Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Yurt said:
no shit sherlock. do you even know what this thread is about?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was correcting YOU who claimed

Yurt said:
they have already granted gays the right to marry
Click to expand...

Yurt said:
you refer to the gay judge, however, this is a 9th circ. ruling,
Click to expand...

Its a 9th circuit ruling ON the gay judges decision.

Yurt said:
we are past the district court. nice to know you think that homosexuality renders one incapable of being a judge.
Click to expand...

Revealing isnt it, that this is what you interpret the meaning of the word "gay" to mean. Are you one of them self loathing homosexuals?
 
Yurt said:
further, couples have issue all the time without marriage. your analogy to accidents falls flat, as many couples know in advance whether they can or even want kids.
Click to expand...

Over 50% of births are UNplanned. Unplanned births are ONLY an issue among heterosexual couples. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Gay sex has NO such tendency.
 
poet said:
Eventually, DOMA will fall, and marriage will be open to all consenting adults, regardless of gender.
It's like trying to stop time.
Click to expand...

Probably eventually, but all these court cases dont extend marriage to any two consenting adults but instead extend marriage to gays.

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny."


Its only excluding gays and lesbians that they consider to be a violation of constitutional rights, using the logic that the limitation is intended to exclude homosexuals as opposed to intended to include heterosexual couples. ABSURD logic.
 
dixon76710 said:
Yeah, I was correcting YOU who claimed





Its a 9th circuit ruling ON the gay judges decision.



Revealing isnt it, that this is what you interpret the meaning of the word "gay" to mean. Are you one of them self loathing homosexuals?
Click to expand...

you really have no idea what this case is about. your correction of me is dead wrong. i suggest you read the first couple of pages of the 9th circ. decision in order to avoid further embarrassment.

what does his sexuality have to do with anything? and you're now dishonestly characterizing what you said...you said:

Now its possible this gay judge will grant the rights of gays to marry, but that will only happen if it makes its way through the appeals process.
Click to expand...

1. it is no longer a possibility, he already ruled; 2. it has made its way through the appeals process and will either go en banc or scotus. nice try, but you just showed you have no clue what you're talking about.


your last sentence is just a desperate attempt to deflect away from your stupidity. are you one of those closet homosexuals who hates homosexuals because you know deep down you are one? see how that works?
 
dixon76710 said:
Probably eventually, but all these court cases dont extend marriage to any two consenting adults but instead extend marriage to gays.

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny."


Its only excluding gays and lesbians that they consider to be a violation of constitutional rights, using the logic that the limitation is intended to exclude homosexuals as opposed to intended to include heterosexual couples. ABSURD logic.
Click to expand...

this post makes zero sense. i bet you think scotus was wrong to "grant" interracial couples the right to marry.....
 
dixon76710 said:
Over 50% of births are UNplanned. Unplanned births are ONLY an issue among heterosexual couples. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Gay sex has NO such tendency.
Click to expand...

irrelevant. non married people have children, married people who have children divorce.

i'll state again my stance:

the government should get out of marriage and grant all adults engaging in legal relationships, a civil union and leave marriage up to individuals...eg...be it a church, a temple whatever
 
poet said:
That was until gays and lesbians "woke up" and realized they were being denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and demanded equal treatment, under Let's hope polygamists "wake up" as well. I shudder at the thought of all consenting adults not getting what they want.
Click to expand...
 
Granule said:
poet said:
That was until gays and lesbians "woke up" and realized they were being denied the rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and demanded equal treatment, under Let's hope polygamists "wake up" as well. I shudder at the thought of all consenting adults not getting what they want.
Click to expand...

I don't get equating polygamy to a same-sex marriage. I would equate polygamy as unnatural as someone marrying their dog, or a close relative. It doesn't make sense, in my mind.
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
this post makes zero sense. i bet you think scotus was wrong to "grant" interracial couples the right to marry.....
Click to expand...

Are ya dumb as dirt or just too full of emotion and hormones to be able to comprehend the written wrd?

dixon76710 said:
Interracl couples procreate just like same race couples. The children of interracial couples can benefit from the entitlements of marriage, just as much as children of same race couples. Government has just as much interest in the wellbeing of children from interracial couples as they do children of same race couples.

Purifying the white race is NOT a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
Innate sexual orientation v. adult behaviour. People don't choose their orientation.
Click to expand...

...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT
 
Yurt said:
do you believe that any law created by referendum (which amended the constitution of CA) should never fall under the perview of the judicial system? what if the majority passed a law making slavery of chinese immigrants legal?
Click to expand...

Dont be silly. Improving the well being of children is a legitimate governmental interest. Enslaving the chinese is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top