Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

dixon76710 said:
No, the laws were changed to comply with the US Constitution. Purifying the white race, NOT a legitimate governmental purpose. Improving the well being of children IS such a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...

And your arguments to prove that THIS is why marriage is reserved to one man and one woman, and how that furthers a legitimate governmental interest, have failed though out this debate. 50% of married people get divorced, leaving children in a one parent household. Tens of thousands of children are born out of wedlock, leaving them in a one parent household. The two little boys whose dad hacked them up and then set fire to their house were raised in a two parent, one man, one woman household until dad killed her leaving them in a one parent household. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does little in this day and age to to improve the well being of children. You will also discover if you look deeper, that most studies that say a two parent household was better than a one parent household were not controlled for economic factors. My brother and I lived in a one parent household for a time , with a father that made over 250k per year. Our lives rocked.
 
dixon76710 said:
You could, without offending the constitution. Doesnt follow that we must to avoid offending the constitution. As well half of births are unplanned. Born to couples who did not "decide" to have children, it just happened. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children that result from unplanned pregnancies.
Click to expand...

You try to take away the tax breaks and governmental entitlements from hetrosexual couples, just because they don't have children and you would need to relocate to a country that doesn't extridite to the US.

Care to show that 1/2 of births are unplanned?
 
Dixie said:
It seems to me, you have been saying this since before DOMA passed.

Keep pushing Gay Marriage, keep trying to lobby the courts to "enact change" from the bench.... YOU WILL GET A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!

I'm sorry, but we've encountered this sort of thing before, and that is what happened. The people don't like for you to force things down their throat against the will of the people.... it's not cool. So we can keep on giving you civics lessons, on how the courts and laws work, and how things are determined constitutional, and we can continue to watch elected representatives run from the Gay Marriage issue because it's just not popular with constituents. But the line will be drawn at judicial tyranny, we won't stand for it.
Click to expand...

And now, Dixie reverts back to the time of segregation:
"...The people don't like for you to force things down their throat against the will of the people..."
 
Dixie said:
No, it can be stopped fairly easily. If SCOTUS overturns the CA appeals court ruling, it's stopped. If they uphold it, constitutional amendments can be passed and ratified, there are easily enough votes for that, should it come to it. So either way, it will be stopped, and all without violence.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

"The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s.[8] The issue became more prominent in U.S. politics once Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. However, in the opening decade of the 21st century, public support for its legalization grew considerably.[9] Contemporary polls show that a majority of Americans support same sex marriage."
 
Socrtease said:
Now back to your regularly scheduled ASS WHOOPING. So you think that pedophiles could successfully lobby to get sex with children made legal? The act itself is illegal, homosexuality is not. I don't know how a goat could consent, but I could ask you how you consent, because you are being the most obtuse horse's ass here.
Click to expand...

In 1965, it was illegal to fuck people in the ass! We locked people up for that, it was a sex crime! You sit here and naively act like homosexuality has always been accepted by society, and it hasn't. Things change, cultural acceptance for things change... who's to say that in the future, some push might be made to un-restrict the laws regarding age of consent? Who are we to judge their lifestyle choice? Who are we to deny them the ability to "marry the one they love?" All of your same arguments come back to slap you upside your silly head. Children as young as 8..9..10... are as socially advanced as 15-16 year olds were in the 60s, when most of those old age laws were written... what with all the new social media and internet... Tell me you can't see a possible argument being made, idiot? Hell, I can see that hag, Nancy Pelosi, standing up there proclaiming it a great day for American youth, that pre-teens will now have full rights! Our youth are the backbone to our future! Rahh Rahh Rahh!
 
Socrtease said:
And your arguments to prove that THIS is why marriage is reserved to one man and one woman, and how that furthers a legitimate governmental interest, have failed though out this debate.
Click to expand...

No, you people just keep claiming that they have failed

Socrtease said:
50% of married people get divorced, leaving children in a one parent household. Tens of thousands of children are born out of wedlock, leaving them in a one parent household.
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point. There are fewer children born out of wedlock and fewer children in single parent homes. No one has claimed it eliminates children born to single mothers. It REDUCES the # of children born to single mothers and INCREASES the # of children with the benefit of both their parents in the home. The world is not black and white like the simplistic mind longs for it to be.

Socrtease said:
The two little boys whose dad hacked them up and then set fire to their house were raised in a two parent, one man, one woman household until dad killed her leaving them in a one parent household. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman does little in this day and age to to improve the well being of children. You will also discover if you look deeper, that most studies that say a two parent household was better than a one parent household were not controlled for economic factors. My brother and I lived in a one parent household for a time , with a father that made over 250k per year. Our lives rocked.
Click to expand...

If all single parents made $250,000, you might of had a point.
 
Dixie said:
In 1965, it was illegal to fuck people in the ass! We locked people up for that, it was a sex crime! You sit here and naively act like homosexuality has always been accepted by society, and it hasn't. Things change, cultural acceptance for things change... who's to say that in the future, some push might be made to un-restrict the laws regarding age of consent? Who are we to judge their lifestyle choice? Who are we to deny them the ability to "marry the one they love?" All of your same arguments come back to slap you upside your silly head. Children as young as 8..9..10... are as socially advanced as 15-16 year olds were in the 60s, when most of those old age laws were written... what with all the new social media and internet... Tell me you can't see a possible argument being made, idiot? Hell, I can see that hag, Nancy Pelosi, standing up there proclaiming it a great day for American youth, that pre-teens will now have full rights! Our youth are the backbone to our future! Rahh Rahh Rahh!
Click to expand...

That affected heterosexually people, as well as homosexual men.
I'm not sure how much lesbians were affected by the law. :)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That affected heterosexually people, as well as homosexual men.
I'm not sure how much lesbians were affected by the law. :)
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is, SocHead would have us believe, if it is illegal and wrong today, that's how it shall always be. It wasn't long ago, homosexual sex was against the law. It is an insult to my intelligence to accept such a naive view of things. Laws concerning age of consent, as well as the very definition of "consent" can be changed and altered to fit whatever perverted desire our society can generate in the future. Especially once you've dismantled religion and prohibit government from recognizing it, Hell's gates are open then, and you'll have the Fall of Rome all over again.....It's all been done before...woo-ooo-ooo-hooooo!
 
Dixie said:
That's not the point. The point is, SocHead would have us believe, if it is illegal and wrong today, that's how it shall always be. It wasn't long ago, homosexual sex was against the law. It is an insult to my intelligence to accept such a naive view of things. Laws concerning age of consent, as well as the very definition of "consent" can be changed and altered to fit whatever perverted desire our society can generate in the future. Especially once you've dismantled religion and prohibit government from recognizing it, Hell's gates are open then, and you'll have the Fall of Rome all over again.....It's all been done before...woo-ooo-ooo-hooooo!
Click to expand...

Damn if you don't sound exactly like those that argued against allowing inter-racial marriage.
I wonder why that is?

The Sodomy laws were also prohibiting heterosexuals from engaging in the same behaior; unless you truly want to believe that heterosexual men had never engaged in anal sex or blow jobs from women.

No one is dismantling religion and no one is forcing anyone to participate in a same sex marriage.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Damn if you don't sound exactly like those that argued against allowing inter-racial marriage.
I wonder why that is?

The Sodomy laws were also prohibiting heterosexuals from engaging in the same behaior; unless you truly want to believe that heterosexual men had never engaged in anal sex or blow jobs from women.

No one is dismantling religion and no one is forcing anyone to participate in a same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Try to get it through your ignorantly bigoted head, homosexuality is not a RACE.

The reason people oppose Gay Marriage has nothing to do with fear they will be forced to enter into one, moron. Stop acting like a goofy 14 year old punk.
 
Damn if you don't sound exactly like those that argued against allowing inter-racial marriage.
Click to expand...

I imagine, back when the debate was being had, someone may have posited the 'what if' in such a manner:

Protagonist: If we allow interracial marriages, next thing you know, homosexual males will want to marry each other!
Advocate: Nonsense! Homo sex is illegal, that would never happen!
 
Dixie said:
Try to get it through your ignorantly bigoted head, homosexuality is not a RACE.

The reason people oppose Gay Marriage has nothing to do with fear they will be forced to enter into one, moron. Stop acting like a goofy 14 year old punk.
Click to expand...

It's the only thing that makes any sense, seeing as how your comments haven't made any.
Since you haven't presented anything to support your fears, it's beginning to appear that you're afraid that you'll have to marry a guy and engage in homosexual sex.
:awesome:
 
Dixie said:
I imagine, back when the debate was being had, someone may have posited the 'what if' in such a manner:

Protagonist: If we allow interracial marriages, next thing you know, homosexual males will want to marry each other!
Advocate: Nonsense! Homo sex is illegal, that would never happen!
Click to expand...

Nope, more like the following:


It wasn't long ago, interracial marriage was against the law. It is an insult to my intelligence to accept such a naive view of things. Laws concerning racial marriage, as well as the very definition of marriage can be changed and altered to fit whatever perverted desire our society can generate in the future. Especially once you've dismantled religion and prohibit government from recognizing it, Hell's gates are open then, and you'll have the Fall of Rome all over again.....It's all been done before...woo-ooo-ooo-hooooo!
 
poet said:
If. Moron. Can't you see the writing on the wall? The country is moving toward tolerance and acceptance.
Click to expand...

The institution of marriage, as old as civilization itself, isnt an expression of tolerance and acceptance of heterosexuals and heterosexuality. Not intended to foster "respect" and "dignity" for heterosexuals. Absurd to insist that it be used to foster respect and dignity, tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top