Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Timshel]

I don't know how many times I have to catch you in a lie before you realize you can't just make shit up as you go, when debating me. I mean, as much as you lie, I am sure you slipped a couple small ones past me, but I am not buying the fish stories.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, the law prohibitied homosexual sex.

The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.”

What fucking difference does this make? I've not argued that it is, or should be, illegal to have deviate sexual intercourse. I can't help what people once established as laws of the past, it has no bearing on laws of today, or this issue. I assumed you were talking about Texas' sodomy laws... but again, this issue of the state establishing marriage based on sexual behavior, is what we're discussing. Not the sexual behavior itself. You continue to try and drag the debate there, because it allows you to claim this is bigotry against homosexuals.

You are just a fucking liar.

Well it would be nice if you could just PROVE me to be one here!

It no longer exists because the court overturned it as violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

NO DOUBT! It is very unconstitutional to have a law prohibiting certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults, I would have been appalled if they HADN'T overturned it! ....Still trying to figure out what this has to do with the state's interest in issuing a "marriage" license for a sexually deviate behavior... are you going to make that connection soon?

You HAVE argued that overturning a law that discriminates against homosexuals on the basis of the 14th must lead to overturning laws against all "sexual deviants." It has not. Why not?

I have not argued anything remotely close. There is no law to overturn in this case. It is not established into law that same-sex partners or homosexuals can obtain a marriage license, because they do not qualify for such a license. It's not discrimination, they also don't likely qualify for many licenses issued by the state...electrician's license... contractor's license... mortician's license... medical licenses... we have all kinds of things the state licenses, and they all have various criteria to obtain them. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, regardless of sexuality. To get a marriage license, the first criteria is (and always has been) that you be a man and woman.... from there, several other criteria must also be met, but none of them discriminate on the basis of your sexuality, gender, or race, if you are aptly qualified, the state issues a license for marriage.

So far, my argument has not mentioned anything about laws against sexual deviance... are ya still with me?

It is YOU who wants to "redefine" the meaning of the word "marriage" so that the state, who issues these licenses, can then issue them to a gay couple, for the purpose of them perverting the institution of marriage, and applying it to their same-sex union, which is not a marriage. This is why you need to "redefine" it! You are BIG on "state interest" so, can you possibly explain what's the "state interest" in helping gay people pervert a respectable institution and destroy an important foundational social concept? I can't see they have such an interest, to be completely honest.

I am gleaning this from your postings and the facts of Lawrence v Texas. You are pretending that Lawrence was something else and backpedaling from your comments because you are a despicable piece of shit, who is grasping at straws to find something to justify your desire to force your will on others.

Uh, no... I am pretending that I give a shit about Lawrence v Texas, and I am not having an inane conversation with a fuckwit moron right now. I once liked debating with you, and I thought you made some really good points sometimes... what the heck happened to you? Stop trying to make this an argument about Homosexuality! There is not a thing in the Constitution granting Homosexuals special considerations. It's not a "race" or a "religion" and MARRIAGE is not a discrimination against their lifestyle anyfuckingway!

Been over it. This is the same argument that was used in Loving. Equal application of the law was rejected and the court ruled that the laws still violated the Loving's 14th amendment rights.

Again, you aren't attempting to change a law here. You are attempting to redefine marriage, so that States can issue "Gay Marriage" licenses for homosexuals to pervert the institution of marriage. Loving did not decide on that issue, nor does it pertain to that issue in any way, or any argument I have ever made about that issue.

You wish to define marriage by sexual behavior. I am simply arguing that homosexuals may not be denied due process or equal protection of the law without a compelling state interest.

If Marriage were already being defined by sexual behavior, you might have a legitimate point, but marriage is not defined by sexual behavior at this time. It is the union of a man and woman, regardless of what sexual behavior defines their lifestyle. The sexuality is irrelevant to Marriage, it is the union of a man and woman, and has traditionally been understood to mean that. YOU wish to alter the definition of marriage and base it on a sexual behavior. I don't wish to alter ANYTHING!

I am not the piece of shit that believes slavery was moral, when the majority supported it. That's you.

I've never said slavery was moral, it was abhorrent. Thank God for Christian people who rallied religious white people to voice their religious moral viewpoints and impose their religious moral dogma on us as a society, because the immoral godless heathens of the time, would have kept those poor people enslaved another 100 years, if it hadn't been for them!

Bestiality is still illegal regardless of the Lawrence decision that protected rights of homosexuals. You have failed to show why Lawrence did not lead to that, but overturning prohibitions on gay marriage would. Frankly, Lawrence is far more applicable than a marriage ruling would be.

You're stuck on the sex and not marriage licensed by the state. You fail to understand, Lawrence has nothing to do with my argument against Gay Marriage, it is not about denying homosexuals the right to practice sex in the privacy of their home, or anyone else for that matter. Lawrence was about individual liberties that rightly should have been protected by the Constitution, and I have no complaint with the ruling.

My opposition to Gay Marriage is not because I believe it would create more deviate sexual behaviors... it is that our STATE GOVERNMENT would be involved in the sanctioning and endorsing of the sexual behaviors by regulating the licensing of it. This is a really BIG deal, because IF the State is so compelled to do so, the Constitution guarantees other individuals the right to the same considerations for their sexual behaviors. That is the basis the State action is being made on, therefore, the consideration has to be made, and ironically, Lawrence and Loving may serve as their 'case law' to compel the court.

 

[Bai Lan]

Stringfield makes his case worse as he goes.

What is non-religious word for priest?

 

[Southern Chicken]

This is just simple evolution, or 'de-evolution' of the species. Once we've come to a place where homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality, and gay marriage is considered equal to traditional marriage, the culture shifts... it is what we have created! Over time, it would become less popular for young people to engage in 'traditional' relationships, and more popular to explore homosexual behaviors. Remove the moral implications, and homosexual relationships have some significant advantages as far as responsibilities go, the biggest being, no children. Another would be the fundamental differences between man and woman... we tend to 'get along' better with those who think like us... women think like women, men think like men. All things being equal, and living in a culture taught to respect homosexuality on an equality with heterosexuality, and the entire concept of "Family" literally withers on the vine.

Such BS and You continue to repeat this stupidity. Who says that Homosexual couple are not able to handle the same responsibilities as heterosexual couples? As far as children goes there are avenue that a homosexual couple can take to raise them.( i.e. artificial insemination, adoption) You just keep preaching this nonsense of fear about a lost family concept. Surprise the entire concept of "Family" literally withers on the vine can also be attributed to an increase in divorce by heterosexual couples.

 

[DamnYankee]

Black/white marriages were never legal. Not in this country. Not until the "definition" of marriage was changed.

Your argument was that there were no laws making it illegal, therefore it was legal. But that is the same as saying there was no laws making same sex marriages illegal therefore it was legal.

I am just pointing out YOUR retarded hypocrisy.

During the time period that you are referring marriage was defined by the Church, which has never sanctioned queer marriage. Yet interracial marriage was common throughout history. The Norms descended from Vikings and bred with the French, Germans, English and Irish. During WWI French woman married native men from Africa. Shakespeare wrote about interracial marriage in Othello.

Stop being retarded.

 

[Bai Lan]

Stop being retarded.

Stringy can't help it. Have some compassion.

 

[Bai Lan]

Stringy gets in over his head with his language mangling bullshit.

Like his belief that words can't have an implied set of actors. Or collections of things can't have qualifications on what that collection my contain.

It's like saying "flock of dogs".

 

[DamnYankee]

Stringy can't help it. Have some compassion.

The Southern Man has no compassion for those who choose to be retards.

 

[Timshel]

Stringy gets in over his head with his language mangling bullshit.

Like his belief that words can't have an implied set of actors. Or collections of things can't have qualifications on what that collection my contain.

It's like saying "flock of dogs".

I am not the one making distinctions without a difference between "refining the definition" and "changing the definition." That's you retards. You are the ones trying to mangle the language in order to pretend that one change to who may marry changes the definition of marriage, but not another.

Once again, you fall flat on your face in attempting to make your point. "Flock" means group of animals or people. It usually refers to a group of birds. But not necessarily. It is often used to describe a religious group and it can be applied to any animal group, though it might be somewhat awkward to use.

Would you outlaw all uses of flock that does not refer to birds? That might require some Bible burning.

flock 1 (flk)
n.
1. A group of animals that live, travel, or feed together.
2. A group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church.
3. A large crowd or number: had a flock of questions.
intr.v. flocked, flock·ing, flocks
To congregate or travel in a flock or crowd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English flok, from Old English floc.]
Synonyms: flock1, herd, drove2, pack1, gang1, brood
These nouns denote a number of animals, birds, or fish considered collectively, and some have human connotations. Flock is applied to a congregation of animals of one kind, especially sheep or goats herded by people, and to any congregation of wild or domesticated birds, especially when on the ground. It is also applicable to people who form the membership of a church or to people under someone's care or supervision.
...
More http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flock

 

[DamnYankee]

I am not the one making distinctions without a difference between "refining the definition" and "changing the definition." That's you retards. You are the ones trying to mangle the language in order to pretend that one change to who may marry changes the definition of marriage, but not another.

Once again, you fall flat on your face in attempting to make your point. "Flock" means group of animals or people. It usually refers to a group of birds. But not necessarily. It is often used to describe a religious group and it can be applied to any animal group, though it might be somewhat awkward to use.

Would you outlaw all uses of flock that does not refer to birds? That might require some Bible burning.

flock 1 (flk)
n.
1. A group of animals that live, travel, or feed together.
2. A group of people under the leadership of one person, especially the members of a church.
3. A large crowd or number: had a flock of questions.
intr.v. flocked, flock·ing, flocks
To congregate or travel in a flock or crowd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English flok, from Old English floc.]
Synonyms: flock1, herd, drove2, pack1, gang1, brood
These nouns denote a number of animals, birds, or fish considered collectively, and some have human connotations. Flock is applied to a congregation of animals of one kind, especially sheep or goats herded by people, and to any congregation of wild or domesticated birds, especially when on the ground. It is also applicable to people who form the membership of a church or to people under someone's care or supervision.
...
More http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flock

How ironic and retarded. Dogs are called "packs".

 

[Bai Lan]

I am not the one making distinctions without a difference between "refining the definition" and "changing the definition."

Right. You're destroying distinctions, trying to pretend that changing is refining, you dishonest intellectual hack, caught red handed with your stupidity in full glory.

 

[Bai Lan]

LOL @ stringfield for thinking "flock of dogs" is smart talk.

 

[Damocles]

So why are they so beholden to coroporate collectives?

Because we are stupid and let them get away with it. Corporations aren't individuals and do not deserve separate rights.

 

[Damocles]

My solution relies on us not "redefining" the definition of traditional meanings or intent of words used in our lexicon, like "marriage!" If we are to go down that path, my solution is irrelevant, we will be a society which recognizes any deviant sexual right as equal under the law, because that is the established law of the land. When that is the case, the issue of "consent" can be further considered, and we will have to restrain our "moral" ideals because that again, is the standard we have set for ourselves.

Again, nobody would be "redefining" anything, in fact they'd be kept from defining it at all. You still argue against what you supposedly support, and I begin to suspect it is because you don't actually support it.

 

[Bai Lan]

Because we are stupid and let them get away with it. Corporations aren't individuals and do not deserve separate rights.

Yep. More blaming the victims. Politicians can't even get on the ballot without the money men behind them.

 

[Damocles]

sorry, your argument is bullshit.....if the government actually had anything to do with religious dogma or traditions you might have had a point worth arguing.....

Translation:

I'm going to pretend that the "one man/one woman" ideal has nothing to do with the dogma of my religion and fully support all laws that press my dogma onto others regardless of how they believe, because that's just how us religious totalitarians roll.

 

[Bai Lan]

Again, nobody would be "redefining" anything, in fact they'd be kept from defining it at all. You still argue against what you supposedly support, and I begin to suspect it is because you don't actually support it.

But it has a definition. So saying it is completely flexible is a de facto redefinition.

Are you swooping into save your fellow libertarian fascist? You will go down too.

 

[Damocles]

Yep. More blaming the victims. Politicians can't even get on the ballot without the money men behind them.

We are the government, either we step up and vote for other people or we'll continue to get it even if you make up stupid things to accuse allies with, like "blame the victim"...

How do you propose to "fix" it? I suggest you stop fighting with people with whom you agree because you don't like how they say something, even though it is the same thing as you say with different words.

 

[Damocles]

But it has a definition. So saying it is completely flexible is a de facto redefinition.

Are you swooping into save your fellow libertarian fascist? You will go down too.

Again, it has a definition that the government has no need to "enforce" or define at all. Quit being deliberately stupid. You've been owned. Or in your terminology, wipe that jizz off your chin.

 

[Bai Lan]

The real fight here is over the statist fascist sellouts ability to redefine or ignore definitions as they see fit, and then pretend they're not doing it.

The globalists want to remove the notion of family and natural reproduction from our psyche. So they can sterilize us all and then raise new citizens in a facist laborotary.