CA Prop. 8 shot down

[Alias]

I wasn't talking to you. I already know you know nothing.

This has nothing to do with tyranny by the majority over a minority. Queers are not a minority. Deciding to have sex with someone of the same sex does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage. Defending our American culture and heritage is not "tyranny". Dumb ass.

 

[cawacko]

"Liberal"? Give me some time to post some more. Ill clear up that misconception.

That was on the other board. I don't think anyone is going to call you a liberal on this board.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

"Liberal"? Give me some time to post some more. Ill clear up that misconception.

No need. I knew by your second post that you weren't. That's why I was perplexed. The guy from the old netscape boards was. Just a weird coincidence, no biggie.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

While I oppose Prop 8, I believe this ruling sets a potentially negative precedent. It is almost inevitable that this matter will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Do you believe the Supreme Court should impose gay marriage onto all 50 states?

I'm not sure "impose" is the correct word.

 

[Alias]

An excellent argument, perfectly befitting your skill and knowledge.

It's certainly as excellent as saying the American people are tyrannical because they don't accept queer marriage. You obviously missed the point.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

This has nothing to do with tyranny by the majority over a minority. Queers are not a minority. Deciding to have sex with someone of the same sex does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage. Defending our American culture and heritage is not "tyranny". Dumb ass.

Your argument comes very close to comments were made, before the Supreme Court ruled that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

Ie: Deciding to have sex with someone of a different race does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage.

 

[Alias]

At one time marriage was between a man and women of the same race. This was never an issue, until the definition was challanged.

It was rightfully challenged because that is a civil rights issue. Queer marriage is not a civil rights issue. Try again.

 

[Onceler]

This has nothing to do with tyranny by the majority over a minority. Queers are not a minority. Deciding to have sex with someone of the same sex does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage. Defending our American culture and heritage is not "tyranny". Dumb ass.

This is why people call you a bigot. Not because you oppose same-sex marriage.

You're really a creature of hate.

 

[Alias]

Your argument comes very close to comments were made, before the Supreme Court ruled that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

Ie: Deciding to have sex with someone of a different race does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage.

Of course those laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional because race can't be helped. There is no such thing as queer marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You know what they say, "those hating on gays, have something to hide".

As do those hating on the religious.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It was rightfully challenged because that is a civil rights issue. Queer marriage is not a civil rights issue. Try again.

Guess what? Back in the day guys like you were claiming that blacks marrying whites wasn't a civil rights issue either. You were wrong then, you're wrong now.

It is a civil rights issue. And that's why opinions have been changing every year. Because more and more people are recognizing that. And hateful bigots can't change that. They never have been able to change that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It was rightfully challenged because that is a civil rights issue. Queer marriage is not a civil rights issue. Try again.

But it is a civil right.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

 

[dixon76710]

When your marriage is not legally recognized, you can't utilize many of the legal benefits of that marriage. For instance, hospital visitation, medical authority, and many things along those lines.

As for "entitlements" perhaps you refer to things like married people being able to transfer their homes to their spouses so that it isn't attached by Medicaid when they get sick in their old age. Entitlement? So what you are saying is that only heterosexuals are entitled to "entitlements" like those? What makes you think so?

Governments purpose in encouraging marriage is to increase the number of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them, as opposed to the alternative of one or neither of their parents present to do so. If you want to give those benefits to two gay guys who rub genitals, you really have no justification for denying the benefits to any two people who would desire those benefits. Nothing special about being homosexual, that would justify such discriminatory treatment. Society, culture, tradition, religion and law hasnt encouraged men and women to marry, for as long as human civilization has existed, because men and women have sex. They have instead done so, because when men and women have sex, children are frequently the result. Two guys doing each other in the butt, never going to happen. From BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

as it is today

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

None of this has any applicability to two people of the same sex because,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...ar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

"In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution's equal protection and due process rights clauses.

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008."

This could backfire on those who oppose gay marriage. If this gets appealed up to SCOTUS and the uphold the decision........then Gay marriage will be a defacto legal institution.

 

[NOVA]

When your marriage is not legally recognized, you can't utilize many of the legal benefits of that marriage. For instance, hospital visitation, medical authority, and many things along those lines.

As for "entitlements" perhaps you refer to things like married people being able to transfer their homes to their spouses so that it isn't attached by Medicaid when they get sick in their old age. Entitlement? So what you are saying is that only heterosexuals are entitled to "entitlements" like those? What makes you think so?

All that, and anything else can be accomplished by a simple contract (agreement) between the homo's....but thats not what the homo's want,.....they want to destroy the present definition of marriage that has endured from early civilization....


Homo's have the same rights as everyone else......no one can 'marry', an underage child, a person of the same sex, or an animal......

We all live by the same rules right now.....the same rights.....

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

It's certainly as excellent as saying the American people are tyrannical because they don't accept queer marriage. You obviously missed the point.

Please, continue with this brilliant intellectual assault. Surely no defense could stand against it.

 

[Alias]

This is why people call you a bigot. Not because you oppose same-sex marriage.

You're really a creature of hate.

Oh, for sure. So was Jesus. Jesus said this....."And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

"Governments purpose in encouraging marriage is to increase the number of children born into homes with the benefit of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them, as opposed to the alternative of one or neither of their parents present to do so."

Not in the world I live in, it's not. Since your premise is faulty, everything which follows it is irrelevant.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Of course those laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional because race can't be helped. There is no such thing as queer marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman.

So sexual orientation can be helped? Please, do go on.

 

[Onceler]

All that, and anything else can be accomplished by a simple contract (agreement) between the homo's....but thats not what the homo's want,.....they want to destroy the present definition of marriage that has endured from early civilization....

Lots of things endured from early civilization - slavery, torture, tyranny, corruption. It's not a good argument.

200 years ago, you had to be a white male landowner in order to vote.