UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Today, the California Court of Appeals will decide whether or not Proposition 8 is constitutional. Speculation is that if it is indeed ruled to be unconstitutional, same-sex couples would not yet be able to get married because there would likely be another appeal to that decision. The case is likely headed for supreme court.
My question is, if this DOES go all the way to the supreme court, would a decision on this case at the supreme court level open up marriage for same-sex couples across the country, or would those rights still reside within the state? Either way, I expect prop 8 to be overturned in California, on the US level, I'm not sure, but I think it is leaning towards legalization.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
done!
" A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 1): The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal."
Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
The only thing that the USSC might be interested (if they were at all interested in the Constitution) is whether a gay couple married in (let's say) Massachusetts where it is legal, should expect to be treated as married if they go to a state where gay marriage is not legal. That's the only federal issue I can see.
If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is) then the equal protection clause must apply. So it actually is a federal issue.
The full faith and credit issue is also important.
I'm happy about today's ruling. Every court to have heard this case so far has struck down Prop 8. However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): However, whether the USSC hears it is the big issue.
Not being a lawyer, i ask - what happens if they don't take it up?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
Hmm... according to the Constitution:
Quote: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
(emphasis added)
Looks like they have jurisdiction as this is a suit against the state of California.
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): Well of course it is the 9th circuit... The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
I can see an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment holding up in the SCOTUS. I'm generally a more state's rights advocate, but I think this is a 14th Amendment (federal) issue.
Glad to see this outcome. I guess this will make Newt and Santorum want to shut down the 9th Circuit even more. Because that's not tyrannical
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
If the USSC takes up the issue, and rules one way or the other, does that open up or bar same-sex marriage for the entire country? Do either parties really want this thing going to the supreme court?
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Also
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2): The US Constitution does not address marriage issues. I don't see why the USSC would even look at it. States can do what they want.
It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:
Quote: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(emphasis added)
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
Tugg
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3): If marriage is a fundamental right (and the USSC has ruled eight times than it is)
Wow, eight times? I was only aware of Loving vs Virginia. Do you happen to know where I can see a list of the others?
Quoting tugger (Reply 8): The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9): Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
The entire question is "Why deny a specific class of individuals the protection of the law (the ability to legally be married and have that union recognized by the state and nation) that is provided to others?"
And the entire answer is fear and bigotry.
It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 8): It is not the issue of "marriage" per se, but rather the issue of equal application of the law. Again per the Constitution, 14th Amendment:
But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
It's not as cut and dry as one would think.
From an equality standpoint, it would appear to indeed be that cut and dry.
Well I'm just saying the entire answer is not "fear and bigotry." One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 14): Easy, that all men cannot marry another man, and that all women cannot marry another women.
Right. you can't marry a man, and neither can I. it's equal treatment.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
I used to use this argument. But in almost all cases, we try to use "citizen" instead of "man" and "woman." That is striving for gender equality. So an American adult can marry and American adult is more fair than choosing who a man can marry and who a woman can marry.
For the time being, I realize that sometimes (at least in this day and age) we need to distinguish between man and woman, but in this case, I see no harm. We look at people as citizens in this case.
Edit: way better wording than my argument:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16): You cannot marry a man, but a woman can. It's UNequal treatment.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 3557 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): It's not as cut and dry as one would think. I was on the other side of the issue just years ago. It was a strange state of mind really, but I never had any hate for gays or lesbians. Then again, I was never a full functioning adult while having that view so who knows
I can relate and I am and pretty much always have been socially liberal. At one point I was "against" same-sex marriage. I use the quote becasue I wasn't against it per se, I just did not support it as being equal nor did I see any reason to.
And yet I had many friends who were gay and lesbian and many of whom were in a relationship. I can't say why I didn't support it nor can I defend it, I just never really thought about it. But when it started to become an issue (more accurately when I became aware that it was an issue, and an important issue for many people that I know) and people were demanding to be recognized equally, I had to actually look at what I was doing (and thinking and not doing) and what I was supporting and how my actions or lack thereof were impacting others.
I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): But there is no inequality. All men can marry a woman. All women can marry a man. Where is the inequality? There is none.
But are not "all men created equally"? If they are then they can marry each other. Doesn't say nothing about women being equal, in fact they aren't. Oh wait, things change... So are you saying that the US Constitution SHOULD address marriage? Just like it address' suffrage?
I can see you are trying to dance around the issue but it simply doesn't work. The USA and its courts have long recognized that men and women are equal (after realizing the error in it original writing and amending the Constitution). There are rights and legal benefits that are provided to those that are "married" in the eyes of the state, yet not to an entire class of people who would not marry a opposite sex partner (and that they do not desire to marry a member of the opposite is not something that is "bad").
Tugg
[Edited 2012-02-07 12:03:52]
everything I have learned I have learned by mistake
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting tugger (Reply 19): I truly cannot see why I did not support same-sex marriage, the only reason I had was "well this is just the way things are" and that is not a reason. It was dumb and I feel dumb for not being more aware.
Actually this is pretty much how I felt. But it was rooted deep for me, hard to explain. Before I couldn't just say that's how it was. I don't know, it was confusing. I do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield, and you focus only on that and not on why you feel the way you feel. That's why I highly encourage everyone to stay civil. Speaking from personal experience, I know it is very touchy for a lot of people and anger pops out very easily. It's natural, but it only hurts the fight.
Meant to say this earlier:
inb4 gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13): One must fully understand the other side and where they are coming from, then engage in a civil debate for them to even consider changing their minds.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20): do know that most people respond very negatively to being called homophobe and all. It puts up a shield,
It hard to keep cool when people are saying things like:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20): gay marriage will lead to polygamy or bestiality
It hard to keep cool when people say that the homosexuality will finish with humanity, and that we are going to hell.
So, yes I agree that a civil discussion is the way to go, but that civility MUST come from both sides
I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 21): I appreciate and find your journey thru this inspiring, but i ask the same level of civility that you are asking from the gay community, you should ask from the Religious folks.
inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.
mt99 From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 5640 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): inb4 = in before, meaning I'm in before someone says whatever follows inb4. It's a meme. I'm not saying it does lead to those, in fact, I completely disagree that it does. Sorry for the confusion.
I got it.. Bu that is what "other" people say, I know you don't say that.
My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 23): My point still stands, the hurtful comments go BOTH ways, and its unfair to ask only gays to tone it down.
Oh trust me, I know. Best thing to do is call them out on it. I cannot blame anyone for getting mad, I just try and convince them to stay calm. When it comes to this debate, I'm asking a lot more of the other side. But I'm trying to win over their hearts and minds, it does help that when they equate it to bestiality, it doesn't directly harm me as a straight.
sorry for the thread derailment. Back on topic, has this been appealed, or will it definitely get appealed? Or can gays and lesbians now marry in CA?
Ron Paul 2012!
25 RamblinMan: To all my lgbt a.nutter bretheren... Celebrate this victory. If you've had the courage to come out in this homophobic world, you've earned it. And I s
26 zrs70: Most people, to my knowledge, who are against same gender marriage say that it is morally wrong and that it tears down the fabric of society. What are
27 UAL747: It may be appealed, not sure. That's why I was wondering if it did go to the US Supreme court, would that indeed become law of the land? The way the
28 UAL747: Same-sex marriage opens the door for Polygamy, Bestiality, and then there is the notion by homophobic people that if gays can marry and adopt, they w
29 RamblinMan: There are none as far as I know. Just a mindset of needing to impose your values on everybody else, sadly not uncommon in this country.
30 2H4: Well, there's the argument that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman" in the bible. Those against marriage equality tend to cling to that one w
31 zrs70: This is blatantly false! The bible never defines marriage like this. (I'm not arguing with you, 2H4, but rather with the people who point to it). If
32 D L X: This is 180 degrees from what the Constitution says. No, the Constitution does not mention the word "marriage," but it does say that you have to trea
33 2H4: Really? I always took the people who claimed this at their word.
34 zrs70: Those who hide behind religion rather than engage in it often quote things that are just wrong. It's a shame that the religious right has taken this
35 Ken777: I was glad to see the ruling. I don't believe it will be moved to the USSC because it is so focused on one state. The USSC might end up looking for a
36 2H4: Interesting, thanks for clearing that up. Good for you! I sincerely wish more people would share that philosophy.
37 photopilot: Perhaps those of us who believe that a "marriage" is between one man and one woman feel that those with a gay agenda should not be imposing their age
38 zrs70: Mother nature didn't give us wings either. But here we are on a.net
40 UAL747: LOL, I'm still trying to figure out what agenda I have, and how it differs from yours. Please, all this world needs is more babies. Gays are constant
41 zrs70: I just got a copy of mine. It is officially sealed by the International Gay Society.
42 DeltaMD90: Some interesting (scary) reading: http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_marriage#Issues Note: I don't frequent the site, I only visit it sometimes just for
43 2H4: If reproduction was a necessary element of marriage, you might be onto something. I'm sure those who were in favor of slavery were similarly irritate
44 DocLightning: Then gays can get married in CA. The thing is that if the USSC rules that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, it could follow that ALL bans on
45 UAL747: If anything, the economy should slightly benefit. But being only 10% of the population at max, I can't see how it affects it much in the first place.
46 zrs70: Here's the text: "After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, Portugal saw its credit rating reduced to junk level." That's lik
47 GBLKD: As far as I can see gay people don't want to impose any agenda on anyone. The only gay agenda I can see is that gay people want to be treated equally
48 DeltaMD90: Hahaha that's it. You know, they may have a point. Look at CA's economy
49 2H4: Indeed! I've heard people say that marriage equality destroys the sanctity of marriage, and that it cheapens "traditional" marriage. But a marriage w
50 GBLKD: Yep. In my wide circle of friends the most stable commited couple I know happen to be gay. All bar one of my straight friends are now divorced. Where
51 DeltaMD90: Ah, but nature DID make them gay. Do you believe being gay is a choice or not? Plus the nature argument is very weak. What is intended by nature? Tha
52 UAL747: Do you really need to ask that? What do you think his answer is going to be?[Edited 2012-02-07 14:36:11]
53 2H4: Anymore, that is a fairly accurate description of modern marriage!
54 DeltaMD90: I'm sure I know what the answer will be, but it's been scientifically proven that being gay is not a choice, correct? Regardless, the rest of my argu
55 Maverick623: Perhaps those of us who believe that a marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults feel that those with a straight agenda should not
56 DocLightning: ?? You realize who you're talking to? I'm gay. You realize that the Bible described polygamous marriage, right? It also defines marriage as the autom
57 tugger: There's your problem. We aren't talking about "belief", we are discussing the law and legal aspects of what citizens are granted by what the law reco
58 vikkyvik: Is marriage a scientific necessity to procreation? No. Mother nature didn't intend people to get married before they have children. She's not sitting
60 OA412: I can't believe you'd even try to pass this off as a serious argument... I love the knee-jerk reactions to anything 9th circuit. Of course, they igno
61 vikkyvik: I know, I live in California. My parents are in Massachusetts.
62 Doona: I'm sorry, I didn't realize this issue was about forcing straight people into same sex marriages... Cheers Mats
63 RamblinMan: Are you seriously doing this or are you just trolling? Cause if you don't believe in gay marriage then I got an idea for you... DON'T GET ONE. Otherw
64 Maverick623: Well, anyone hell bent against gay marriage is not going to be friends with a gay man. Just sayin'... However, I can honestly say I have never heard
65 lewis: I never gave too much thought on the issue but some replies here are just hilarious. And why would you want to force your "belief" on someone else? Ga
66 D L X: How is someone who says they are not religious but still do not want gays to marry anything other than a homophobe? In my opinion, religion is about
67 aa757first: That's true only in theory. In our culture, marriage is the culmination of a romantic relationship. Permitting a gay person to marry only a member of
68 Maverick623: Other way around: religion is merely the excuse to do things that have no rational explanation. Homophobes that claim religion as their reason don't
69 Alias1024: I wonder if the Supreme Court will even choose to hear the inevitable appeal. With the ruling being narrow in its application to California and Propos
70 DeltaMD90: And from Rick Santorum's FB page....... "Today, activist judges in the 9th Circuit stripped away the rights of 7 million California voters by striking
71 ltbewr: Those who 'lost' in the appeal decision today can apply to the SCOTUS for Certiorari. I have worked as a paralegal with several, including as to non-
72 Ken777: Ted Olson is on TV right now and indicated that he believes this case might well go to the USSC. He also indicated that the issues covered by today's
73 mt99: And you want us to talk calmly to this guy?
74 stratosphere: It doesn't Doc.. I feel the religious right really are hypocrites in a lot of ways..That said I think the only argument they have is procreation whic
75 mt99: Is procreation a requirement a man/woman relationshio? Which i don't understand. How can a Civil Union between 2 men be OK, while Marriage between 2
77 vikkyvik: The answer is simple. When you boil it all down, what we're really arguing over is a WORD. Eight letters in a certain order. Mind-boggling, isn't it?
78 DocLightning: Ah. I remember that indeed. That was a long time ago. I'm very happy to say that it appears that I was wrong. I should be wrong like this more often.
79 Pyrex: Interesting to see all the gay community celebrating the fact that they too will be allowed to discriminate against single people going forward. This
81 vikkyvik: So.....confused....... How are single people being discriminated against?
82 Pyrex: They pay more in taxes, nobody else can get their Social Security benefits if they die (unlike married people) so all their forced lifetime contribut
83 DeltaMD90: I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not. But if you're not, aren't straight people that are married also "discriminating against single people?" I me
84 vikkyvik: OK, gotcha. To be honest, I'd support the government completely withdrawing from the marriage business, be it straight or gay marriage. But since thi
85 Pyrex: Of course. That is why I inserted the word "too" in between "they" and "will"...
86 tugger: Except that single people cost more in society. That is why marriage, partnering, being LEGALLY responsible for another, etc. is so important to soci
87 Pyrex: You make it sound as if someone who is not married is in that situation by choice - plenty of examples where that is not the case. And there are plen
88 mt99: Is that you reason for opposing gay marriage? I join the others in not understanding,... Are you suggesting the government should force people into g
89 2H4: Asking to be treated equally is not discrimination. By your logic, the black population, in their fight for equality, has been and is currently discr
90 luckyone: What gay is forcing you to get married to him? It's really quite simple...if you don't want gay marriage...then don't get one. I flew on a Delta MD90
91 2H4: I especially like how the organizations against marriage equality claim children cannot be properly raised in a gay household. That's a claim I hear
92 tugger: No, no, not trying to imply that single people are bad or "less than" or implying that all single people are single by choice. Not at all. I was mere
93 GBLKD: Perhaps he's worried about who gets all of the new toasters?
94 DeltaMD90: Oh gotcha. I don't see why this is the reason to oppose gay marriage, I think you're fighting the wrong battle. I'm all against the death tax and all
95 DocLightning: So do skiiers. So do people who fly a lot. Sorry, but can we not go down the "costs to society" road? That argument can be used to justify the most r
96 tugger: I know and I agree with you. And that is why I am fine if he wants to change it. I encourage him and anyone that believes there is an injustice to go
97 DocLightning: And... if you hear about two people who you've never met getting married, what does it say about you as a person that your reaction is rage, rather t
98 LOT767-300ER: Actually there is a difference. Scientifically speaking the explanation of why someone is black (or white, asian etc.) is the same + the reasons why
99 DocLightning: So I don't exist? Or are you accusing me of lying when I say that I was born this way? Furthermore, I know that religion is a choice. I know that sto
100 mt99: You make it sound like homosexuals are sterile, and have no desire to care for children or have a family.[Edited 2012-02-08 21:00:17]
101 LOT767-300ER: I dont know where you are getting that from. I made no mention of "homosexuals are unable to care for children or have families" However, you cant ha
102 LOT767-300ER: Can you read? I never said anyone chooses to be gay. If you had basic comprehension of English you would realize that I just wrote that one has no ch
103 mt99: So a man, that marries a woman who has a child from another man cannot be a family? I hope I'm misundertanding. Otherwise, what you said is truly hur
104 LOT767-300ER: Where in the hell are you getting family from? What does the ability or want of having a family have to do with anything? What is your point? That is
105 mt99: Dude, from right here, your own post! do you forget what you post? Again, i know gay men who lived married to women for many many years and fathered
106 LOT767-300ER: No. I never said "a gay person does not want a family or is unable to care for a child" Show me where I said that. How are they gay if they are marri
107 Quokkas: Possible cause and purpose seem to be a bit confused here. Some mutations may give rise to benefits over time and become adopted while others may die
108 mt99: If you would stop and not edit your past posts! to cover your tracks Its ok dude, you showed your true colors. I still can't believe that you make li
109 luckyone: "However, you cant have a family without reproducing. If you are homosexual how can you reproduce (take away test tubes for one minute because that i
110 LOT767-300ER: You are confusing genetic adaptations. Being homosexual is not a genetic adaptation like a giraffes neck or perhaps humans mutating to have no tail.
111 DeltaMD90: Just some advice, you should probably be clearer when explaining things. You did come off as offensive sounding, and you claim no harm, so I'll give
112 LOT767-300ER: Why are you calling me sweety and saying I showed my true colors. We don't even know each other. I am not following you where I believe that someone s
113 Quokkas: Wrong. They may not wish to live in your definition of a family. The fact that they wish to marry and have children is indicative that they want as m
114 tugger: You are so very uneducated (and insulting to an entire valued group in society) on this aspect on evolution and societal dynamics it almost doesn't b
115 LOT767-300ER: If I gave a flying donkeys rear about not being offensive constantly in this great country of ours that I have adopted id probably by now be calling
116 DeltaMD90: Ok well my other point of advice still comes into play: because either we're all retarded and aren't getting what you're saying or you're doing a lous
117 OA412: Just when I think that I've heard every ridiculous anti-gay marriage argument, I'm proven wrong. Gay marriage is discrimination against singles becau
118 LOT767-300ER: It seems as if our definition of love is different when it comes to having a family and procreating, I wasnt talking about "my lesbian friend is unab
119 LOT767-300ER: Says the damn definition of the word bi, which is more than one. By physical definition they are bi. Doesn't matter how much you argue. This is like
120 Quokkas: Before the thread drifts off into a discussion of the impact of paleodrainage systems on genetic variation of Simoselaps (Neelaps) bimaculatus, perhap
121 tugger: But you are wrong, here's a simple example: You can have non-producing members from the same family, the same genetic material. The non-producing mem
122 LOT767-300ER: Thanks. Hah, never too late. I think they are already appealing because the judge said no same-sex couple can marry in CA until all of the appeals ar
123 LOT767-300ER: Thank you for proving my point. It would be and I wouldnt have this argument with you if homosexuality was based on pure genetics not like it has bee
124 Doona: I find issue with this one. Fine, I'll go along with the second part of that sentence, but the first part? Lesbian women do not want families? I'm fr
125 tugger: Except that there are many factors that are genetically controlled, such and hormones, that are passed on in each generation and they are either sele
126 LOT767-300ER: Should read: do not want families with males as partners. My bad on that. Because it is about the physical definition when you are talking about it f
127 LOT767-300ER: I 100% agree with you, and thus support your cause. And now I shall retire from this thread and sing kumbaya.
128 ATCtower: Can anyone just explain to me what is wrong with a gay relationship without the words "The Bible says..."? Who the F cares? Just because I swing for A
129 tugger: Time for me as well, and so without further ado: Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya; Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya; Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya, O
130 luckyone: "Do you think I am that daft that I dont know that homosexuality is the attraction and identity not simply a physical act? If you do no big deal, it
131 2H4: A gay couple's ability to "benefit society", is not (and should not be) limited to genetics. I would argue there are far more important benefits. As
132 SmittyOne: I'm not a lawyer but I think that when you strip away all the extraneous arguments the Gay Marriage debate comes down to a fundamental Constitutional
133 UAL747: Trying to argue it is a genetic abnormality that will die off because gays don't reproduce, is sort of futile. The genetic trait is passed by straight
134 DeltaMD90: Sorry to continue this discussion, but I thought being homosexual wasn't necessarily a "trait" but affected by a hormonal difference during developmen
135 UAL747: I was under the impression that the actual cause of it, which psychological factors have been ruled out, is not quite clear. Some say genetics, some
136 mbmbos: Nothing definitive has been worked out, but there's a lot of attention paid to an answer that is both nature and nurture; i.e., genetic proclivity (n
137 DocLightning: And they would be unambiguously wrong. Your religious freedom is the freedom to practice your own religion. When that practice steps on the rights of
138 imiakhtar: I'm not sure why the straight men on these boards are complaining. Afterall, there's more pussy for the rest of us!
139 DocLightning: Perhaps a bit on the crass side, but very true. I'm your best friend and wingman. Women flock to me and I will happily deflect them in your direction
140 SmittyOne: Doc - just wanted to be clear that I agree with you 100% on this. Unfortunately there are MANY people in the US who don't see the logical disconnect
141 2H4: Indeed. At one time, the majority believed slavery was acceptable.
142 mt99: Prohibition was also the result of a vote..
143 mbmbos: If you are saying pro gay rights people rely too heavily on the didn't-have-a-choice argument, I tend to agree. Even if it were true that a person to
144 SmittyOne: That was what I was driving at, but you said it a lot more clearly than I would Good point...
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 5640 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
