CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
Did you want to dispute something Ive said or just a generic whine to offer in response?
Click to expand...

Every single thing you've said on this thread has already been disputed. You got your ass handed to you on this thread. Just because you keep repeating the same debunked posts long after everyone else has lost interest in your nonsense, doesn't mean you accomplished anything.

You're a wordy fool. And you've been exposed to everyone other than alias. Who is just a fool.
 
If the Supreme Court Strikes down the Health Care Bill (and I lose my insurance) will you be mad at the Supreme Court for overturning the will of the people?
 
Alias said:
The innocent life is held sacred. I'll take it that you're always for "The Children" unless the children happen to be in the womb. Too bad for them.
Click to expand...

What about the innocent Iraqis killed in bush's war? What about innocent people killed by the state, i.e. capital punishment? What about innocent children dying because their parents aren't paid a living wage? What about the innocent homosexuals killed by bigots? What about the innocent African-Americans killed by racists?
 
Darla said:
Every single thing you've said on this thread has already been disputed. You got your ass handed to you on this thread. Just because you keep repeating the same debunked posts long after everyone else has lost interest in your nonsense, doesn't mean you accomplished anything.

You're a wordy fool. And you've been exposed to everyone other than alias. Who is just a fool.
Click to expand...

Oh, for sure. Everyone is a fool who disagrees with you. Yup, yup. We're all racist, bigots and fools. Yup, yup.
 
dixon76710 said:
I cant marry my brother. If I marry my platonic friend, the state has laws that dissolve marriages for a failure to consumate the relationship. Nothing special about homosexuals that would warrant such special treatment.
Click to expand...

I've asked you before; but you failed to step up to the challange.
Show me one recent case (within the last 10 years) where a platonic marriage was dissolved, for the failure to consumate the marriage.
 
dixon76710 said:
Well, certainly not down at the gay bath house but in courts of law, across the country, it is all the justification needed
Click to expand...

No it is not. If that is all the justification needed to keep gay marriage illegal, then it is all the justification needed to make divorce illegal as well. It should also be enough justification to make it against the law for unmarried women to get pregnant.

And it should be plenty of justififcation to prevent married couples who do not procreate from getting the benefits the gov't gives married couples.

You want one set of rules for gays and another for straights. You may claim it is about procreation and protection of children, but until you hold straight couples to the same standards it sounds far more like bigotry.
 
dixon76710 said:
You make no sense. Like I said, adoptive parents is more beneficial to children when compared to orphanages or foster care. Laws to improve the well being of children serve a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...

Allowing gays to marry would improve the well being of children born to lesbians by allowing them to have two parents who are legally responsible for them. It would also provide for the well being of children adopted by gay men by providing the same protections afforded those children born to married straights in an intact family.
 
dixon76710 said:
I cant marry my brother. If I marry my platonic friend, the state has laws that dissolve marriages for a failure to consumate the relationship. Nothing special about homosexuals that would warrant such special treatment.
Click to expand...

Except that you and your friend will not consummate the marriage, whereas gays will. Consummating a marriage is not about conceiving a child, it is the first act of intercourse after the wedding ceremony.
 
Jarod said:
If the Supreme Court Strikes down the Health Care Bill (and I lose my insurance) will you be mad at the Supreme Court for overturning the will of the people?
Click to expand...

I don't think they'll strike down that portion of the law, Jarod. Only the part that tells you what to buy and from whom.
 
Southern Chicken said:
I think plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger pretty well dispenses with the idea that Baker v. Nelson controls here.
Click to expand...

"here" being Judge Walkers Court, obviously so since he denied the motion for summary judgement and doesnt as much as even mention Baker V Nelson in his entire opinion.

I thought you were speaking more generally outside of Judge Waikers court. And I wasnt offering either case as binding precedent in the prop 8 case and was instead offering it as general precedent that show a laws overinclusiveness isnt even an issue, let alone the fatal flaw that you people seem to think renders marriage limited to heterosexuals, unconstitutional. Hell, most bright line distinctions are usually BOTH overinclusive AND underinclusive. Marriage ia at least only overinclusive
 
Darla said:
Every single thing you've said on this thread has already been disputed.
Click to expand...

Well, here is what Rana quoted

dixon76710 said:
???? No, even in modern society it is only women who become mothers and men who become fathers. Its biology, not some old fashioned, paternaloistic views of the roles of women.
Click to expand...

Darla said:
You got your ass handed to you on this thread. Just because you keep repeating the same debunked posts long after everyone else has lost interest in your nonsense, doesn't mean you accomplished anything.

You're a wordy fool. And you've been exposed to everyone other than alias. Who is just a fool.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think Ive demonstrated your detachment from reality and my continued grasp, if you think Ive gotten my ass handed to me on the above assertion.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Special treatment???????marriage is a fundmental right, and as the State's traditional legal definition of the right to marry was - in every state that had a legal definition - gender neutral until starting in 1973,
Click to expand...

From the 1971 Baker v Nelson case referring to the Minn Statute

Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom"http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/bakrvnel.htm
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
It was said in response to your comment, here:

Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
I would say yes because preventing them from marrying would likely be viewed as a restriction on their freedom of religion.

So what was your point again?
Click to expand...

"Them" referring to those who would view marriage as an exercise of ther religion. Would of thought it to be obvious from the context. Big three religions doctrines view sex outside of marriage as improper. No religious prohibitions of gey sex because it takes place outside of marriage.
 
WinterBorn said:
Except that you and your friend will not consummate the marriage, whereas gays will. .
Click to expand...

Right, now explain to me why people who consummate the relationship have a right to marriage while those who do not, do not have the rights to marriage. Cant just point to a difference and procaim it to be justification for discriminatory treatment. You have to point to some legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of couples who consummate, but not served if they have not. Any suggestions?
 
I always find these discussions fascinating because to date NO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW CAN FORCE A RELIGIOUS INSITUTION TO CHANGE IT RULES/LAWS/DOCTRINES TO ACCEPT AND PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES.

So essentially, all the initial bally-hoo is about the legal benefits of "marriage" by the State as opposed to "unions".

Personally, I could care less about what adults do...it's this nonsense about raising kids to prove "equality" or "normality" that I disagree to. But since there's no federal law passed that bans gay couples from adopting or "having" children through artificial insemination/surrogacy or via divorce, society will have to play out that card.
 
dixon76710 said:
Right, now explain to me why people who consummate the relationship have a right to marriage while those who do not, do not have the rights to marriage. Cant just point to a difference and procaim it to be justification for discriminatory treatment. You have to point to some legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of couples who consummate, but not served if they have not. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

The gov't interest is the creation of a solid family unit. Whether that unit is headed by a man and a woman or two men or two women does not change the fact that the solid family unit is the cornerstone of society. Married couples increase home sales, community participation in the education system, stability in local economy and more. The family unit creates roots in a given area. They have a vested interest in the economy, the local government, the education system, and the overall quality of life that single folks do not have.

It is the equivelent of the difference between home owners and rentors. Home owners have a vested interest in their property, so they maintain it and improve it, whereas rentors are temporary by nature and usually don't maintain properties as well and rarely improve them.
 
WinterBorn said:
The gov't interest is the creation of a solid family unit. Whether that unit is headed by a man and a woman or two men or two women does not change the fact that the solid family unit is the cornerstone of society.
Click to expand...

Come on. Now explain why couples who consummate the relationship get the benefits a solid family unit and people who dont consummate do not get those benefits. Single mom and grandmother down the street have a beautiful solid family with three kids and yet they would be denied these benefits, but two 18 yr old boys, young dumb and full of cum do get the benefits of marriage because theyve rubbed genitals. Any possible justification for such discrimination.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Personally, I could care less about what adults do...it's this nonsense about raising kids to prove "equality" or "normality" that I disagree to. But since there's no federal law passed that bans gay couples from adopting or "having" children through artificial insemination/surrogacy or via divorce, society will have to play out that card.
Click to expand...

Why? Any two people could adopt a child. Why the special treatment for two people who happen to be gay? Its not like being gay is equally beneficial to children as biological parents, requiring the same preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top