Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

In a hearing to decide whether a lawsuit challenging California's gay marriage ban should be dismissed, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker asked Charles Cooper -- an attorney for a group that supports the ban -- how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions. Cooper's response: "The answer is, I don't know."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Buffalo_Bob

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Another activist judge--from San Fran no less.

Yessssssssss GOODY

Same sex marriage...let the queers marry queers, it doesn't make any difference to me, damnit! Or at least make it up to states and not a federal issue.

"at least make it up to states and not a federal issue."

Riiiiiiiiiight! Same with equal rights for blacks and asians!

Same sex marriage...let the queers marry queers, it doesn't make any difference to me, damnit! Or at least make it up to states and not a federal issue

I agree. As long as no one else is affected, what does it matter?

(HEY ALEX -- OVER HERE -- YOU ALWAYS SAY I NEVER TAKE A STAND FOR A LEFTIST VIEW. SEE THIS? HEY ALEX, WRONG AGAIN.

YOO HOO, ALEX. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU SEE THIS, CRYBABY. SEE IT? OK? OK?

LOL

But, but...

If we allows them gays to entangle, we's gonna hafta let folks have their congress with animals and with chillin's, and.... shudder... corpses!

Dan - with "blacks and asians" and any other race there is no reason to pursue persecution against these groups (and any racial group). As to religion and sexuality, surely you could agree that Kansas and California have differing views. Maybe these should be left to state Supreme Courts to deal with?

It's amazing that in a land that professes to be all about Freedoms does it's damnedest to prevent equal freedoms for all with regards to the most fundamental right known to mankind. The Right to Marry the one that You love. Simply mindblowing.

Larry

Andy, the problem is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which requires states to recognize and honor contracts from other states.

I'm glad to see this case move forward. Clearly the plaintiffs will win (it's San Francisco) which will buck it up to the 9th Circuit, where they will win again.

Then the Supreme Court can finally put it to rest.

"Maybe these should be left to state Supreme Courts to deal with?"

Why should basic human rights be left to whim? As Jon Stewart once said, you either believe it's a human condition, or some random fetish. I've never met a homophobe who knew three gay people.

"there is no reason to pursue persecution against these groups"

But there is against gays? Why should our group --over here-- be allowed to enter into protective contracts granting superseding rights, yet another group -- over there -- be denied the same access to the same protective contracts?

"Andy, the problem is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which requires states to recognize and honor contracts from other states.

#9 | Posted by vernon"


I've always understood it to be the "full faith and credit clause." (Not to say hyou're wrong - that's just what I learned.)

"full faith and credit"

That's where I'm stuck too.

Re: #1:


"Vaughn R. Walker (1944 - ) is the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Walker was born in Watseka, Illinois and graduated from the University of Michigan and Stanford Law School. After two years as a law clerk for U.S. District Court for the Central District of California judge Robert J. Kelleher, he served in private practice in San Francisco until his September 7, 1989 nomination by President George H. W. Bush to the federal district court. The Senate confirmed Walker on November 21, 1989. He became chief judge in 2004.[1]
Contents

Views

Walker believes in a legal approach known as law and economics.[2]

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan was delayed because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics."[1]"


Fucking Reagan - always trying to appoint those activist judges!

Folks, people are gay. They are in the main upstanding people and contribute to society. Why should a mullet-head in a wife-beater be afforded more "rights" than they?

"Then the Supreme Court can finally put it to rest."


Why can't this state make sure a proposition on the ballot is written in a way that passes Constitutional challenges before being voted on? What is the point of voting on a measure, if they know it will be challenged in court?

#12 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-10-14 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are correct. It is the full faith and credit clause.

Commerce Clause is similar but focuses more on business contracts

Judge--What harm does gay marriage do to heterosexual marriage?

Lawyer--DUUUHHHHH I dunno.

FTA: Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.

The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

Prop H8 lawyers have to answer an unanswerable question or FAIL?

LOLz!

Pretending their attack on gay marriage was a defense of traditional marriage has been an obvious incongruity fer a while now.

Nice to see the Judge catch on to this.

Good eye, sez Spud.

This is almost as much fun as watching these Mormons who supported prop H8 to the tune of 20 million bucks as they cried "discrimination" when sane, rational humanistic individuals call shenanigans on their intolerant ways.

"You won't tolerate our intolerance. Yer attacking God!"

* head-desk *

The last book in the Book of Mormon is the "Book of Moroni"

Pretty much sez it all, don't it?

Be Well.

#2 BIG effin' surprise - The Mormons are opposed to gay marriage. Wow. Thanks for enlightening us all, Capt Obvious.

Spud you can spend 20 million bucks but you can't force a majority (especially in open-minded California) to go your way this easily. A lot of voters simply voted. Plus, there are only about 750,000 Mormons in the entire state.

www.allaboutmormons.com

Is all of this so hard to understand? Mormon-basher.

Point is you can't call foul when you are committing foul to others

I can't say that I support the idea of Gay Marraige but I am not opposed to the idea. To be frank, I have lost touch with the few gay friends of my youth. Too many interstate moves. The issue just doesn't come up in conversation that often.

If the issue came to a vote here in Michigan I would vote in favor of allowing Gay Marraige.

After reading the previous sentence, I realise that I don't like the implications of that statement. I don't think that we should have the power to allow Gay Marraige. We certainly should not have the power to forbid Gay Marraige. It should be none of our business and strictly between the individuals directly involved. Gay or heterosexual should not be an issue.

I do think that the judge was onto something. I frequently hear that gay marraige is a threat to our society and to traditional marraige. I have never understood why.

Good Call, Your Honor.

What surprises me is that maybe some of those who claim that homosexuality is a choice would actually prefer gay marriage to the marriages they are in, if it were an option. SO they fight against it as a means to maintain the deadbolt on their closet.

Delete "What surprises me is that" and begin with Maybe...

Utah, to become a State, had to give up polygamy.

Would the judge like to explain why the USA placed such a demand on a territory to comply or be refused Statehood consideration? What harm would polygamy have on the rest of the entire nation?

The judge is a fool. The answer is the same then as it is now. The public has always determined what is legal and illegal in this country through their representatives.

We changed the liquor age because the public determined when someone is responsible enough to drink.

We determine, as a populace, whether people have to have a license on their pet.

The right to grant priviledge comes from the people when it doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are hand-in-hand if you intend to believe that 'undermining heterosexual marriage' is the issue.

People should be honest. Those against samesex marriage and polygamy or in the same camp with bestiality and pedophilia. Honest- those against find it sickening, against morality, wrong - you chose the word.

It has nothing to do with undermining marriage.

Let the States grant the same benefits, without any union whatsoever, those benefits people get from marriage. Give people the right to choose how they leave the possessions to, the rights conferred on a designated partner, etc.

Is the issue to say your married? or is the issue to get the same rights?

I didn't get married to have the rights in the law books granted to me. Isn't that the typical argument when such civil unions are denied? That they aren't getting the same rights?

Did you get married for rights?

We should leave marriages to the religious institutions, with no legal rights emanating from them. States should only be sanctioning civil unions.

Ha Ha.

Ha Ha.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2009-10-15 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag: Nelson Muntz

What surprises me is that maybe some of those who claim that homosexuality is a choice would actually prefer gay marriage to the marriages they are in, if it were an option. SO they fight against it as a means to maintain the deadbolt on their closet.

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-15 07:31 AM

The people who think their time is better spent fighting homos in court are fucking idiots, to be sure, but the notion that they're all closeted is so disingenuous and reeks of personal projection.

"but the notion that they're all closeted is so disingenuous and reeks of personal projection."

You're right but that's not what I said. I said some, not all. And I was making a joke.

I smell the personal projection too I think.

But its not coming from my post.

;)

Personal projection? LOL, what an odd choice of words for your point.

Personal projection? LOL, what an odd choice of words for your point.

#30 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-15 09:07 AM

I threw that in there just for fun, an intentional self retort. ;-)

Folks, people are gay. They are in the main upstanding people and contribute to society. Why should a mullet-head in a wife-beater be afforded more "rights" than they?

#15 | Posted by satansbeard at 2009-10-14 11:44 PM

I'm not sure which group you're referring to here.

We should leave marriages to the religious institutions, with no legal rights emanating from them. States should only be sanctioning civil unions.

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

What legal rights are currently derived from a marriage ceremony performed in a religious institution?

If the States are currently sanctioning not only civil unions, what else are they sanctioning?

"What legal rights are currently derived from a marriage ceremony performed in a religious institution?"

Currently? All of them. Location of ceremony is irrelevant.

If a man owns a house and a woman, who has never owned a house, got married last year, she doesn't qualify for the first time home buyers credit.

The reason is because the law says she can't qualify because of her spouse.

If a man owns a house and another man, who has never owned a house, got married last year, he qualifies for the first time home buyers credit because the law allows it.

The reason is the FEd doesn't recognize the marriage. So, the man who never owned a home gets the credit.

Is that fair? Do you hear hetero sex marriage partners complaining?

When will we allow polygamy? If this keeps up maybe mike jackson could have married one of his little friends.

My only point on this is, because i dont like it, or because my religion doesnt like it, is not a reason to Ban anything in a free society. I know that is hard for the right to Grasp because they believe only the glorious government can save them from the the Gays. But that is the truth you should have to provide proof that it is doing damage. We live in a country that is supposed to have freedom for all, not freedom for those who are in the majority, but if the majority doesnt like you then your boned.

"What legal rights are currently derived from a marriage ceremony performed in a religious institution?"

Currently? All of them. Location of ceremony is irrelevant.

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

The answer is none. A religious ceremony has no legal status in the United States.

When will we allow polygamy?

#36 | Posted by chickenrancher

Looking to legalize and legitimize your relationships with the flock, gallusphile?

The answer is none. A religious ceremony has no legal status in the United States.
#38 | Posted by ZOT

You're a fool. The religious officiant is merely the stand in for the government in this situation. The fact that the ceremony is performed in a church/synagogue/mosque is besides the point.

The question to ask is why is this judge trying to overturn the will of the people who voted for Prop 8 with a jury???

#38 | Posted by ZOT

Nor should it. Unless it is a Christian ceremony

Another activist judge--from San Fran no less.
#1 | Posted by MURPHY

...originally appointed by Ronald Reagan, then by Bush I who, according to one reporter, has an "aversion to harsh sentences for well-educated, well-heeled criminals and, in particular, perpetrators of securities fraud" (
www.sfgate.com). What's for a GOP hack not to like?

#39 | Posted by ZOT

I'd bet you have a lifesize poster of mike jackson over your bed.

I know that is hard for the right to Grasp because they believe only the glorious government can save them from the the Gays.

We live in a country that is supposed to have freedom for all, not freedom for those who are in the majority, but if the majority doesnt like you then your boned.

#37 | Posted by Fenderwa41

Freedom doesn't grant rights and priviledges. Those that do exist were granted first by the Constitution, and those not mentioned, to the States, and finally the People.

You're wrong about the majority. Our Constitution and laws are based on majority. Bills become law based on majority. Amendments must pass with majority. In some cases, a large majority.

Your a hack declaring the issue is one-sided by politic-right. The laws of our land were written by both parties, including some people who didn't agree to be either party. Show me how the laws in our nation were all written by one party?

But, the laws that currently exist were created by the people who are free. We are free, but we also know that laws are needed and as a free people, we choose the laws that keep us a nation.

Notice I said KEEP and not MAKE. There is a difference. You can't make a nation sound if you don't keep it sound.

As part of freedom, we decide to pass laws that are the people's conscience at play. The majority's morality is applied.

Why would you not allow a twelve year old to buy cigarettes and smoke them, or buy a six pack and drink it?

Why do we only have men in selective service and not women?

Why would you not allow men to run a battered women home and hire male counselors to help them?

Why are men and women separated in barracks in the army, but gay men and straight men are not?

Why do we allow discounts for students, 65 and older, handicapped parking spaces - but only if authorized by someone the State allows, ladies' night-ladies admittance is free?

In a free country, why are all these examples considered acceptable when in all these issues, we are not treated equally?

You're a fool. The religious officiant is merely the stand in for the government in this situation. The fact that the ceremony is performed in a church/synagogue/mosque is besides the point.

#40 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Really?

A Catholic priest is a representative of the Government?

A rabbi is a duly appointed judge?

An iman has signature authority on a marriage license granted by the state?

Really?

No more separation of Church and State?

The government only recognizes civil unions, they do not do marriages. They give out documents that says legally, these two individuals are now considered together for tax purposes. There is no other role the government plays in marriage.

Actually, when you pay for the license, there has to be an official who signed it. That's the judge or the minister/priest/rabbi.

I believe the gov't doesn't view the person involved in a religious context at all. The church could be one that believes in republicans and democrats as being the only people you should vote for, yet because of there foolish doctrine, the minister could be a state-recognized official.

I'm still trying to sue the gov't over the establishment clause. This church's doctrine is defined clearly on every ballot and the gov't is preaching their doctrine. We need more political parties are people will actually start to follow this new religion's faith.

I'd bet you have a lifesize poster of mike jackson over your bed.

#44 | Posted by chickenrancher

Nah. He's kinda creepy.

For your ceiling:


Ginger

"I'm not sure which group you're referring to here.

#32 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE "

You know, the ones on "COPS" that are apparently heterosexual and married. Albeit trailer dwelling meth heads.

when you pay for the license, there has to be an official who signed it. That's the judge or the minister/priest/rabbi.

#48 | Posted by Petrous

Only if that priest/rabbi/iman is also a duly appointed representative of the state. The status of priest/rabbi/iman has no legal authority in and of itself in the eyes of the State.

A judge is a duly appointed representative of the state.

"when you pay for the license, there has to be an official who signed it. That's the judge or the minister/priest/rabbi.

#48 | Posted by Petrous


Only if that priest/rabbi/iman is also a duly appointed representative of the state. The status of priest/rabbi/iman has no legal authority in and of itself in the eyes of the State.


A judge is a duly appointed representative of the state.

#51 | Posted by ZOT "

Depends on your state.

href="http:// www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/ united_states/pennsylvania/ index.shtml">www.usmarriagelaws.com

http://www.familylife.org/ wedding/article1.pdf

#26 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Given our differences in the past, I am surprised to admit that I agree without reservation.

The guy's spin after getting owned by that judge is classic. "We don't know, that's the whole point!"

You know, the ones on "COPS" that are apparently heterosexual and married. Albeit trailer dwelling meth heads.

#50 | Posted by satansbeard at 2009-10-15 11:17 AM

Oh, Ok. Thanks for clearing that up. When you said "mullet-head in a wife beater" I couldn't tell if you were talking about trailer trash heteros or butch lezbos.

Someone - I can no longer find the post - suggested that marriage equality would win in San Fran, in the Ninth Circuit, but be shot down (as it should, the post said) by The Supremes.

Sadly, that's right. The Catholic six, bulwarked by the concrete-headed Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Silent Clarence, surely have minds made up to send them uppity gays back to where they belong. herm

The lawyer is a simple Television watcher , he doesn't even understand mariage and law So that is why he didn't know.

Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.

The center of the civilized society is the family.

Govenment is necessary for the continuation of family, protecting and nurturing, and wisely using resources so that we can have the most efficient use of government, and the productivity of the expanding state and to protect the indivicual family units.

Homosexual units are totally non-productive. They are wasted resources, and can only survive by cutting into existing family units.

You see, unless you have forgotten, two males cannot have children.

To have children you have to remove a useful family member child that would have produced a full family functional unit, and now made it useless and prone to developing into another non funtional unit that later will have to marry another former useful member (another male child or another female child.

so for every person that is allowed into homosexual marriage, two family units would have to be destroyed.

This is tearing down society.

Not only that, their risk of cathing the MOST EXPENSIVE DESEASES TO SOCIETY are increase by 20 times!

hepatitis B and Aids are both incurable inllnesses that on the average can cost 1000 dollars a MONTH to keep alive, causing extreme drain on society.

so, homosexual families are a destructive, drain on society increase medical costs and use UNNATURAL physical activities (colons are not built for that activity) and desease.

Only a Judge who has no brain would see that.


It is like going to Microsoft and saying, WHY SON'T YOU PUT IN A FEW VIRAL SUBROUTINES that randomly go theough the hard drive and wipe out parts of files twice a day because IT IS FUN?

the whole credibility of the program would collapse, just like the whole credibility of the family unint and GOVERNMET (sworn to HELP DEVELOP AMERICA into a PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY) would also collapse.

Oh sorry

IO forgot

We already have collapsed as a productive part of society, my bad.

We all consume without producing very much now.

Well, the inevitable end is total destruction.

Inteligent people see this support of a virally destructive to the society lifestyle should not exist.

Hence the percieved hate.

When you have the finished procuct, and the programmers say HEY, THE VIRAL RANDOM DESTRUCTIVE SECQUENCES SCREW WITH MY part of the program! well, the developers of the viral segments think they are hated!

Well,

They are

And deservedly so, they are the central point of destruction in the procgram, but too ignorant to see it, cause they wrote the sequences and would rather get a reward.

So master programmer passes laws and says

Hey no hating on the viral subroutine programers we need to love one another.

So then, the smart people invent unix.

By By microsoft.

#57 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-15 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag: Broken "Enter" key

The question to ask is why is this judge trying to overturn the will of the people who voted for Prop 8 with a jury???

#41 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-10-15 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe the answer should be: at times, people are too stupid, superstitious or ignorant to know what is right.

"The center of the civilized society is the family."

Then why not allow and encourage the creation of more families and stronger families?

"Homosexual units are totally non-productive. They are wasted resources, and can only survive by cutting into existing family units."

Total bigotry. You would NEVER say the same about childless couples, infertile couples, or post-menopausal couples.

Richard's fallacy is that only people who reproduce can be a family. herm

You see, unless you have forgotten, two males cannot have children.



Bullshit.

They can adopt. Much better to let a child languish in an orphanage rather than become a part of a loving family.

You seem to forget that two women as well as single women can bear children.

Your bigoted arguement is full of flaws.

Richard - do you think that government preventing gay people from marrying will somehow encourage them to be straight and form a family?


when you pay for the license, there has to be an official who signed it. That's the judge or the minister/priest/rabbi.


#48 | Posted by Petrous

Nope. NYS the marraige license is signed by the town/city clerk.

Bottom line:

This is a FACTOID (training thought for non-thinkers).

If you take away the falsely nurturing government who protects the idea of NON-PRODUCTIVE FAMILIES, and let us say AFTER THE IMPENDING COLLAPSE, well, there will be no "alternate" lifestyles, they will do to them what they did to them in the wild west. I'll leave it to your imagination.
The violent MAJORITY will not allow homosexual marriages. That is just a fact of life.
And it is horrible, kind of like how australian dingoes eat baby kangaroos, living in pouches, very shocking but a way of life.

I dont think it will let SOME form a family as it has in the last millenia since it was a social stigma, but it certainly wouldn't get as prominent and/or resource depleteing, saving resources for productive families.

Alternate families can only thrive under protection from a Government, or they would be"SELECTED OUT" by hanging nooses and things like that as they were in the wild west days and the dark ages.

Ugly, but just a fact.

Alternate families can only thrive under protection from a Government, or they would be"SELECTED OUT" by hanging nooses and things like that as they were in the wild west days and the dark ages.


Ugly, but just a fact.

Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-15 12:07 PM | Reply


So You advocate for the lynching of ghays ehhhhhh what a sick person You are.

Larry

"Why would you not allow a twelve year old to buy cigarettes and smoke them, or buy a six pack and drink it?"

"Why would you not allow men to run a battered women home and hire male counselors to help them?"

#45 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2009-10-15 10:41 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Petrous - You know there are compelling arguments for each of these 'rules'. We're discussing a particular issue here, halfwit, and you have failed to defend Prop 8. Throw up as much smokescreen as you like, but you have failed to point out why gay marriage is harmful to society. I can argue a clear case on why it's illegal for twelve year old kids to smoke and drink or why battered women's shelters shouldn't be staffed solely by men. You can't make a compelling case for the harmful effects of gay marriage. See the difference? Halfwit. Moron.

As for bestiality or pedophilia? Obviously that would be an unequal partnership, to put it mildly. No comparison to gay marriage. Polygamy? The type that does not tightly coincide with child brides? Who gives a shit? If *adults* want to engage in polygamy, it's no business of mine. Texas government got involved in El Dorado because 14 and 15 year old girls were forced to marry their first cousins by a patriarchal institution. FLDS wouldn't have any problems if they could keep their paws off the kiddies.

Throw up some more smokescreens in place of real arguments, clown. I need entertainment.

"SELECTED OUT" by hanging nooses

I for one find your hateful bigoted remarks ugly.

What a sad person you must be in real life to go around with such hate in your soul.

You are wrong. It is society that will protect these families, and I will fight against anyone that would do harm to such families.

Get counseling for your hate before it consumes your life.

I pity you.

richardrhine,

While I think I see the point you tried to make (that governments protect the rights of alternative families), your use of "can only thrive under protection" implies that the majority of people want to kill gay people and only the law is stopping them. Was that your point?


Same sex marriage...let the queers marry queers, it doesn't make any difference to me, damnit! Or at least make it up to states and not a federal issue

I agree. As long as no one else is affected, what does it matter?

(HEY ALEX -- OVER HERE -- YOU ALWAYS SAY I NEVER TAKE A STAND FOR A LEFTIST VIEW. SEE THIS? HEY ALEX, WRONG AGAIN.

YOO HOO, ALEX. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU SEE THIS, CRYBABY. SEE IT? OK? OK?

LOL

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-14 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag

Saying it makes no difference to you is hardly "taking a stand". Calling people "queers" such as you agreed with, is hardly a support for gay rights, and shows a distinct bigotry on your part.

Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version)

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 (King James Version)

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

His people perish for lack of knowledge.

Richardredhiney made a booboo with that one.

The center of the civilized society is the family

Uh-huh and gay people are family.

Sons, daughters, Uncles, Aunts, Cousins, Nephews, Nieces andf yes, even parents on occasion.

By attacking equal rights for gays you are, in essence, attacking and breaking apart family.

You become a force for hate, intolerance and social instability when you do that.

GL 'splaining all that to Jesus.

Be Well.

#73 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-15 12:25 PM
Why do you care if a couple of trucker women want to go muff diving and play house while they're at it? If it's wrong to you, or would get you thrown in hell, don't do it.

#57 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 11:47 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

HAHAHA! Where to begin?

"Homosexual units are totally non-productive."

Homosexual units do not create children between them. Very good. That's true. But there is no shortage of children in the U.S., DickRhine. Homosexual people are as economically productive or more so than other groups in our society.

Secondly, apparently you don't understand what "freedom" and "liberty" mean. Where to begin? First of all, if I don't want to be a productive member of society in whatever capacity, that is my choice as a free man. I don't have to have children if I don't want to. Where in our framework of laws does it state that the job of the government is to encourage the production of children?

Finally, how, exactly, does legalization of gay marriage result in fewer breeding units? It doesn't. Homosexuals don't *choose* to be attracted to people of their own gender. Therefore, they're really not the most likely bunch to go out and breed with members of the opposite sex. Therefore, neither the existence of homosexuals, nor government recognition of matrimonial unions between homosexuals have an effect on the number of heterosexual breeding couples. Your argument boils down to fear that most people are secretly gay and waiting for the government to say it's ok to come out of hiding. You seem to believe that homos will crawl out of the woodwork and nobody will breed once gay marriage is legal. You, sir, are a complete buffoon.

#73 | POSTED BY NANC AT 2009-10-15 12:25 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sorry, Nanc. Despite what Pastor Mike told you, you don't get to pass judgement on the actions of other people, especially when those actions don't concern you. Live your life as you see fit. Verses from the Bible are not logical arguments for or against gay marriage. They are instructions for personal conduct that the rest of us are free to follow or not.

RR's post was a wonderful melange of disturbing, missinformed, and pathetic flailing attempts to get ahold of things vaguely like facts to support an ignorant and hateful viewpoint.

First, were his view correct, every childless couple or single person out there is a drain on society. Without even invoking a whole slippery slope argument, it can pretty much be taken to say that the only purpose of any person as a unit in society is to have children. In fact, apparently people who have outlived their reproductive years should have their marriages annulled. Useless bloodsucking leeches on society. The view is quaint and straight out of the eighteenth century, and when taken in proper context with the current census of humans on this earth, apparently wants us to spread like an unmitigated virus on the face of the planet. It also hearkens back to when we were an agricultural society and children were needed to help tend the family land, as well as outbreed the staggering infant mortality rate.

RR, wake up and smell the post-industrialized society.

Next, regarding disease transmission, it could easily be inferred that a lot of the percieved homosexual vulnerability to disease is related to a generally more promiscuous lifestyle, one which marriage, social acceptance, and encouragement of monotony...er...monogamy would help to avert, thereby saving society from an increased disease burden.

Finally, government is indeed there to carry out the will of the people, but sometimes the purpose of government must be to protect the minority from the majority, as it did when it abolished slavery.

Welcome to now. We are past superstition, your crossburnings and witchhunts needed to end a long time ago.

Nanc, noone cares what a bunch of 2000+ year dead men had to write under their burden of ignorance and superstition.

#79 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG AT 2009-10-15 12:40 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Bravo!

"Richard - do you think that government preventing gay people from marrying will somehow encourage them to be straight and form a family?"

What I want to know is, how many of the homophobes who think that gays can "straighten out" via marriage would want their own daughters (or sons) to marry someone whose inclinations keep them from loving the opposite sex completely?

Very easy to say that giving straight sex a try would cure someone gay. Much harder to deal with the idea that someone's doing so could cause great unhappiness for their partner.

When I was a kid, we had neighbors who were famous for her shrewishness and his alcoholic stupor. Wasn't until years later that the truth came out - he was gay and she was furious about having been "fooled." They split; he sobered up and found a guy he's happy with, and she found someone who liked playing Hide the Pickle with girls. Everybody's much better off now, seems to me.

#73 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-15 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not everyone believes like you do. Forcing your religious beliefs on others is evil.

Matthew

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

#57 | Posted by richardrhine

Well, no bigotry there. Bet you and your white bread family are still frothing over the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act.

And now about all this useless non-baby maker stuff. Might as well put me and some of my friends (male and female) up against the wall now because we have not made a single child - we just run the machine but produce no product. And what about all them useless elderly oxygen users? They're done, finished, nothing but useless eaters, right?

Also most fascinating that you, and other anti-gays, seem to focus exclusively on the male gay couples, but rarely mention female gay couples. Now why is that? Coupl'a babes doing the scrumping is pretty hawt stuff, eh wot?

#72 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

You also say there are blue ghost angels that hang around Cincinnati gas stations. You also say there are smokestacks on the moon. You also say there are invisible sky fairies who slice and dice clouds over Iran. You also say the Apollo moon landings are fake. You also think car antennaes are better weapons than guns.

So you'll just have to pardon me if I treat this post as I would with any other post by someone with proven deficient cognitive skills.

Circular file.

#73 | POSTED BY NANC AT 2009-10-15 12:25 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I'm curious, Nanc. What did you hope to accomplish by posting this? Do you believe that people posting here, debating this issue are unaware that homosexuality is specifically prohibited in the Bible? Do you believe that those who do not share in your faith should be held to the behavioral codes laid out in the texts of your religion? Lastly, do you believe that laws should be created to enforce the behavioral codes of the Bible?

I think anyone can do whatever they want.

I just answered the question the judge asked and the lawyer was too chicken to say out loud.
(He needs to keep his job)

I do. Soon the war on anyone who eats shellfish will begin! Death to those lacking proper tassels on their robes or who dare sport cotton/poly blends!

#87 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 01:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Your 'arguments' are not valid and would have been eviscerated by any impartial judge in this country. The idea that you are somehow more intelligent or more informed on this issue than the lawyer in question is preposterous.

Or more courageous.

You also say there are blue ghost angels that hang around Cincinnati gas stations.

No, I don't you are simply lying. How about showing a post where I make any such claim.

You also say there are smokestacks on the moon.

Actually I just call it a smokestack because that is what it looks like. I have been consistant in saying I don't know what it is. You, OTOH insist it is a magical appearing, moving, and fading smudge on a still picture in less than 1/6th second.

www.youtube.com

You also say there are invisible sky fairies who slice and dice clouds over Iran.

Nope, another lie by you. You are the only one claiming invisible sky fairies cutting clouds in half. How about showing a post where I make any such claim.

You also say the Apollo moon landings are fake.

Nope, another lie by you. I question if they happened considering some of the things posted on youtube---like the Apollo 11 astronauts faking their disatance from the earth, when they should have been halfway to the moon. How about showing a post where I make any such claim.

www.youtube.com

You also think car antennaes are better weapons than guns.

Nope, another lie by you. How about showing a post where I make any such claim.

So you'll just have to pardon me if I treat this post as I would with any other post by someone with proven deficient cognitive skills.

I'm sure most people would agree that you were calling gays queers, and that saying it doesn't matter to you is hardly support for gay rights. How about defending gay rights against those who oppose the rights of gays to marry? Then you can say you support gay rights. Post # 72 simply highlights you hypocrisy and bigotry. You don't seem to like looking at yourself. Can't say that I blame you.

#85 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-15 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag


Richard's fallacy is that only people who reproduce can be a family. herm

#62 | Posted by herm at 2009-10-15 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

And HERM's is that the only good baby is a dead one.

The IDEAL family is composed of a loving and caring birth mother and birth father. That is the best formula for society. This is an undisputible fact. Other forms can be successful but the best formula is a functioning traditional family unit. Where is the logic in PROMOTING and encouraging the use of a much less successful formula?

You want to send a positive signal to people about personal responsibility and accountability not a message that two cats and a dog comprise a family. Why do liberals hate families so much? Why do they want children to grow up gay?

Why can't this state make sure a proposition on the ballot is written in a way that passes Constitutional challenges before being voted on? What is the point of voting on a measure, if they know it will be challenged in court?

It makes those bigotted bastards feel like they got a win just before the law follows the constitution.

"Where is the logic in PROMOTING and encouraging the use of a much less successful formula? "

Because even less than ideal is better than nothing. Using your "logic", society shouldn't 'promote' an infertile couple --male and female -- adopting a child.

"Why do liberals hate families so much?"

Well, there's some serious projection from a guy who thinks a married couple with an adoptive child is lesser.

"Why do they want children to grow up gay?"

They probably want children to grow up being honest to themselves, and see the damage done by people being forced to live a lie, or being treated as less-than-equal by bigots like you.

Hey, Elcid, where did we say we want children to grow up gay? I just wouldn't want a child of mine or anyone else's to grow up persecuted and denied basic civil rights if they were born gay.

Or are you applying to that fallacy that people choose to be gay, thereby in our current society denying themselves the right to marriage, progeny, passage of inheritance, while assuring themselves lives always at odds with the ignorant and hate filled? Yea, that really sounds like a choice to me...

The question to ask is why is this judge trying to overturn the will of the people who voted for Prop 8 with a jury???


Because mob rule isn't the rule of law.

The IDEAL family is composed of a loving and caring birth mother and birth father. That is the best formula for society. This is an undisputible fact. Other forms can be successful but the best formula is a functioning traditional family unit. Where is the logic in PROMOTING and encouraging the use of a much less successful formula?

#92 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2009-10-15 01:37 PM | Reply | Flag

Many children are raised by a single parent from a marriage that ended in divorce. The IDEAL you seek is very rare. What should be important to you is human rights--the freedom to live your life as you see fit, and to seek happiness and love where you can. That you would deny others that freedom at no cost to yourself shows what a small person you are in life.

Jono I didn't say that, strawman:

You said"Your 'arguments' are not valid and would have been eviscerated by any impartial judge in this country. The idea that you are somehow more intelligent or more informed on this issue than the lawyer in question ."
Show me where I said that.

I actually said the lawyer is afraid to state what I stated or people like you would have him fired.That is my opinion. You can have yours.
As far as being smarter than a lawyer, almost anyone can do that.

And I was right, here you are trying to damage me with false inuendos.

in response to
""Why do they want children to grow up gay?"

It affirns their choices so they don't feel guilty,

Uh, sure, except a child won't grow up gay unless already born that way.

Uh, sure, except a child won't grow up gay unless already born that way.


Or become a Catholic Priest. =D

The government only recognizes civil unions, they do not do marriages. They give out documents that says legally, these two individuals are now considered together for tax purposes. There is no other role the government plays in marriage.
#47 | Posted by kanrei

Are you saying that they do not issue marriage licenses?

Civil unions, as a matter of law, are quite different from marriages.

Alas, poor MJ, who dipped into their racket and was drugged to death. At least, that's how i heard it happened.

Hag,
I don't see any difference between the two and feel it simply breaks down to straight people are uncomfortable with marriage for gay people. All the government does is issue a licence that says these two people are joined legally as one. That is a civil union IMHO.

"That is a civil union IMHO."

But the certificate says "Marriage" at the top, and the rights that come from that certificate are far more extensive than any afforded to those with a civil union.

Its much more than just the word.

#98 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 02:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I'm a strawman? My argument may have been. Are you sure you know what that term means?

How could people like me have the lawyer fired? He is there to represent and argue in favor of Prop 8. The lawyer had enough balls to say "I don't know". That strikes me as being a strikingly honest statement. Although, it is rather confounding that someone would go to court in defense of Prop 8 and not have arguments prepared. I can accurately say that you suggest that the lawyer is either not brave enough to espouse your ridiculous arguments or that he isn't "smart" enough to reach your conclusions. You stated as much in post #57. My assertion is that your arguments are flawed and born of fear. The point of view that you have no idea what you're talking about is very well supported on this thread. No straw man there. You are entitled to your pathetic point of view. That's true. Please, continue in your whacked out fever dream. Without nut-jobs like you, the Retort would be a very boring forum.

#99 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 02:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Damage you? I want you to stick around and repeatedly demonstrate how warped is your perception of world and how it works. Christ, RichardRhine, you're a fucking treasure! I would never damage you.

"The question to ask is why is this judge trying to overturn the will of the people who voted for Prop 8 with a jury???

#41 | Posted by MURPHY"


The concept to understand is that civil rights are not dictated by majority rules. If they were, you still wouldn't be allowed to vote or own property, and 5roper wouldn't be allowed to ride in the front of the bus.

My wife and I are childless by choice. So our marriage is worthless?
All 21+ years of it?

How many of you other heteros bitching about gay marriage can make a claim of a 21 yr + marriage.

If 2 people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, shut your fucking bigoted mouth and let them.

Fucking braindead asswipe.

"Show me where I said that."

#98 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 02:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

"The lawyer is a simple Television watcher , he doesn't even understand mariage and law So that is why he didn't know."

#57 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE AT 2009-10-15 11:47 AM | REPLY | FLAG:


My wife and I are childless by choice. So our marriage is worthless?


#110 | Posted by briwo at 2009-10-15 03:30 PM | Reply


Yes, but not because you are childless. It's because she was dumb enough to marry an asshole like you.

Where you been, dickbag?

Dear goatman- (HEY ALEX -- OVER HERE -- YOU ALWAYS SAY I NEVER TAKE A STAND FOR A LEFTIST VIEW. SEE THIS? HEY ALEX, WRONG AGAIN.

That's not what I said, dickhead. I said you only attack and troll left wingers.
And you just attacked and trolled a left winger(me) to prove me wrong?

You're a fucking retard, goatman.

Seriously, for such a smart guy you act dumber than a stump, goatman. PLEASE don't list your left wing views to defend yourself for the nth time.

I really don't want to be reminded that I agree with anything a trolling dumb ass like you believes.

You're a fucking retard...

...for such a smart guy ...

Flag: Confused

RichardRhine - Admit that post #111 clearly demonstrates that you are a drooling, logic-free fuckwit. Kneel before Zod, you un-American piece of doo doo. ;)

Smart people can act retarded, goatman.

Like not comprehending I said you ATTACK the left, instead of your strawman about espousing leftist ideas.

Go troll some right wingers for a while and you'll prove me wrong. I dare ya.

"The government only recognizes civil unions, they do not do marriage"

It must be nice to be able to make up your own definitions, and then declare black is white.

The federal tax return alone proves you wrong. "Married filing jointly" is an option. "Civilly Unified filing jointly" is not. You've got it completely backward.

"Go troll some right wingers for a while and you'll prove me wrong. I dare ya."

GoatbOoB troll some rightwingers? Who? Certainly not his pal Pinochet Mao, when that dumbass can manage to stay off suspension.

I'd rather he didn't nullifidian. Stay off suspension, that is.

Hey Chairbitch, wass up?

Still cleaning up the Hoods of Buffalo?

Yep. I 3.5" slug at a time...

Go troll some right wingers for a while and you'll prove me wrong.

1) I don't care to prove you wrong 2) I explained the left is much more fun to troll. I get a much bigger bang for the buck from you guys.

If 2 people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, shut your bigoted mouth and let them.
#110 | Posted by briwo

What part of the current law prohibits 2 people from making a lifelong commitment? I mean, is your argument for same sex marriage based on love or on the same rights afforded to homosexuals as heterosexual couples currently have? If it's about love, there is currently no law that prohibits 2 people from making a lifelong commitment. They can do so in a church (one that believes same sex unions are OK) or anywhere else for that matter.

I tire of people making the argument that same sex marriage should be legalized because it's all about people that love each other (larry, Briwo, etc). No, it's not that at all - it's about equal LEGAL rights as a married couple. And unless I'm mistaken, CA already has provisions in place for civil unions that grant these equal rights. These rights should not be infringed upon; in this case, having a majority of the population vote against these rights would in fact be a violation of the Constitution. However, as long as these rights are still granted under other existing mechanisms, I see no problem with having society decide that the traditional definition of marriage remain a union between a man and a woman. To repeat, homosexuals have the right to the same protections afforded to heterosexuals in regards to their partners (health, power of attny, etc.) However, they have no right to change a fundamental portion of society as long as those other rights are not infringed upon.

What really needs to be worked on is ensuring that same sex unions DO have equal rights; this is one area that heterosexuals admittedly do need to work on.

The federal tax return alone proves you wrong. "Married filing jointly" is an option. "Civilly Unified filing jointly" is not. You've got it completely backward.
#118 | Posted by Danforth

Prop 8 only deals with state rights, not federal. When there is a national "Proposition 8", then this argument holds water; the passage or failure of Prop 8 would not have changed federal rights at all.

This does bring up a good point that SOMETHING needs to be done at the federal level; even if every state made same sex marriage legal, it wouldn't have 1 single effect on federal rights.

Because you can't.

You're right, Cap'n

There are any number of absolutely idiotic righties you could hound for some fun

Take it from a pro-troll -- you lefties are much, much more fun. More shrill. Woke, bOoB, celery, corky, angryshawnnewdadyawker. . . Need I say more?

Besides, alex -- I refuse to let you dictate to me what and how I post.

"However, they have no right to change a fundamental portion of society as long as those other rights are not infringed upon."

A truly conservative argument. Society is constantly changing at a fundamental level. People change society in small ways all the time. They do not need to ask permission from you or anyone else to enact these changes. Of course, society cannot remain stagnant by its very nature.

In a way, I agree that it is a stupid debate about names. That said, even when two people enact a civil union between them, they will not exclaim "We're getting civilly unified!" They'll say "We're getting married!" Because, in practice, that is what they will be doing. Definitions will shift to fit reality.

Corky is fun to troll? You must be a masochist, he usually kicks your sorry ass all over the place.

...he usually kicks your sorry ass all over the place.

I'm glad you think so. Yet you bitch that I troll the left. I guess you don't like seeing my sorry ass kicked about?

You are a dichotomy for sure, Alex

I just want the best for the goatman.

Admit it, a sophistic semantics war between goat and tadowe or goat and jak me nao would be pretty entertaining.

I just want the best for the goatman.

I'm sure you do. But don't worry, I know what's best for goatman

Admit it, a sophistic semantics war between goat and tadowe or goat and jak me nao would be pretty entertaining.

They are in another league. They'd squash me like a bug. I go for the low hanging fruit -- the left

But it's good news for you and dullifidian, Alex -- I end my three week hitch tomorrow and will be onshore for three weeks. No goatman during that time. My dance card is filled. Rejoice!

Wuss. Tad is bob crazy. He is FUN to mess with.

Your boyfriend jak is, too.

Tad is bob crazy.

Yes he is. Jak's not, though

Jak's not, though

#136 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-15 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

How's that eclipse working for you, Tosser?

Are you guys jumping up and down and brandishing your spears at the sky.

Actually slaughtering goats rather than having casual sex with them?

Mud People are funny to observe during eclipses.

Take lots of pictures.

Thanks!

Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-07-21 11:50 PM | Reply

Its a muslim.

Its guilty by the simple virtue of its existence.

I hope pancreatic cancer is extremely painful.

Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-08-23 03:20 AM | Reply

Yes . . . ?

I end my three week hitch tomorrow and will be onshore for three weeks. No goatman during that time. My dance card is filled. Rejoice!

#134 | Posted by goatman

And the retort thanks you, GoatbOoB.

i178.photobucket.com

And the retort thanks you, GoatbOoB.

So I see you are still the self-appointed spokeswoman for the DR. Cool. Because you would never be able to get elected. LOL

Another activist judge--from San Fran no less.

#1 | Posted by MURPHY

answer the question then..

and no he wasn't activist, simply upholding what the legislative branch passed. If there couldn't be a grounds based upon evidence to overturn he/she/it was doing their job...

The Fundies traditional response: "I don't know."

reminds me of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a good read (tragedy bound as we are).

Andy, the problem is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which requires states to recognize and honor contracts from other states.

I'm glad to see this case move forward. Clearly the plaintiffs will win (it's San Francisco) which will buck it up to the 9th Circuit, where they will win again.

Then the Supreme Court can finally put it to rest.

#9 | Posted by vernon

how the fuck did you take that left turn to Albuquerque? ICC has nothing to do with marriage and you may want to read this first before commenting.

en.wikipedia.org

#1...
nominated by George H.W. Bush.

little do we know what pitiful fascists the Bush's make, eh?

#38 | Posted by ZOT

Nor should it. Unless it is a Christian ceremony

#42 | Posted by chickenrancher

Now this is a person that is Unamerican.

You're a fool. The religious officiant is merely the stand in for the government in this situation. The fact that the ceremony is performed in a church/synagogue/mosque is besides the point.

#40 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Really?

A Catholic priest is a representative of the Government?

A rabbi is a duly appointed judge?

An iman has signature authority on a marriage license granted by the state?

Really?

No more separation of Church and State?

#46 | Posted by ZOT

The marriage ceremony is separate from the LEGAL DOCUMENT you sign for the STATE recognizing that you legally bound to each other. You can have a religious marriage ceremony but its not legally binding in the eyes of the state unless you fill out the documents that are filled with the State.

Before called a Marriage license it was called a MARRIAGE BOND (Before 1845)

oh, that's right, the Bushs both have been purged from the New Right Facist party.

you want pain? should i hope mother nature provides it before we can? would that unite us? HA!

"in times of peace the warlike man attacks himself," i.e., there can be no peace. Dobson was wrong.

#5... hey Goatsewhat's leftist about it?

better than attempting to explaining that, from that, define "the Right"? you may need this word, "hate."

?

My only opposition to Gay marriage is not the "Gay" part, but the "Marriage" part. The government has no place at all in it, regulating it, licensing it, or approving or disapproving of it.

#7... religion was protected LONG before race. asshat.

smoke meth, play again.

thank you DF. such were/are the problems with Ron Paul and the glibertarians.

When Prop 8 passed, didn't the Constitution itself change? And if so, isn't the question of Constitutionality already settled?

#45...
Why are men and women separated in barracks in the army, but gay men and straight men are not?

that, along with most of the rest of what you wrote shows your lack of knowledge... shallow. sorry, too much to straighten out. but if you think we make laws as a society by "majority vote" you're wrong.
...
In a free country, why are all these examples considered acceptable....

as for the above:P what makes you think any of those examples are particularly acceptable?

digressing, what makes you think "Kansas" is a person so different than "California"? you either know neither or speak in deceptive or whimsical generalities.


When Prop 8 passed, didn't the Constitution itself change? And if so, isn't the question of Constitutionality already settled?

#152 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-15 05:52 PM | Reply |


Yes it changed but there is possible violation of THE US constitution. In addition if the law violates another provision of the constituion that could be a problem as well. Such as a provision ensuring equal rights regardless of race/gender/orientation/
handicap etc.

The point is, just because a law is passed doesn't make it right. That is for the courts to properly decide.


My only opposition to Gay marriage is not the "Gay" part, but the "Marriage" part. The government has no place at all in it, regulating it, licensing it, or approving or disapproving of it.

#148 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-15 05:37 PM | Reply |

This is the argument that makes me think the conservatives are completely full of shit. The small get off my back government types seem to be totally ok with the government deciding who marries and who doesn't.

All rights come from the government. The government give churches the right to perform marriage ceremonies. Marriage is a legal contract---not a religious contract. No religious person is required to have a marriage be legal, and no religious person is necessary to abolish or divorce a couple. The say the government should get out of marriage is to simply not understand that government says whether you are married or not---not the church.

If you get married at the church of Bleeding Saints, and the government doesn't recognise the legality of that church---you aren't married.

.. Homosexual units are totally non-productive. They are wasted resources, and can only survive by cutting into existing family units.
..
When you have the finished procuct, and the programmers say HEY, THE VIRAL RANDOM DESTRUCTIVE SECQUENCES SCREW WITH MY part of the program! well, the developers of the viral segments think they are hated! ..
#57 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-15 11:47 AM

With all due respect for this very interesting thread - I'll read the rest of the posts a bit later, I'm transferring my garden indoors.

richardrhine - So, you do not equate anything other than genetically similar as family, procreation as the means to it's ultimate expression. You believe that sexuality is solely existing for procreation, it's expression merely a product of species propagation. You would believe that all sexuality is purely for the sake of what makes a family.

You lack not only the intellectual capacity to fully recognize societal growth, but sexuality in all things.

For now, let's bypass historic evidence of homosexual influence and keep with the present day. I'd be happy to extend this typing into that sphere if it would please you also, although I will still barb you throughout the process.

I will presume that you are a fundamentalist Christian and probably believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that Noah rescued 1 pair of each terrestrial animal (luckily no gays on that voyage). Is your God male or female? From what I understand some of you believe that it is neither, but prefer to refer to it's sexuality as "Him". Why are humans, among many Earthly species sexually dimorphic (that means two sexes) and not more Godly, at minimum "made in His image"? Wouldn't the expansion of the species better adapt without two or more sexes - like the more perfect replication of cloning? I wonder why two people from different families make a genetically better progeny than two from the same family? Perhaps it has something to do with the purpose of the "programming" as you like to call it. Goodness knows it's nearly impossible to distinguish the "good" genes from the "bad", but it's quite simple for you once the organism is old enough to desire a mate. Us gay kids are made wrongly, is that correct? Perhaps this is a little understood joke from which your "inventor" is waiting your laughter?

Let's get quite real - homosexuals are marrying for the LOVE they feel for one another. That's not a genetic dynamic that falls into your pairing concept, merely an enforcement of the familial bonding. Is that because love isn't requiring sexual joining or has a genetic cursor that is passed on? Perhaps that's something more aesthetic that you are ineptly babbling about as "programming". You apply the idea of merging genetics as Jim Kramer does to a stock - is doesn't matter if the company is a war profiteer engaging in an illegal invasion so long as it has a "vagina" in which to insert it's "penis". Only the "strong" survive, eh? Then why are gays constantly being created? Why left-handed people? Why the red-twitch/white-twitch muscle ratios in athletes? Perhaps because evolution is much more than just programming replication?

It appears that all sexually dimorphic animals can engage in homosexuality, some do so exclusively, but most as the situation presents itself accordingly as per the individuals involved. Most homosexual activity isn't the dominant sexual activity, but merely an aspect to the commonly evolving societal dependency. The ratio of gays is equivalent to the societal potential. Thus, we are indicative of a greatness of diversity.

That appears to indicate that even human society is inherently gay to whatever extent, thus all humans possess the capacity for hetero and homosexual relationships. In fact, we present not just the challenge of discovering our individual preferences, but the growth of our species as a whole as we diversify. Gays contribute more to social growth than you can understand, but moreso to the survival of our species and that of the planet.

But you would have everyone believe that gays are abhorrent, destructive and malevolent to creation. What a waste that would be!

"Like an idea falling, tumbling to Earth, it's wings broken, so like wisdom."

I agree. As long as no one else is affected, what does it matter?

(HEY ALEX -- OVER HERE -- YOU ALWAYS SAY I NEVER TAKE A STAND FOR A LEFTIST VIEW.

Permitting any two people who so desire to marry isn't leftist, it's centrist.

Leftist would be abolishing the special rights and privileges we extend to married couples. Or abolishing marriage altogether.

"Leftist would be abolishing the special rights and privileges we extend to married couples. Or abolishing marriage altogether."

This leftist says amen, er, bravo to that idea. The state has no business in "approving" personal relationships. At minimum, civil unions for all.


#45 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Halfwit. Moron. As for bestiality or pedophilia? Obviously that would be an unequal partnership, to put it mildly. No comparison to gay marriage. Polygamy? Throw up some more smokescreens in place of real arguments, clown. I need entertainment.

#69 | Posted by JonO at 2009-10-15 12:11 PM

JonO, you failed to read #25 above, aside from being insulting intellectually.

You are historically wrong. When Utah was considered for Statehood, they had to do away with polygamy. If you understood history, there was no argument about unequal partnerships.

The issue was morality.

If people were honest about how they felt about homosexuality, you would find that those against gay marriage are against it for the same reason as they are against bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.

It is sickening. It is immoral. That is the real reason for those against gay marriage. Any other reason is a smokescreen. They are afraid to say it.

And, in this country, many laws on the books are based on the morality of the nation. We have laws based on our beliefs. Even an athiest has beliefs. Even those who are for gay marriage have beliefs that others would find in direct contrast to their own. So, its not religion that is in the way - it is public perception and belief.

I stated above a specific question. What do gay advocates really want. State rights or to be able to say they are married:

"Let the States grant the same benefits, without any union whatsoever, those benefits people get from marriage. Give people the right to choose how they leave the possessions to, the rights conferred on a designated partner, etc.

Is the issue to say your married? or is the issue to get the same rights?

I didn't get married to have the rights in the law books granted to me. Isn't that the typical argument when such civil unions are denied? That they aren't getting the same rights?

Did you get married for rights?"

"If a man owns a house and a woman, who has never owned a house, got married last year, she doesn't qualify for the first time home buyers credit.

The reason is because the law says she can't qualify because of her spouse.

If a man owns a house and another man, who has never owned a house, got married last year, he qualifies for the first time home buyers credit because the law allows it.

The reason is the FED doesn't recognize the marriage. So, the man who never owned a home gets the credit.

Is that fair? Do you hear hetero sex marriage partners complaining?"


"Let the States grant the same benefits, without any union whatsoever, those benefits people get from marriage. Give people the right to choose how they leave the possessions to, the rights conferred on a designated partner, etc."

But then there's supreme court precedent...

"separate is inherently unequal"

Not to mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

"Did you get married for rights?"

Partly.

Palimony Rights, baby!

"If people were honest about how they felt about homosexuality, you would find that those against gay marriage are against it for the same reason as they are against bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc."

Because they're stupid?

Bestiality: no consent
Polygamy: completely invalidates the legal underpinnings of marriage, i.e., conferring superseding rights on one other person.
Necrophilia: no consent...besides...fucking dead people...are you nuckin' futz?

It truly shows the intellectual vapidness when someone tries to equate "relationships" like this to conferring equal rights on all Americans.

"It is sickening. It is immoral. That is the real reason for those against gay marriage."

Then don't marry someone of the same sex.

"Any other reason is a smokescreen. They are afraid to say it."

Actually, you're a bigot. You're just afraid to say it.

"I stated above a specific question. What do gay advocates really want."

The same rights you & I get to take for granted.

"I didn't get married to have the rights in the law books granted to me."

Would you be willing to give them all up? Would you voluntarily allow your wife not to inherit without taxation? Would you choose to let someone else tell you she can't be on your health care plan? Would you freely have her give up the bump up to your Social Security amount if you pass away? It's easy to make a ludicrous claim like yours when you're not confronted with the possibility.

"Isn't that the typical argument when such civil unions are denied? That they aren't getting the same rights? "

They aren't. Those rights, and over a thousand more. It's a legitimate argument. Anyone pretending all those rights are available to a gay couple is a moron.

"If a man owns a house and another man, who has never owned a house, got married last year, he qualifies for the first time home buyers credit because the law allows it."

Gee, there's an easy fix for that: legalize gay marriage. Pretending that one loophole is the equal to the other thousand denied is total bullshit.

#163

Its not newsworthy flaggable, necessarily, but its the closest thing we've got.

NWF

Danforth, perhaps I wasn't clear.

I don't believe the reason for gay marriage to be denied is truly based on what is said by the anti-gay crowd.

If they were truly honest, they would say that they think it is immoral.

I believe that bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, necrophilia, etc. are illegal because people believe they are immoral and to protect society from it, they make it illegal.

It went from right vs. wrong to legal vs. illegal.

The arguments in the court, per the judge was:

"how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions."

That isn't the reason, honestly. It doesn't threaten conventional unions. It threatens the public, to those against it, because they believe it is immoral. Being immoral, this group that is against it wants it to be illegal - just like necrophilia. It's not a matter of consent. It's a matter of what people find disgusting.

That may seem like nonsense, but why is necrophilia illegal. It the body is dead, what is the body but, well, a body. It's no more important and an aborted fetus, right? It is no longer viable. It isn't life, right? Is there actual ownership of the body?

Sickening? Yes, to most. But should the majority get to rule over a minority?

I believe we all have beliefs. Some beliefs are so strong that we believe that if they are subverted, it could destroy our way of life, our nation, our future.

This is not really unlike the stance between Dems and Reps. Each believes the other knows a better way. If they can, they'll pass laws to undermine the other.

Gay marriage vs. hetero marriage. We are dealing with the conflicts of belief that exist in our own political parties.

Who's right or wrong? That isn't the issue. What's legal and illegal and how do we make our cause the one we want.

It's carried out through representation.
When enough of majority have had it, they'll make a Constitutional Amendment to fix the entire law.

Prop 8 was a public voice, was it not? It went to the public. It should have been a great majority requirement, to me like 75% of the public vote. Really a great majority to change the Constitution. But, doesn't California permit a lower percentage? That was basedon its own populace's choice. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that such major changes require a major backing by the majority-really overwhelmingly.

As major issues come, we'll either see society sway back and forth between the sides until one party shows a massive majority for a Constitutional change.

I don't like Fed involvement. Leave it to the State and let the people vote and take it out of the hands of politicians.

Politicians do not have to vote according to the public will once in office. MOst of the time, yes-but not always. On serious issues, I don't trust a politician. I want people to decide once in a while.

Awesome.
The real answer: It doesn't.
The sanctity of marriage is threatened more by DIVORCE than by gay marriage.

"I believe that bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, necrophilia, etc. are illegal because people believe they are immoral and to protect society from it, they make it illegal."

Yet you put those things on a par with equal rights for a set of Americans, just because you don't like those particular Americans. "Bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, necrophilia, etc." have nothing to do with equal rights. In three of the four, they are forced relationships with no consent. It's insultingly moronic anyone would put those on the same plane. And in the case of polygamy, it's rank stupidity, since it completely invalidates the legal underpinnings of marriage, and merely proves you have no idea what's really at stake.

"It went from right vs. wrong to legal vs. illegal."

Make whatever argument you want: equal rights are equal rights. There are over a thousand advantages my wife and I got the moment we said "I do", advantages you want to deny one subset of Americans. That just doesn't jibe with the best of our ideals.

"The arguments in the court, per the judge was: "how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions." That isn't the reason, honestly. It doesn't threaten conventional unions."

Thanks you for admitting that.

"It threatens the public, to those against it, because they believe it is immoral."

So what? The "public" thought interracial marriage was immoral. The "public" thought integrated schools were immoral. Luckily, fair-minded people knew better.

"Being immoral..."

You're assuming facts not in evidence. Why would two people who feel differently than you or I immediately be immoral?

"this group that is against it wants it to be illegal - just like necrophilia."

What a monstrous pile of bullshit. Trying to equate two consensual people wanting to be in a relationship with someone wanting to fuck a dead person speaks more of your sickness than their desires.

"It's not a matter of consent."

OF COURSE IT IS. Are you actually that stupid, to pretend a corpse gives consent?!?

"It's a matter of what people find disgusting."

I find idiots like you disgusting. Where can I make you illegal?

"That may seem like nonsense, but why is necrophilia illegal."

OMG, I cannot believe I'm actually having this conversation. There you have it, folks: Petrous can't understand why fucking a dead body is illegal, and why it isn't the moral equivalent of denying fellow Americans the same rights he takes for granted. I'm done wasting my time on this sicko.

I believe we all have beliefs. Some beliefs are so strong that we believe that if they are subverted, it could destroy our way of life, our nation, our future.
This is not really unlike the stance between Dems and Reps. Each believes the other knows a better way. If they can, they'll pass laws to undermine the other.
Gay marriage vs. hetero marriage. We are dealing with the conflicts of belief that exist in our own political parties.
Who's right or wrong? That isn't the issue. What's legal and illegal and how do we make our cause the one we want.
It's carried out through representation.
When enough of majority have had it, they'll make a Constitutional Amendment to fix the entire law.
Prop 8 was a public voice, was it not? It went to the public. It should have been a great majority requirement, to me like 75% of the public vote. Really a great majority to change the Constitution. But, doesn't California permit a lower percentage? That was basedon its own populace's choice. Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that such major changes require a major backing by the majority-really overwhelmingly.
As major issues come, we'll either see society sway back and forth between the sides until one party shows a massive majority for a Constitutional change.
I don't like Fed involvement. Leave it to the State and let the people vote and take it out of the hands of politicians.
Politicians do not have to vote according to the public will once in office. MOst of the time, yes-but not always. On serious issues, I don't trust a politician. I want people to decide once in a while.
#166 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2009-10-15 10:36 PM

Imo, "we" (gay and straight) are being subjugated to a subset of society whom are bigoted, ignorant and utterly decaying in values and identity.

Not only is Christmas and marriage equally "under attack", but it's mainly due to the anti-social aspects of fundamentalism that erode the very cause of peoples desire to participate with logic, sobriety and heart.

I don't care who disbelieves in Christmas for whatever reasons, however many stores utterly whore themselves to the cause - I'm going to enjoy my holiday and say "merry Christmas" to everyone I meet. That's that.

Marriage should be the same - whomever believes that it's wrong and ugly are merely involving themselves in a lost cause. Two consenting adults in love is more than what some have married for.

Btw - really bold and well-written posts from your perspective, as typical. You and DANFORTH keep this thread topic on track, imo.

I don't like Fed involvement. Leave it to the State and let the people vote and take it out of the hands of politicians.

I find it almost impossible to believe Petrous wasn't a huge fan of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Damn Activist Judge.....Imagine this judge asking the lawyer to explain himself! The nerve of this judge to ask the lawyer to back up his assertions!

How 'Activist' of him.

"It's insultingly moronic anyone would put those on the same plane. "

#168 | Posted by Danforth

Never underestimate the tenacity or bigotry of morons.

"bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, necrophilia ... put those on the same plane."

That would be some flight! Hate to have to be the cleaner of the cabin after that arrival. Gives a whole new spin to the Mile-High Club. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

"And in the case of polygamy, it's rank stupidity, since it completely invalidates the legal underpinnings of marriage..."

Only as we have determined what marriage is in our society today. In times past, recent and not so recent, in many societies/civilizations, it was the norm to have many wives and/or concubines (that is, child bearing machines to put it crudely), especially for nobility and royalty. It helped ensure that the blood line continued. Even in the Bible, it is mentioned how some of the more prominent figures had multiple wives/concubines.

And concerning the underpinnings of marriage, well, considering the divorce rates (50 plus percent for first marriages, the failure rate climbs much higher for 2nd, 3rd, etc., marriages), I don't think that traditional marriage is very well "underpinned."

Concerning: "to the anti-social aspects of fundamentalism "

So, everyon is ok except those who obey God?

How stupid can you get. Even a 1st grader knows the ones who don't listen get punished and the ones who obey are rewarded.

You certainly won't get the fundamental reward.

You just fulfilled prophecy:

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Isa 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.


You are in a heap o trouble boy.

I will stay back so as I dont hear your crackling...

concerning:
Awesome.
The real answer: It doesn't.
The sanctity of marriage is threatened more by DIVORCE than by gay marriage.

Not correct

Divorce never called down fire like Sodom and Gomorrha.

But do whatever you want, before TSHTF

cause you aren't going to survive the plagues.

cause you aren't going to survive the plagues.

#175 | Posted by richardrhine

So whatchugonnado if/when you get swined and are at death's door? Or do you believe you have been rendered invincible/immune because of some dogma you profess to follow?

"I believe we all have beliefs."

AHAAHAHAHA!!!

Zot,

My operative phrase was "legal underpinnings".

Marriage is, at its legal root, a conferring of superseding rights on one other person. Your spouse alone gets unlimited marital gifts. Your spouse alone has the right, unless specifically waived, to your pension. Your spouse alone is allowed to inherit your IRA without any tax consequences. Your spouse alone has the right to refuse to testify against you. The list goes on and on. Polygamy would offer none of these, so many of the legal advantages of marriage would dissolve with multiple spouses.

#174 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-16 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag: honestly hopes and prays that Atlantic City and Reno will be destroyed in his lifetime so he can watch it on TV

you're a moron.
what does the NATURAL destruction of two mythical cities have anything to do with a court case in the 21st century?

Not to mention, if your Bible is to be believed, when Sodom and Gemhorrah were supposedly destroyed, polygamy was the standard practice of marriage, and slavery was legal.

And don't forget Bible hero Lot, who drunkenly and incestuously impregnated his two virgin daughters, some time after offering them to be abused at will to the villagers.

Mmmmm...Bible Family Values!

"You are in a heap o trouble boy.
I will stay back so as I dont hear your crackling..."

"Divorce never called down fire like Sodom and Gomorrha."

Are you 3 years old? Grow up. God doesn't hurl lightning bolts at people who displease him. That was Zeus. Zeus was a myth believed by primitive, frightened people (as is your Bible).


The OT is chock full of very human stories about both their leaders and everyday people, which is one reason scholars see it as an honest accounting; that the leaders are not glorified as in leader-approved stories, but shown with all their faults and very human frailties.

"Divorce never called down fire like Sodom and Gomorrha."

grammar nazi moment, sorry: Divorce never called down fire like IT DID ON Sodom and Gomorrha.

there, fixed that for ya.

RE: 182: i actually think Zeus and El are/were the same supernatural entity, if either ever really existed. he/she/it got tired of being Zeus, and just switched sides to the Jews, to start a new weird moral experiment that ALSO went horribly, horribly wrong. wonder why gods aren't around anymore? they got tired of seeing their intentions twisted by human nature. throw your bible out!

This opinion may be outside the norm, but I think that if gay people are allowed to be married then people should be able to practice polygamy. One argument for the gay movement is that they should be allowed to be happy like everybody else. Well, shouldn't polygamists be allowed to do what makes them happy as well? If gay marriage doesn't harm children involved in that marriage then polygamy should not have a negative effect on children either.

I have always been against gay marriage, but I'm starting to come around to the thought that I really don't care if they marry.

#185 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-10-16 09:35 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

If all involved are adults and free from coercion, why not? We have huge communities of polygamists in this country. Though it's technically illegal, they're largely left alone when they're not fucking children.

You are in a heap o trouble boy.

I will stay back so as I dont hear your crackling...

If people wanna crackle, let 'em crackle. It's not your fucking problem, so piss off.

#185 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-10-16 09:35 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

By the way, Everlong -

Congratulations on being a step away from becoming an American. Now, just a step or two more toward liberty and justice for all...

#185 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-10-16 09:35 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Many of the societal ills usually associated with polygamy (at least the FLDS brand) stem from the insular, isolated nature of their society. If polygamy (the adult, non-coercive kind) were legalized, their community might feel less persecuted and open up a bit. With a more open, less isolated society, the young men they have to throw out of their communities to make sure there are enough young brides for the dominant priesthood and the young women who don't want to become the sixth wife of crusty old uncle Ebenezer could more easily find and transition into a place in the outside world. Also, it would be much easier to catch, prosecute, and punish the child predators that infest their ranks.

I read the judge took the lawyer, bent him over the bench, and "stumped" him real good.

"If all involved are adults and free from coercion, why not?"

I think Dan addresses your question in #178.

My operative phrase was "legal underpinnings".

#178 | Posted by Danforth

Okay, which is essentially contractual. Though most of the terms of the contract are dictated by the State. Any contract can be altered or a separate contract created. Laws can be altered, amended, or created. So the laws/contract can be amended, altered, etc., to accommodate multiple spouses as the law also accommodates multiple children.

What is happening to gays is that they are being denied equal access to the law and equal treatment under the law. And being that we are a nation that functions under secular law, denying a subset of people equal access is a crime.

There is no such thing as gay rights, only equal rights and equal treatment. Gay rights implies that gays want more than what hets get. This is not so.

"most of the terms of the contract are dictated by the State."

The big ones, though, are federal: Pension rights, SS, IRAs, unlimited marital gifts, etc.

"Any contract can be altered or a separate contract created. "

Then explain how superseding rights can be conferred on more than one person.

"What is happening to gays is that they are being denied equal access to the law and equal treatment under the law. And being that we are a nation that functions under secular law, denying a subset of people equal access is a crime."

Agreed.

#191 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2009-10-16 10:25 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Poorly. Adults are free to enter into whatever the fuck kind of arrangements they want and call it marriage. You might not consider it marriage in your neighborhood, but that doesn't matter *at all*. In pointing out that there is no legal framework in America for polygamy, Danforth's argument amounts to this: it should be illegal because it's been illegal for a long time.

Sorry, Hag. That's not good enough for me. If "many of the legal advantages of marriage would dissolve with multiple spouses" as Danforth states, then the adults preparing to enter that arrangement should be made aware of the facts and legal implications and then be sent on their merry, polygamist way.

If polygamy becomes legal, then a legal framework can be decided on and enacted. It can even be adjusted later on! Wow. Care to try again?

Marriage is, at its legal root, a conferring of superseding rights on one other person. Your spouse alone gets unlimited marital gifts. Your spouse alone has the right, unless specifically waived, to your pension. Your spouse alone is allowed to inherit your IRA without any tax consequences. Your spouse alone has the right to refuse to testify against you. The list goes on and on. Polygamy would offer none of these, so many of the legal advantages of marriage would dissolve with multiple spouses.

#178 | Posted by Danforth

Reversion:

Marriage is, at its legal root, a conferring of superseding rights on other people. Your spouse/s gets/get unlimited marital gifts. Your spouse/s has/have the right, unless specifically waived, to your pension. Your spouse/s is/are allowed to inherit your IRA without any tax consequences. Your spouse/s has/have the right to refuse to testify against you.

See how easy it is?

#195 | POSTED BY ZOT AT 2009-10-16 10:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Well done.

"In pointing out that there is no legal framework in America for polygamy, Danforth's argument amounts to this: it should be illegal because it's been illegal for a long time."

I disagree.

With respect to the rights to which Dan refers, their practical value would become meaningless if needing to be divided amongst several parties. They are intended to provide security to the marital relationship and would be diminished to the point of uselessness.

And imagine the legal mess that would be created in divorce proceedings. A person only wants to divorce parties A and B, but remain married to parties D, E and F. Child custody issues. Alimony... palimony. A real disaster.

#197 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2009-10-16 10:43 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Heh! Polygamy is difficult. That's your argument? Sorry. Again, it's not a good enough reason to limit adults to enter into any sort of partnership they want.


Integration of schools causes all kinds of turmoil. It's too hard. Let's get some Jim Crow up in this bitch.

Discerning violent Muslim extremists from regular brown folks takes up too many of our law enforcement officers' time. Let's throw all the ragheads and hajis out of the fucking country.


See how stupid that sounds? Try to come up with an argument that makes sense, Hag. Don't worry about what consenting, responsible adults arrange between themselves.

Divorces are becoming increasingly complicated. Should we abolish marriage, or divorce, Hag? Douchhhhhhe.

There is no suitable legal framework to govern emerging technologies and transactions like the internet, e-commerce, and privacy rights for people who engage (sometimes unwittingly) in the exchange of information. It's difficult and time consuming to legislate. Let's just say fuck it and go back to the way things were before the interwebs. Right, Hag? Fuck it.

"See how easy it is?"

Sure. All you have to do is redefine superseding rights.

"Your spouse/s has/have the right, unless specifically waived, to your pension."

And which one has the right to first refusal? Oh, the one with the superseding right.

superseding superseding superseding

Hmm. Saying it multiple times without exposition seems to have no effect on my perspective. Strange. Why don't you explain what the fuck it is you're babbling about so Zot can come up with an elegantly brief thought experiment to prove you wrong, Danforth?

" it's not a good enough reason to limit adults to enter into any sort of partnership they want."

I think we're discussing at cross-purposes.

The main argument against denying gays equality is the legal one, allowing one group -- over here -- access to favorable legal contracts, and disallowing another group -- over there -- the same access to the same favorable contracts.

Bringing polygamy into the discussion as a comparison becomes apples and oranges. The legal conferring of superseding rights becomes moot. Again, you can't give multiple people the first right to your pension.

"Why don't you explain what the fuck it is you're babbling about so Zot can come up with an elegantly brief thought experiment to prove you wrong, Danforth?"

How about if you buy a dictionary and educate yourself instead?

#202 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-10-16 11:08 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

"I think we're discussing at cross-purposes. "

Probably.

"The legal conferring of superseding rights becomes moot. Again, you can't give multiple people the first right to your pension."

Where I come from, all loot is shared equally among equal partners. If someone dies or goes away, their share is divided equally among those that remain.

#203 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-10-16 11:11 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Ah! I see it your way now. It is in fact impossible to divide a pension payment equally among multiple surviving spouses. Thanks, Danforth. You're the captain of the debate team.

"If someone dies or goes away, their share is divided equally among those that remain."

You're right: that's what happens when you're not married.

So much for the advantage marriage confers.

If a lesbian living in, say Ohio, dies intestate, her next of kin inherits. If a married woman dies intestate, her spouse inherits automatically.

#206 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-10-16 11:20 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

That's fixed under the system I propose. I guess I'll wait until you make a cogent point.

"It is in fact impossible to divide a pension payment equally among multiple surviving spouses."

I see your point. There are other rights, though, difficult to divide. For example, in regards to making medical decisions, which spouse gets the say if there are no directives? Would loss of consort suits have to pay off ALL wives? Would employers have to cover ALL spouses?

You're right about the possibility of splitting money. Sometimes is comes down to other issues. And once that happens, it blurs the advantages of marriage.

That was my main point. I apologize if it got muddy.

Ah. I see. You're confused by my unconventional (I guess?) sentence structure.

Here:
If someone dies or goes away, their share is divided equally among those *parties to the existing agreement* that remain.

Does that help?

"That was my main point. I apologize if it got muddy."

No sweat. All your questions are good ones. I'm not a polygamist, so I'll not venture to answer them. Something for legal experts and polygamists to work out. My point is, let adult folks do what adult folks want to do.

scratch 209. You get the idea.

"My point is, let adult folks do what adult folks want to do."

I agree. My point was once there are multiple spouses, you're rendering moot some of the basic advantages marriage confers.

"See how easy it is?"

Sure. All you have to do is redefine superseding rights.

"Your spouse/s has/have the right, unless specifically waived, to your pension."

And which one has the right to first refusal? Oh, the one with the superseding right.

#200 | Posted by Danforth

Okay. Easy to reword. Most difficult in practice. It was mentioned above that a polygamous marriage would be complex. Yeah, not a shred of doubt about that here. Just having to deal with multiple womyns would be complex enough.

But the laws and contracts can be legally amended to accommodate.

"But the laws and contracts can be legally amended to accommodate."

Yes. But once they are, you're back to the same rights as being unmarried. For example, the right to make health decisions, automatic in a marriage, becomes exactly what it is when you're unmarried: a matter of a separate legal document.

concerning:
Awesome.
The real answer: It doesn't.
The sanctity of marriage is threatened more by DIVORCE than by gay marriage.

Not correct

Divorce never called down fire like Sodom and Gomorrha.

#174 | Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-16 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:


It must be truly awful to live a life in complete fear of a fairy-tale.

#215 | POSTED BY COMMONSENSE AT 2009-10-16 01:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Nah. I think it's only horrifying from the outside. The cliches are accurate, I think.
Plato's cave, "ignorance is bliss", and all that.

RichardRhine has God on his side, after all. You're the one who is going to burn in hell for eternity. ;)

Maybe I'll see you there.

At least we won't be hanging out with the likes of RichardRhine *forever*.

#214 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-10-16 01:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Only my chief wife, Fern, has authorization to pull the plug on me. If Fern is incapacitated, responsibility goes to Esther, my second wife. She's next in line even though her pioneer hairdo is the tallest and she sews the best fitting pair of sacred underpants I've ever worn. After Esther comes Rebekah, then Zestpool, Olga, Lemonberry, and Felacia.

#218 | Posted by JonO

Once again lesbians have found a way of getting around this marriage thingy. Guys are such suckers!

Spud you can spend 20 million bucks but you can't force a majority (especially in open-minded California) to go your way this easily. A lot of voters simply voted. Plus, there are only about 750,000 Mormons in the entire state.

www.allaboutmormons.com

Is all of this so hard to understand? Mormon-basher.

A mostly out of state religious institution spending 20 million dollars to oppose gay marriage can certainly influence a lot of people.

They are entitled to spend their money as they please but then Spud is entitled to call them out as intolerant assholes.

That's how this werks.

Is that too hard fer you to understand?

Cuz Spud can dumb it down fer you some if you'd like.

Sorry but the followers of a guy who changed the traditional meaning of marriage so he could fuck 55 different chicks and call it a marriage now trying to prevent two gay people who love each other from commiting to making a life together is too hypocitical for werds.

Not just immoral but st00pid too.

Spud's not a Mormon basher per se.

Just finds them cultier and sillier than most mainstream organised religions is all.

K?

Be Well.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable