain that government at any level has NO business defining marriage.

[Little-Acorn]

Direct democracy (such as California with its ballot propositions) can have problems, of course.

To give an extreme example: Suppose the people of CA put a prop on the ballot that said you could take black people off the street in Calif, put them in chains, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and crappy food & housing. And at the next election, the prop got 55% of the vote, and passed.

Pretty quickly, of course, someone would bring a suit and a Federal judge would throw out the proposition, on grounds that it directly violates the 13th and 14th amendments.

Obviously, ballot propositions cannot be the final word, immune from any challenges or strikedown by Federal judges... IF they violate the US Constitution, as this example obviously does.

The question over Prop 8 is not whether Fed judges should have the power to strike it down. The question is whether it violates the US Constitution.

Does it?

Prop 8 codifies the fundamental definition of "marriage", which is a union between man and woman. It provides, of coourse, that a gay man or gay woman can also get married, just as a hetero man or woman can. They just can't marry the same sex (and neither can heteros). Same-sex couples are excluded. Does that violate the 14th amendment's guarantees of equal rights? Same-sex couples can have Civil Unions, of course (and so can opposite-sex couples), with all the rights and privileges of an actual marriage, but the gay advocates say that that's a case of "separate but equal", which doesn't fly.

Suppose Calif passed a ballot proposition saying that men cannot go into a public women's bathroom or locker room; and women can't go into a men's. That's traditional already, just as marriage always has been, but this propositions codifies it (makes it an actual written law). (For all I know, maybe there are already such laws on the books?) The proposition would be another example of codifying "separate but equal" facilities.

Would this proposition, also be thrown out by the same Federal judges? Should it be?

[fj1200]

Sure, we vote in the officials, but we also have the ability to overrule them by special elections and special votes, which activist judges like to overrule. As for the different states - we already have a shitload of laws where things are completely different state by state.

There's the rub, whose definition of activism should we use?

[ConHog]

There's the rub, whose definition of activism should we use?

judicial activism:

Jew -- dish -ul act-iv-ism

When a judge makes a ruling that whoever is using the term doesn't like. It's a claim often made by conservatives and liberals alike.


:laugh2:

[fj1200]

Sure, we vote in the officials, but we also have the ability to overrule them by special elections and special votes, which activist judges like to overrule. As for the different states - we already have a shitload of laws where things are completely different state by state.

You're right on that of course but it's only a matter of time where it will be on the ballot and approved by a majority vote. That doesn't take into account whether it is constitutional to preference man-woman marriage. I was looking for a link I posted awhile back regarding gay marriage ballot initiatives, couldn't find it, but I found this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Marriage_and_family_on_the_ballot#tab=By_year
and then this:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to abolish the prohibition of interracial marriages.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(2000)

40% voted NO!!! in 2000!!! If that doesn't speak to how far we should trust special elections I don't know what does. Of course it could just speak to Alabama. ;)

[jimnyc]

You're right on that of course but it's only a matter of time where it will be on the ballot and approved by a majority vote. That doesn't take into account whether it is constitutional to preference man-woman marriage. I was looking for a link I posted awhile back regarding gay marriage ballot initiatives, couldn't find it, but I found this:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Marriage_and_family_on_the_ballot#tab=By_year
and then this:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(2000) (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_%282000% 29)

40% voted NO!!! in 2000!!! If that doesn't speak to how far we should trust special elections I don't know what does. Of course it could just speak to Alabama. ;)

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

[OCA]

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

The world would be a much better place................but its not only what OCA wants, its what the majority of Americans want.

[OCA]

Sorry Charlie...



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

Thing is they have FOUND a gene.

For queers not even a hint of a gene.

[OCA]

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

They represent the people of their districts and states, when they vote for such wickedness they are in fact voting against the wishes of their constituents whom they took an oath to represent.

[OCA]

Seeing as how marriage is not an inalienable right then the state can change the definition as it sees fit. Seven states so far?

Yes 7.........only they have to overturn the will of the people to do it.

29-0 against when the people have a say.

[ConHog]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

The government SHOULDN'T have the last say in some things, including marriage. The mechanism used to let the government have a say is irrelevant, popular vote or judge's ruling either way it's the GOVERNMENT defining marriage, and they shouldn't be involved.

What if someone sued and declared that their religious views called for gay marriages? Wouldn't that be similar to your claim that the Catholic Church should be exempt from certain government rules that clash with their religion? So do you tell those folks "tough shit it's okay to if we deny you your religious freedom b/c gay is icky?"

Now I'm not saying that there actually is a religion that makes that claim. I'm just saying that since marriage is a religious matter, it COULD happen.

The government has no business in health care insurance, nor in marriage.

[OCA]

We elect representatives to handle much of the dirty work of creating laws.

Admit you are wrong.

Look up the definition of the word "represent".

[OCA]

The people say every 2/4 years. Do you wish every issue be subject to direct democracy? What happens when 1 state approves a measure by popular vote? Do you lose the basis for that argument or do you fall back on 29-1?

Lets not deal in what ifs unless that is all you have.

[ConHog]

Yes 7.........only they have to overturn the will of the people to do it.

29-0 against when the people have a say.

What part of you don't get to have a vote to tell someone they don't have the right to enjoy as much freedom as you do you not understand? I mean seriously.....

[OCA]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

I guess thats what we should do when electing the POTUS, apparently FJ doesn't think the people know jackshit.

[OCA]

What part of you don't get to have a vote to tell someone they don't have the right to enjoy as much freedom as you do you not understand? I mean seriously.....

Sure we do, its called setting limits and boundaries.

Are you really retarded or just playing the part?

[fj1200]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

The people can't restrict rights any more than the government can.


They represent the people of their districts and states, when they vote for such wickedness they are in fact voting against the wishes of their constituents whom they took an oath to represent.

Newsflash: Representatives are not required to vote according to their constituents wishes.


Yes 7.........only they have to overturn the will of the people to do it.

29-0 against when the people have a say.

According to the link I posted the people of the state of NY has not voted on the issue yet it passed the legislature and was signed by the governor; was the will of the people overturned?


Admit you are wrong.

Look up the definition of the word "represent".

By your logic Hank Johnson needs to ask me my view before he "represents" me in Congress. I assure you he does not nor does his voting pattern match my wishes.


Lets not deal in what ifs unless that is all you have.

I'm not dealing in "what ifs," I'm dealing in eventuality.

[fj1200]

I guess thats what we should do when electing the POTUS, apparently FJ doesn't think the people know jackshit.

40% of the voters in AL in 2000 do in fact know "jackshit."

[logroller]

They represent the people of their districts and states, when they vote for such wickedness they are in fact voting against the wishes of their constituents whom they took an oath to represent.

Here are two oaths, the first is for US senators, the second is California's loyalty oath. ...neither say anything about representing the constituents.


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS


SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and
employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior
officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they
enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation:


'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter....'

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a
qualification for any public office or employment.


"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee
of the State, including the University of California, every county,
city, city and county, district, and authority, including any
department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.complete text here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20)

Like many people, your opinion is based on false assumptions which don't follow the rule of law-- which is why we have separation of powers and a judicial branch which holds reason over passion to subvert descent into demagoguery.

[OCA]

Here are two oaths, the first is for US senators, the second is California's loyalty oath. ...neither say anything about representing the constituents.



complete text here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20)

Like many people, your opinion is based on false assumptions which don't follow the rule of law-- which is why we have separation of powers and a judicial branch which holds reason over passion to subvert descent into demagoguery.

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

[logroller]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.
*cough* florida recount*cough* That's my best revalerts impression.

Seriously, I understand your frustration; that somehow my vote can be undermined by the rule of law; conversely, as I'm a Cali resident, do you think my Republican vote is gonna matter in the potus election given the majority of voters vote Dem? Majority winner take all with California electorates; and, unlike gays getting married, the president has at least some impact on my life/liberty etc. So I see it that a majority rule is far more prevalent than whatever these 'activist' judges have opined. Pretty far from 'only', that's for sure!

[logroller]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.
not during election years.:cool:

[jimnyc]

The people can't restrict rights any more than the government can.

That's not what I said. If you are going to give government and appeals courts the right to make decisions, decisions against the votes of the citizens, then don't be surprised when the government does the same on other issues. There is no point whatsoever on having referendums if the only thing that matters is what 3 judges ultimately say. Just have the issue written up and have the politicians bring it directly to the courts for a decision.

[jimnyc]

*cough* florida recount*cough* That's my best revalerts impression.

Seriously, I understand your frustration; that somehow my vote can be undermined by the rule of law; conversely, as I'm a Cali resident, do you think my Republican vote is gonna matter in the potus election given the majority of voters vote Dem? Majority winner take all with California electorates; and, unlike gays getting married, the president has at least some impact on my life/liberty etc. So I see it that a majority rule is far more prevalent than whatever these 'activist' judges have opined. Pretty far from 'only', that's for sure!

As to Florida, the voting system wasn't bypassed and sent directly to judges for a decision. It's not as if the vote itself was tossed aside and the judges made the decision. But in that line of thinking, with this current discussion, everyone should be fine with the government or the judges overruling the vote of the people, no? That is exactly what we're talking about here, the majority decision being tossed aside and judges deciding instead.

[logroller]

As to Florida, the voting system wasn't bypassed and sent directly to judges for a decision. It's not as if the vote itself was tossed aside and the judges made the decision. But in that line of thinking, with this current discussion, everyone should be fine with the government or the judges overruling the vote of the people, no? That is exactly what we're talking about here, the majority decision being tossed aside and judges deciding instead.
And by ordering the recount to end, they interfered with the voting process; which is fine with me because At a certain point I submit to the rule of law, and it depends on the severity of how much I will be grieved. Gays getting married doesn't harm me or my marriage. Bush getting elected has had a greater effect, good and bad, on my life than gays ever have.
Look I was here in Cali when prop 8 was going about and I can tell you it was nothing more than legal gay bashing ; and worse still, it was an attempt to codify sectarian morality. I just didn't like the precedent and I'm glad it was overturned.

[fj1200]

That's not what I said. If you are going to give government and appeals courts the right to make decisions, decisions against the votes of the citizens, then don't be surprised when the government does the same on other issues. There is no point whatsoever on having referendums if the only thing that matters is what 3 judges ultimately say. Just have the issue written up and have the politicians bring it directly to the courts for a decision.

I didn't say it was but that is the response. The people can vote directly on some issues, when they meet the requirements, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to review just like when the legislature passes a law. I prefer the system of the courts reviewing after the fact.

[fj1200]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

:cough: elections :cough:

[OCA]

not during election years.:cool:

Most truthful statement ever uttered at DP.

Funny thing is most of the people here are shepp and will fall right in line.

[OCA]

:cough: elections :cough:

The sheepherder is calling you.

[ConHog]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

[OCA]

Look I was here in Cali when prop 8 was going about and I can tell you it was nothing more than legal gay bashing ; and worse still, it was an attempt to codify sectarian morality. I just didn't like the precedent and I'm glad it was overturned.

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

[OCA]

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

Just fess up and say "I have no argument"

You fucking suck balls at debating, your getting smoked.

Queers currently have the right to marry........someone of the opposite sex so they currently have every inalienable right as every other American except the right to break the law...................argue against that border jumper lover.

[ConHog]

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

well , that just clears that up then..................:rolleyes:

[OCA]

well , that just clears that up then..................:rolleyes:

Glad you recognize that border jumper lover.

[jimnyc]

Idiots who want to steam roll over the rights of others because "they are icky and we're the majority" should be ignored.

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

[OCA]

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

He is an ivory tower lib, no doubt about that.

[ConHog]

I'm confident there are others who have an opposing POV who might think you are the idiot and should be ignored. You're like a typical liberal, thinking only you're POV matters and others should be ignored.

You completely misunderstand if you think I said that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot Jim. I am arrogant, but not quite that arrogant. Hell I'll even go so far as to say that there ARE some who agree with my opinion on some subjects who are idiots. Which is no surprise considering that I am of the opinion that about 80% of the population are idiots.

[OCA]

You completely misunderstand if you think I said that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot Jim. I am arrogant, but not quite that arrogant. Hell I'll even go so far as to say that there ARE some who agree with my opinion on some subjects who are idiots. Which is no surprise considering that I am of the opinion that about 80% of the population are idiots.

Which 80% do you reside in? Are you the first, second or third 20%? You sure as fuck aren't in the other 20%.

[fj1200]

The sheepherder is calling you.

A non-response from you, that's about right.

[logroller]

As a Californian and one with virtually all his family and lifelong friends there and one who visited in the heat of that battle there I can assure you your statement is hyperbole at best and blatantly false at worst.

Your assurance huh? You sound like a lawyer saying "trust me". Please save me your BS here; you beliefs on gay being immoral/sinful/wrong are integral into your reasoning for gays not getting married. As for sectarian, here's some poll data:

Religion % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Protestant (43%) 65% 35%
Catholic (30%) 64% 36%
Other (11%) 33% 67%
None (16%) 10% 90%
source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2)

prop 8 said "Only a marriage between a man and woman would be vaild and recognized in CA" and voters understood that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
That's what voter's understood -- that Prop 8 would eliminate the right to marriage between two people of a disfavored group; homosexuals.

Two gays can legally do everything a straight couple can, except get 'married'; instead, they get a 'domestic partnership'. Perhaps you're not well versed in case law; there's this little heard of landmark case, Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka, it overturned this other obscure case Plessy vs Ferguson. In the case of Brown, it was an educational institution; in the case before us here, its the institution of marriage.
No reasonable person wants to deny another their right to better oneself, nor the right of two people to intimately bind themselves as one; some just don't want some others in their institution doing it, as CH would say, "ickying up the place". No doubt the majority of voters in the southern states would have supported a state initiative making segregation a constitutional amendment. Anyways, long story short, separate institutions for two different groups of people never are equal-- and the equal protection clause deems this unconstitutional.

[Little-Acorn]

Direct democracy (such as California with its ballot propositions) can have problems, of course.

To give an extreme example: Suppose the people of CA put a prop on the ballot that said you could take black people off the street in Calif, put them in chains, and force them to work on your farm for no pay and crappy food & housing. And at the next election, the prop got 55% of the vote, and passed.

Pretty quickly, of course, someone would bring a suit and a Federal judge would throw out the proposition, on grounds that it directly violates the 13th and 14th amendments.

Obviously, ballot propositions cannot be the final word, immune from any challenges or strikedown by Federal judges... IF they violate the US Constitution, as this example obviously does.

The question over Prop 8 is not whether Fed judges should have the power to strike it down. The question is whether it violates the US Constitution.

Does it?

Prop 8 codifies the fundamental definition of "marriage", which is a union between man and woman. It provides, of coourse, that a gay man or gay woman can also get married, just as a hetero man or woman can. They just can't marry the same sex (and neither can heteros). Same-sex couples are excluded. Does that violate the 14th amendment's guarantees of equal rights? Same-sex couples can have Civil Unions, of course (and so can opposite-sex couples), with all the rights and privileges of an actual marriage, but the gay advocates say that that's a case of "separate but equal", which doesn't fly.

Suppose Calif passed a ballot proposition saying that men cannot go into a public women's bathroom or locker room; and women can't go into a men's. That's traditional already, just as marriage always has been, but this propositions codifies it (makes it an actual written law). (For all I know, maybe there are already such laws on the books?) The proposition would be another example of codifying "separate but equal" facilities.

Would this proposition, also be thrown out by the same Federal judges? Should it be?

[logroller]

Suppose Calif passed a ballot proposition saying that men cannot go into a public women's bathroom or locker room; and women can't go into a men's. That's traditional already, just as marriage always has been, but this propositions codifies it (makes it an actual written law). (For all I know, maybe there are already such laws on the books?) The proposition would be another example of codifying "separate but equal" facilities.

Would this proposition, also be thrown out by the same Federal judges? Should it be?

It could be, yes. Whether it should, or not, would depend on the two separate facilities having a disparate difference. (In the prop 8 case, both parties agreed that marriage is different than domestic partnership; that marriage is superior and domestic partnership is inferior.) AND, someone, man or woman, would actually need to have a grievance and have standing to do bring a suit-- jurists don't simply go looking for problematic laws.

[OCA]

Your assurance huh? You sound like a lawyer saying "trust me". Please save me your BS here; you beliefs on gay being immoral/sinful/wrong are integral into your reasoning for gays not getting married. As for sectarian, here's some poll data:

Religion % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Protestant (43%) 65% 35%
Catholic (30%) 64% 36%
Other (11%) 33% 67%
None (16%) 10% 90%
source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2)

prop 8 said "Only a marriage between a man and woman would be vaild and recognized in CA" and voters understood that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California"
That's what voter's understood -- that Prop 8 would eliminate the right to marriage between two people of a disfavored group; homosexuals.

Two gays can legally do everything a straight couple can, except get 'married'; instead, they get a 'domestic partnership'. Perhaps you're not well versed in case law; there's this little heard of landmark case, Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka, it overturned this other obscure case Plessy vs Ferguson. In the case of Brown, it was an educational institution; in the case before us here, its the institution of marriage.
No reasonable person wants to deny another their right to better oneself, nor the right of two people to intimately bind themselves as one; some just don't want some others in their institution doing it, as CH would say, "ickying up the place". No doubt the majority of voters in the southern states would have supported a state initiative making segregation a constitutional amendment. Anyways, long story short, separate institutions for two different groups of people never are equal-- and the equal protection clause deems this unconstitutional.

In order for queers to be protected under any equal rights or protection clauses it musr first be determined that they are born that way and not that way by choice...............that has yet to happen.

By default they are not a minority and not subject to those protections.

[ConHog]

In order for queers to be protected under any equal rights or protection clauses it musr first be determined that they are born that way and not that way by choice...............that has yet to happen.

By default they are not a minority and not subject to those protections.

Can you show me where that is a requirement in order to have equal rights?

[logroller]

In order for queers to be protected under any equal rights or protection clauses it musr first be determined that they are born that way and not that way by choice...............that has yet to happen.

By default they are not a minority and not subject to those protections.


That doesn't make any sense at all.

I have the right to vote, and I must register in order to do so; I registered as a Republican, hence I have a right to vote in the republican primary; need I provide evidence i was born that way, pass some demonstrative test???
How bout someone who's born deaf and mute; are they not afforded a right to free speech; after all, they're not born that way?

I get it; you hold contempt for equality, and you have a right to do so; but can you prove to me you were born that way?

[OCA]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

I have the right to vote, and I must register in order to do so; I registered as a Republican, hence I have a right to vote in the republican primary; need I provide evidence i was born that way, pass some demonstrative test???
How bout someone who's born deaf and mute; are they not afforded a right to free speech; after all, they're not born that way?

I get it; you hold contempt for equality, and you have a right to do so; but can you prove to me you were born that way?

Apples and oranges....political affiliation vs being a queer.................lol.

[OCA]

You guys make some of the silliest arguments ever..............I just asked a random 8 year old if two guys being married is ok. Answer? "heck no!":laugh2:

Even 8 yr olds comprehend simple right and wrongs.

[logroller]

Apples and oranges....political affiliation vs being a queer.................lol.

Rights are rights, not apples. You can dismiss whatever keeps your ignorant self content-- thankfully, our system of government doesn't operate under such fallacious logic.


You guys make some of the silliest arguments ever..............I just asked a random 8 year old if two guys being married is ok. Answer? "heck no!":laugh2:

Even 8 yr olds comprehend simple right and wrongs.

Resting your laurels on a child's reasoning, why am I not surprised.
Well my two year old thinks shitting his pants is OK....which reminds me of your arguments.:poop:

[OCA]

Rights are rights, not apples. You can dismiss whatever keeps your ignorant self content-- thankfully, our system of government doesn't operate under such fallacious logic.



Resting your laurels on a child's reasoning, why am I not surprised.
Well my two year old thinks shitting his pants is OK....which reminds me of your arguments.:poop:

Oh lord, its time for the Wiggles I guess.

Answer this question kid: do you believe that its normal or natural for two men or two women to bugger each other and be married?

[Missileman]

Oh lord, its time for the Wiggles I guess.

Answer this question kid: do you believe that its normal or natural for two men or two women to bugger each other and be married?


There's nothing natural about marriage.

[OCA]

There's nothing natural about marriage.

Sure there is Mr. Elton John.

[logroller]

Oh lord, its time for the Wiggles I guess.

Answer this question kid: do you believe that its normal or natural for two men or two women to bugger each other and be married?
Wiggles? Never seen it. I'll tell you what's normal is for an adult act like one. Save your condescension for somebody who's less mature than yourself; perhaps while kissing their boo boos.:crying2:

[OCA]

Wiggles? Never seen it. I'll tell you what's normal is for an adult act like one. Save your condescension for somebody who's less mature than yourself; perhaps while kissing their boo boos.:crying2:

I love it when they get flustered.

[ConHog]

Sure there is Mr. Elton John.


]f it were natural , then EVERYONE would be married. Eating and urinating for example are natural and hence EVERYONE does it.

[Missileman]

]f it were natural , then EVERYONE would be married. Eating and urinating for example are natural and hence EVERYONE does it.

Though mating for life occurs in a few species, it is not human nature.

[ConHog]

Though mating for life occurs in a few species, it is not human nature.

Of course my belief is that originally it WAS human nature, but that nature was changed with the introduction of sin.

[jimnyc]

]f it were natural , then EVERYONE would be married. Eating and urinating for example are natural and hence EVERYONE does it.

Natural = everyone according to that post. You're only supporting OCA with a comment like that, unless of course you believe EVERYONE takes part in gay sex.

[ConHog]

Natural = everyone according to that post. You're only supporting OCA with a comment like that, unless of course you believe EVERYONE takes part in gay sex.

Why do you say that Jim? I contend that sex in general is natural, but marriage is not. And yes, I realize that not everyone actually HAS sex, but my belief is everyone would like to.

[Missileman]

Of course my belief is that originally it WAS human nature, but that nature was changed with the introduction of sin.

That would also necessitate the belief that Adam had no choice as Eve was the only game in town, NO?

[jimnyc]

Why do you say that Jim? I contend that sex in general is natural, but marriage is not. And yes, I realize that not everyone actually HAS sex, but my belief is everyone would like to.

You said if marriage were natural, then EVERYONE would be doing it. You then stated that eating and urinating are natural, hence EVERYONE does it. You even made a point of highlighting the EVERYONE both times. This is equating natural with EVERYONE doing something, but I'm confident you'll deny you just inferred that, and that you know better than I about what you meant. :lol:

[ConHog]

That would also necessitate the belief that Adam had no choice as Eve was the only game in town, NO?


Before the introduction of sin (IE When that bitch Eve tricked Adam into eating the apple LOL) I don't believe Adam even would have known what cheating was even if he had the chance or opportunity.

[ConHog]

You said if marriage were natural, then EVERYONE would be doing it. You then stated that eating and urinating are natural, hence EVERYONE does it. You even made a point of highlighting the EVERYONE both times. This is equating natural with EVERYONE doing something, but I'm confident you'll deny you just inferred that, and that you know better than I about what you meant. :lol:

At this point , I have NO idea what you are saying. I have never said that I think gay sex is natural so I'm confused at to your point.

[jimnyc]

At this point , I have NO idea what you are saying. I have never said that I think gay sex is natural so I'm confused at to your point.

You equated natural with meaning that everyone does it, EVERYONE, several times. Then you realized it when I pointed it out that not everyone has gay sex, so according to your logic, it's not natural. I stated that only helped OCA's argument. Now you'll start off by playing dumb and then go into full denial mode and dance around what you obviously said.

[Sir Evil]

At this point , I have NO idea what you are saying. I have never said that I think gay sex is natural so I'm confused at to your point.

What else is new, you have fun with your play on words until you are exposed and then play dumb fox...:rolleyes:

[ConHog]

You equated natural with meaning that everyone does it, EVERYONE, several times. Then you realized it when I pointed it out that not everyone has gay sex, so according to your logic, it's not natural. I stated that only helped OCA's argument. Now you'll start off by playing dumb and then go into full denial mode and dance around what you obviously said.

Okay, I see what you are saying now.

First of all, I said MARRIAGE wasn't natural. I in fact said I believe SEX is natural. I don't have enough evidence to PROVE that only heterosexual sex is natural (although my personal OPINION is that is the case) though.

So, saying sex is natural =/= saying either heterosexual OR gay sex is natural. BOTH could be natural, and the only thing I've ever argued about THAT is that we don't have proof that some aren't born that way even though I personally believe it's choice.

[Missileman]

Okay, I see what you are saying now.

First of all, I said MARRIAGE wasn't natural. I in fact said I believe SEX is natural. I don't have enough evidence to PROVE that only heterosexual sex is natural (although my personal OPINION is that is the case) though.

So, saying sex is natural =/= saying either heterosexual OR gay sex is natural. BOTH could be natural, and the only thing I've ever argued about THAT is that we don't have proof that some aren't born that way even though I personally believe it's choice.

Left foot green...right hand blue. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

Left foot green...right hand blue. :laugh2:


You've never held the belief that something you believe can't be proven?

[Missileman]

You've never held the belief that something you believe can't be proven?

Sure...but I avoid arguing against what I believe.

[jimnyc]

Sure...but I avoid arguing against what I believe.

LOL :lol:

[Sir Evil]

Sure...but I avoid arguing against what I believe.

:laugh2:

Kind of thought the obvious was obvious, confirmed.

[ConHog]

Sure...but I avoid arguing against what I believe.

I'm not arguing what I believe, I'm arguing that what I believe can't be proven. Would be just the same as if someone posted on here " It is FACT that there is a God " , well certainy I believe there is a God, but that isn't a fact. I BELIEVE gays choose to be gay, but the facts don't prove that. Simple as that.

And certainly saying marriage isn't natural has nothing to do with whether sex is natural anyway.

[logroller]

You said if marriage were natural, then EVERYONE would be doing it. You then stated that eating and urinating are natural, hence EVERYONE does it. You even made a point of highlighting the EVERYONE both times. This is equating natural with EVERYONE doing something, but I'm confident you'll deny you just inferred that, and that you know better than I about what you meant. :lol:



Everyone need not do it for it to be natural--and you are correct Jim. CH overstated his point using an absolute term.

[ConHog]

Everyone need not do it for it to be natural--and you are correct Jim. CH overstated his point using an absolute term.

D'oh, thanks for clearing up what Jim was getting at. Brain fart I guess.