Do you support legalizing gay marriage?[W:667]

Lursa said:

You mean like how you keep declaring bestiality is only illlegal because it's unnatural and disgusting?

:lamo

C'mon....you continue to embarrass yourself here by such an obvious...and failed...attempt at actually continuing the discussion on any supportable grounds at all.

Click to expand...

Papa bull said:

I never claimed bestiality is only illegal because it's unnatural and disgusting. It could, theoretically, be illegal for a variety of other reason, as well, but the PRIMARY reason is because it's unnatural and disgusting. If you don't think that's a fact, just start a poll asking people to vote true or false on the statement that it's unnatural and disgusting. I probably forgot to mention vulgar before now, but add that to the list of appropriate adjectives.

Click to expand...

Papa bull said:

I never claimed bestiality is only illegal because it's unnatural and disgusting. It could, theoretically, be illegal for a variety of other reason, as well, but the PRIMARY reason is because it's unnatural and disgusting. If you don't think that's a fact, just start a poll asking people to vote true or false on the statement that it's unnatural and disgusting. I probably forgot to mention vulgar before now, but add that to the list of appropriate adjectives.

Click to expand...

WCH said:

There's no way in Hell the Judge met all these requirements for the injunction.

That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction
That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

So, in your opinion, is "it's disgusting" by itself a reason to make something illegal?

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

So, in your opinion, is "it's disgusting" by itself a reason to make something illegal?

Click to expand...

Papa bull said:

Wow. Did you somehow come to the ridiculous conclusion that all rural people are conservative? Damn, man, why do you think "red states" have so many welfare cases.... they've got plenty of liberals living in them.

Click to expand...

Papa bull said:

Yes. That's why we have lots of laws like "you can't take your clothes and make someone's eyes bleed" and "you can't have wild monkey sex with a real wild monkey". It's disgusting. Lots of people don't want you doing that shyte in their neighborhood. Or state. Or country.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

I would probably vote not to include same-sex couples in the law here in California, but I would not be very upset if the vote went the other way. We have lots of policies I'm not wild about, but I can live with them. I'm far more concerned about a related problem, and an extremely serious one, that tends to get lost in the shuffle. Playing fast and loose with the Constitution is like tampering with the flight controls on an airliner.

Most of the people who have the bit in their teeth on this issue--and I see quite a few of them on forums like these--don't care a damn about the rule of law. All they care about is getting the result they want. And if the only way to get it is to do enormous, irreparable damage to the Constitution, well, so what? To them, the Constitution is just an obstacle to doing what they all know is kind, sensitive, and in all ways just generally wonderful. Amend it? Nah, too much trouble. Just ignore it.

The homosexual-rights lobby, which includes several Supreme Court justices, is a lot like the abortion lobby of forty or fifty years ago. Then, the fruit of their labors was Roe v. Wade, a notoriously arbitrary decision that ranks right down with 1857's Dred Scott v. Sandford as one of the Court's all-time worst. Study the decisions Justice Kennedy has written during the past eighteen years in the Court's major "gay" decisions, Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, and you can see another Roe in the works.

Whether homosexuals can marry each other in a given state should be for the people of that state to decide, and no one else. A state that excludes same-sex couples from its marriage law is not violating anything whatever in the Constitution; the only way to have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is to make it up out of thin air. But the same is true of a right to abortion, and that didn't stop the Court forty years ago. Remember: a Court that can interpret the Constitution so as to create rights which are not there can also interpret it so as to destroy rights which are there.

Click to expand...

The Baron said:

Typical liberal logic: “if it doesn't agree with me it's biased, irrelevant, hateful, bigoted, mean, exploitive, ignorant, narrow-minded, unintelligent, retarded, hitlerian, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, masochistic, chauvinistic, maniacal, evil, depraved, smelly, fat, unhealthy, unhelpful, insensitive, individualistic, horrible, detestable, vile, odious, terrible, unbearable, intolerable, insufferable, revolting, repulsive, disgusting, sickening, ghastly, filthy, sordid, horrible, nauseating, repellent, prejudiced, unfair, partial, nasty, atrocious, ghastly, dreadful, shocking…

It’s never, “Oh, somebody has a view different from mine? I wonder what it might be? Perhaps I should inquire of this fine, obviously-intelligent individual exactly what his opinion is and understand the subject as he see it and perhaps even engage in some civilized conversation that may bring us both closer to some objective truth?”

But that’ll never happen ‘cause all Libs know how to do is destroy anything that does not mimic them.

And you, sir! You call yourself “civilized”?

Nothing could be further from the truth!

:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

TobyOne said:

The constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. This is why gay marriage was won in the courts and not in the voting booth. Although I agree that courts should be extremely careful in overruling voters and I'm not sure they were all that careful with gay marriage. Its seems to me there was very little reluctance.

Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:

Very interesting results thus far.


Marriage

Click to expand...

Arbo said:

Considering the site and it's demographic, not interesting at all. Yes, it is understood that the majority of people are intolerant bigots… it's ok, eventually they will all no longer walk the face of the earth… then we can get down to real equality.

Click to expand...

TobyOne said:

The constitution guards against the tyranny of the majority. This is why gay marriage was won in the courts and not in the voting booth. Although I agree that courts should be extremely careful in overruling voters and I'm not sure they were all that careful with gay marriage. Its seems to me there was very little reluctance.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

Click to expand...

Arbo said:

Considering the site and it's demographic, not interesting at all. Yes, it is understood that the majority of people are intolerant bigots… it's ok, eventually they will all no longer walk the face of the earth… then we can get down to real equality.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

If you can't recognize the difference, I'm not going to bother.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:

So if someone has a difference of opinion with you on this issue they are intolerant bigots...The question begs to be asked who are the intolerant ones.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

My take on it is a little different.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

Click to expand...

Papa bull said:

Yes. That's why we have lots of laws like "you can't take your clothes and make someone's eyes bleed" and "you can't have wild monkey sex with a real wild monkey". It's disgusting. Lots of people don't want you doing that shyte in their neighborhood. Or state. Or country.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

The Constitution does not guard against any "tyranny of the majority" at all, where many things are concerned. See, e.g., Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (holding that California law did not violate equal protection guarantee by imposing wildly different property taxes on owners of very similar homes). And flagrant discrimination by bluenoses against nudists and prostitutes and bestialists still plagues this supposedly advanced nation even today. These people aren't harming anyone, and yet our courts rubber-stamp laws that discriminate against them, as if the Equal Protection Clause didn't even exist.

Then there are the would-be practitioners of adult incest or polygamy--who is going to bat for them? Where are the tear-jerking laments about how thousands of these poor souls are cruelly being denied the fundamental right to marry the loves of their lives by bigoted haters, just because they are different?

I am not persuaded that there is any constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, or anything even vaguely approaching it. I have never seen anyone explain what the source of any such right is. That includes Justice Kennedy, whose arguments in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor are so short on legal reasoning as to amount to not much more than ipse dixit.

Click to expand...

matchlight said:

My take on it is a little different. The most intolerant, bigoted people I see are the crusaders for various grievance groups. The irony that so many of them dare to call themselves "liberal" is good for a laugh, because they are anything but. They're mad--and they've convinced themselves their grievance is so righteous it gives them to right to be as uncivil as they please to anyone who disagrees with them.

These people love to cast whoever it is they have the crying towel out for as participants in an updated version of the black civil rights struggle, claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment protects their group just as strongly as it does blacks. Of course that's nonsense, as the history of that amendment proves.

But they imagine if they repeat this nonsense often and stridently enough, larding it generously with cheap slurs that anyone who disagrees with them is a hater, bigot, fill-in-the-blank-phobe, etc., their appeals to emotion will make up for their gross lack of knowledge and reasoning. They're confident this kind of "debate" will persuade their audience because its knowledge and reasoning power are no better than their own. And all too often, they're right.

Click to expand...