Proposition 8 vote upheld. A great victory for democracy. page 8

so the legal definition of marriage is wrong but the legal definition of consenting individual is right and for the same reason?

Yes because we have this thing called a constitution that calls for the rights of consenting individuals to be consistent and equal to other consenting individuals regardless of their features or opinions or desires, assuming they do not hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I don’t know why anyone had to spell this out to you.

Again, you’re using rhetoric and semantics to avoid the actual crux of the situation. You’re caught up in the argument and ignoring the practical. Saying that all arguments are somehow semantic doesn’t excuse you from making sense. Using your logic, a majority of people could vote to deny black people marriage, and it’d be equal since a white isn’t allowed to marry a black either.

Originally posted by darkninja210:

Originally posted by Carados:

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

they should pass gangs are not longer legal that would put a stop to the gang violence.

Gangs aren’t the problem. It’s drugs, guns, and money that are

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Again, you’re using rhetoric and semantics to avoid the actual crux of the situation. You’re caught up in the argument and ignoring the practical. Saying that all arguments are somehow semantic doesn’t excuse you from making sense. Using your logic, a majority of people could vote to deny black people marriage, and it’d be equal since a white isn’t allowed to marry a black either.

That’s not a valid analogy. The ban against homosexuals marrying isn’t against them marrying period – just marrying each other. The correct analogy would be a ban against same-race marriage – if the legal definition of marriage said marriage must be between members of different races.

Originally posted by leo828:

Originally posted by darkninja210:

Originally posted by Carados:

It isn’t a victory for democracy, its a failure.

Maybe you should go learn the purpose of the Judaical branch.

Also, this ruling makes it legal for California to pass laws such as “Black people aren’t allowed in California.” and it would be perfectly legal.

they should pass gangs are not longer legal that would put a stop to the gang violence.

Gangs aren’t the problem. It’s drugs, guns, and money that are

i could of swore thats drugs were capable of doing good. same with money. and guns are all about users intent the objects are not the problem its people. which is why things like proposition 8 failed its because of the people. but if you didnt notice i was being sarcastic because gang activities are already illegal the point is that it does nothing.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Marriage is not a right as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court disagrees. See Loving v. Virginia. Or do you think Miscegenation is cool and we should go back to banning interracial marriages?

To quote the ruling:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

I stand corrected. I had not realized that the USSC had made that statement. However, notice the statement following: “fundamental to our very existence and survival”. Homosexual marriage will not allow us to exist and survive as they do not procreate. Humans exist to have babies. Can’t have that in a homosexual marriage, and yes, I know about the “pregnant man”. That was a bunch of hogwash as I don’t consider her a man.

Even the African-Americans are appalled that the homosexuals are claiming this is a civil rights issue akin to the marches of the 1960’s.

Yeah, and the Irish were appalled at the filthy coolies during the Yellow scare of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, never mind that the Irish had it just as bad a few decades before. What the hell does that prove, beyond the fact that Americans tend to be a bit shortsighted when it comes to giving a group its rights?

It is nothing of the sort. It’s a group of people who are trying to force an immoral issue on the rest of America.

Again, what does your morality have to do with the law. to go back to Miscegenation, it was once argued that interracial marriage was an affront to God and morality. If you can accept that, why can’t you at least be open to accept others? Your ‘morality’ seems to involve squandering the rights of others under the guise of righteousness, which I find quite morally reprehensible.

And interracial marriage was a totally different matter. You’re proving my point, trying to make this a civil rights issue for homosexuals. Interracial relations is not sinful. Maybe at on time it was considered so, but it was wrongly considered so.

As for homosexuality, it is considered immoral by the majority of this country, by God, the Bible, etc. It’s along the same lines as lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. The laws of this land are based on the Ten Commandments. Should we throw those out if we allow one immoral act to be allowed?

I stand corrected. I had not realized that the USSC had made that statement. However, notice the statement following: “fundamental to our very existence and survival”. Homosexual marriage will not allow us to exist and survive as they do not procreate. Humans exist to have babies. Can’t have that in a homosexual marriage, and yes, I know about the “pregnant man”. That was a bunch of hogwash as I don’t consider her a man.

Read the text again. The statement does not say that it is the sole reason for marriage, nor the sole benefit.

And interracial marriage was a totally different matter. You’re proving my point, trying to make this a civil rights issue for homosexuals. Interracial relations is not sinful. Maybe at on time it was considered so, but it was wrongly considered so.

Who cares if it is sinful or not? That has nothing to do with it. Following another religion is sinful; should we force everyone to convert to Christianity? What about Divorce, should we get rid of that? Or might it be that the separation between church and state means that it doesn’t matter how ‘sinful’ it is, because your beliefs are not fact, and are certainly not law.

As for homosexuality, it is considered immoral by the majority of this country, by God, the Bible, etc. It’s along the same lines as lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. The laws of this land are based on the Ten Commandments. Should we throw those out if we allow one immoral act to be allowed?

I think that Muslims are immoral, as many people in the country don’t like them and they are to be denounced as heathens because the Bible strictly states that we must follow God. Let’s get rid of them! Hooray for bigotry and idiocy!

SithDoughnut,

Are you done making non-arguments?

Originally posted by TheoSoft:

SithDoughnut,

Are you done making non-arguments?

Are you?

Homosexual marriage will not allow us to exist and survive as they do not procreate. Humans exist to have babies.

Which would become an issue if 100% of the population was gay. Animal societies without external management as to the regulation of “marital” relationships show no evidence of a move towards 100%, or even 25%, homosexuality.

Originally posted by FuzzyBacon:

Originally posted by TheoSoft:

SithDoughnut,

Are you done making non-arguments?

Are you?

What non-argument have I made? SithDoughnut is just spouting off, not making any logical sense.

Sorry, I should clarify. Are you done making arguments that are not logically sound or grounded in the evidence?

And where is Sith not making sense?

Originally posted by TheoSoft:

SithDoughnut,

Are you done making non-arguments?

Evidentally, I did not make enough sense the first time. I’ll re-phrase my points.

1) The text of the Supreme Court statement did not say that marriage was solely for existence and survival. It also defined it as a fundamental freedom for everyone. Therefore, marriage is not solely for children; homosexuals can still marry and be more productive as a result.

Don’t forget that there are many children who need adopting as well. Many heterosexual couples would prefer to have their own child, instead of consdiering adoption. However, homosexuals do not have that option. If they want a child, they will have to adopt. As you oppose abortion, you must obviously prefer to have many more child who need to adopt. Therefore, a homosexual couple is the best option, as they will not have their own children to worry about.

2) Whether something is ‘sinful’ or not does not come into the equation. In the US there are many different believers and non-believers, all of whom think different things are ‘sinful’. Many things considered sinful in the Bible, such as divorce, are legal in America. Should they all be banned as well?

3) Immorality is a personal opinion. What you think is moral is not the same as the next person. Personal opinion should not dictate a law that affects everyone, especially when it restricts a certain groups right.

4) The laws of the land were once based upon the Bible. That is no longer the case; they exist because they are benefitial to society. Last time I checked, homosexuality was not denounced in the Ten Commandments, so that argument was entirely pointless. If you allow it, murder or stealing are not going to suddenly become legal.

Homosexual marriage will not allow us to exist and survive as they do not procreate.

The second premise does not follow from the first. There is more to survival than procreation, say the ability to raise children. Considering the thousands of kids in foster care (ahem mister anti-abortion), it would be extremely beneficial to society to have more couples that raise more children than they produce.

And interracial marriage was a totally different matter. You’re proving my point, trying to make this a civil rights issue for homosexuals. Interracial relations is not sinful. Maybe at on time it was considered so, but it was wrongly considered so.

Just like homosexual relations. If you are going to argue based on tradition, have the common sense to realize how to correlate it properly.

As for homosexuality, it is considered immoral by the majority of this country, by God, the Bible, etc.

Again incorrect. A healthy majority considers it worth legalizing, spitting in the face of that argument. Not that it matters. If the majority of Americans think blacks are immoral and should be slaves that doesn’t mean we should enforce laws based on that.

It’s along the same lines as lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc.

No, because it does not affect you in any way. You are trying to keep equal rights not because of what it does, but how you feel about it. This is far more criminal and spiteful than anything homosexuals have ever done.

The laws of this land are based on the Ten Commandments.

No they aren’t. Not that it matters either way.

Also note, your dogmatic interpretations of scriptures are not the only accepted ones. The church is seriously facing a split over this issue, and the situation will continue as people open their eyes and stop hating.

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

notallama: How do you make conclusions 6 and 7?

What pooky (and I, and syneil) have said is that amendment 14 DOES NOT APPLY here. You need to figure out another way to make this unconstitutional otherwise, it’s perfectly acceptable in our representative democracy.

yes, you did say that. but you are wrong.

6 comes from:
“equal rights” and “men can marry women”
so if men are allowed to marry women, then women must be given the same right to marry women.

7 works the same way.

note: this argument has nothing to do with sexual orientation. the laws are unconstitutuinal without even considering gay rights, because they are sexist.

The laws of this land are based on the Ten Commandments.

The constitution is based on, the principals of the French philosopher John Locke…

and the Declaration of the rights of Man and Citizens.

I made a thread to address the slippery slope.

lol sorry for the late reply
my internet crapped out last night
i’m surprised my last post got in

but the reference to me being afraid
of gays and being a bigot were what i found to be the most amusing

Ignorance is the word of the day
as it is so often
Everytime someone doesn’t agree with your idea or presents
a differing your view
you automatically call them discriminatory or stupid or evil or whatever

wrong i was simply stating a fact, no personal feeling beyond that
The laws against same-sex marriage affect every person gay or straight
thus it’s not discriminatory

Gay parents,
And yes studies have also been found that children with gay/transgender parents
can grow up normally and most often become more accepting of new ideas
such as gays, transgenders, etc..

but the point being there’s still the other crowd which is especially affected by adopted children
children grow up feeling different, confused, which can lead to numerous developmental problems

go study child development if you don’t believe

as i’ve stated(atleast i think i did)

i’m not specifically against gay parents
i’m against all unsuitable parents
too-young, racist, poor, and parents who are simply not ready

people don’t realize how important our children are to the future of humanity
they should be well taken care of, well educated, raised without thoughtless ideals
without discrimination(cough without religion*cough*)
and with a sense that they’re important and that they can do something to better the world

if it was my choice i’d make a law forbidding anyone who hasn’t taken a test
to become a good parent to have children.

anyways..
i’m getting off topic..

i’ve said my point

as ive noticed just because you have a right doesnt mean it isnt infringed upon. its clear to me that people decide how much of a right is actually given by a right. as in right to bear arms shall not be infringed can be in fringed or right to free speech can be limited. so while wrong rights for gay marriage are just nonexistent……maybe if we as a country stopped letting rights get taken away having rights might mean something.

You should get out of child development as soon as possible, please. You grossly misunderstand the social constructs of children, or the necessary requirements for a happy child. Yes, there are poor parents, but all studies related to gay/trans parents shows absolutely no negative family constructs. What you’re talking about is the social interaction with bigots, not an actual natural phenomenon. Saying “Go look it up” is a bad defense. Would you like me to do a quoteblock and point out major studies that directly oppose some of the claims you’ve made?

And I called you a homophobe, implying you have homophobia and associate illogical fears with homosexuality, like the possibility that their children will be ridiculed and then arguing this is a reason to bar homosexuals from adopting. I think you fit that pretty well, even if you don’t hate gays.

but the point being there’s still the other crowd which is especially affected by adopted children
children grow up feeling different, confused, which can lead to numerous developmental problems

And yet, as you say above, studies have been done that show children with gay parents can grow up normally. Are there any that show the opposite?

You say you’re not just against gay parents, but all ‘unsuitable’ parents. What specifically makes gay parents unsuitable? If it’s other people’s reactions to them, that’s their own problem and isn’t grounds to ban it.

gay marriage is a tax issue, the whole reason behind giving married couples a tax break was to encourage marriage and hence childbirth which would give more work force to pay taxes, hence more money in the long run, so the only way i could see allowing homosexual couples to marry is if they either have kids of their own in lesbian couples, or adopt atleast 2 kids in gay couples. but that is my PC version, you don’t want to hear my personal beliefs.

edit: and not call it marriage because it would be a compromise, so the gays get to be together, and the anti-gay marriage get what they want, they aren’t married they are joined.

The laws against same-sex marriage affect every person gay or straight
thus it’s not discriminatory

So miscegenation was ok because it allowed marriage between a man and women, so long as one wasn’t black and the other white? If you say that all groups except X can do Y, it is discrimination. There is no question there. You have yet to give one good argument as to why that should be allowed.

but the point being there’s still the other crowd which is especially affected by adopted children
children grow up feeling different, confused, which can lead to numerous developmental problems

Welcome to childhood, where children treat each other like shit for wearing the wrong t-shirt. Let’s not bar civil rights because of it, especially when it is easily remedied by making such situations socially acceptable.

go study child development if you don’t believe

Yeah, done that. Still think you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

You know what the problem with the whole “we can’t subject children to experimental families” nonsense is? Every family is an experimental family. A lack of evidence that long-term harm can result only makes it all the more pointless to bring up.

gay marriage is a tax issue, the whole reason behind giving married couples a tax break was to encourage marriage and hence childbirth which would give more work force to pay taxes, hence more money in the long run, so the only way i could see allowing homosexual couples to marry is if they either have kids of their own in lesbian couples, or adopt atleast 2 kids in gay couples. but that is my PC version, you don’t want to hear my personal beliefs.

Actually that is an incorrect deduction. Let’s say too many people have children, thus creating a problem with children who need adoption (you know, like the one we have). The most economical solution would be to have families that cannot produce children of their own raise those children (you know, like gay couples). Even if they don’t have children, they are creating taxes while costing almost nothing to the state, an obviously beneficial arrangement. Thus economically speaking gay couples are better for the nation than straight couples.

Originally posted by moses78:

gay marriage is a tax issue, the whole reason behind giving married couples a tax break was to encourage marriage and hence childbirth which would give more work force to pay taxes, hence more money in the long run, so the only way i could see allowing homosexual couples to marry is if they either have kids of their own in lesbian couples, or adopt atleast 2 kids in gay couples.

How does that follow? Do we only allow heterosexual couples to marry if they promise to have at least 2 children?

but that is my PC version, you don’t want to hear my personal beliefs.

sure we do

Originally posted by unproductive:

Originally posted by moses78:

gay marriage is a tax issue, the whole reason behind giving married couples a tax break was to encourage marriage and hence childbirth which would give more work force to pay taxes, hence more money in the long run, so the only way i could see allowing homosexual couples to marry is if they either have kids of their own in lesbian couples, or adopt atleast 2 kids in gay couples. but that is my PC version, you don’t want to hear my personal beliefs.

How does that follow? Do we only allow heterosexual couples to marry if they promise to have at least 2 children?

it is an old idea, we could change that as well, but i was thinking more along the lines of how to clear up the foster homes faster.

I like how moses gets to make it a tax issue instead of a rights issue by saying as much. I love veiled anti-gay arguments.