Thread: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Originally Posted by Goldwater

You have got to be kidding. I'm not going to waste my time, and don't mistake my disacknowlegement for capitulation.

I accept your defeat.

You are offering "Trueorigin.org", to refute a study done by Stanford University?

Trueorigin.org is a creationist web site. How suitable that the idiocy of creationism runs hand in hand with hatred for gays.

Jesus would be appalled by your attempts to create a modern version of the Lepers

The stupidity of you attacking the link and not the evidence is only proof you lack the courage to go after the facts. Come back when you are actually ready to debate.

Originally Posted by 3link

Except none of this is true and you won't find a single quote from me suggesting any of this, which pretty much proves that you make-up things as you go along. How embarrassing for you.

LOL right. And I supposed I made you say this:

If you’ll recall, I said that I agreed with the 9th circuit decision.

Tell me, how many more lies are you going to tell about your own words?

For you sake, I'll take this nice and slow.

I said not allowing gays to marry is legal, but hateful and bigoted.

You also said you agreed with the 9th circuit court decision. Must I quote you again?

You asked why.

I said because it doesn't affect you.

You replied that if we based marriage on what doesn't affect third parties, that would open the doors for all kinds of marriages.

Which is 100% true.

I replied that marriage would still be confined to consent. In other words, no two parties could ever marry without consenting.

You replied (rather incoherently) that this was "descriminatory" (sic) against kids who lack legal consent to marry.

My reply is that age consent laws are a separate issue and they would remain undisturbed if gays were allowed to marry.

Which they are not. You foolishly only perceived consent as something verbal and not what the law states consent is. See the law is the actual subject here. LOL And you can't admit your mistake. Typical.

The presumption is that kids lack consent in the first place. They supposedly have not developed sufficient mental capacity to make those decisions. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that. My point is that this argument would still exist even if gays were allowed to marry.

Wrong again. You cannot limit a new civil right as you said you support in that decision. I don't know who you think you are fooling but I'll keep quoting you as long as you have the capacity to keep embarrassing yourself over and over again

Originally Posted by texmaster

HAHAHAHHAHA Take pride in making a complete fool out of yourself Walter? LOL

Thanks for stopping by proving once again you will run away to your basic 4 year old taunts once the facts are brought to light

And thanks for the laugh.

I find it foolish to hate groups of people Tex.

Don't you Tex?

Originally Posted by texmaster

Come back when you are actually ready to debate.

I'm still here, and I'm not going to address the ridiculous creationist cites you offer.

Sound like nobody else is either.

You sure are taking a beating.

Originally Posted by texmaster

"data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation."

There is no data to support the existance of God either.

Originally Posted by texmaster

LOL right. And I supposed I made you say this:

It was a typo. I meant to say I agreed the 9th circuit decision was wrong. I even have the link to my post to back it up. Check herefrom the previous thread.

But I do agree the 9th circuit decision was wrong. California residents have a right to ban gay marriage by amending their constitution. It shouldn't matter that a few people got married because the Mayor of San Francisco is an idiot.

So you basically made-up your "civil rights" straw man out of thin air.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Tell me, how many more lies are you going to tell about your own words?

You're one to talk about typos when you can't spell discriminate.

Originally Posted by texmaster

You also said you agreed with the 9th circuit court decision. Must I quote you again?

That was one typo that I made AFTER you claimed I had asserted that gays had a civil right to marry. You can't find a single post from before that typo.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Which they are not. You foolishly only perceived consent as something verbal and not what the law states consent is. See the law is the actual subject here. LOL And you can't admit your mistake. Typical.

What mistake? I happen to know what consent means. I'm attending law school. I have blacks law dictionary right in front of me. It doesn't pertain exclusively to mental consent of minors. Sorry bro.

And I do admit my mistakes. I made a typo about the 9th circuit decision.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Wrong again. You cannot limit a new civil right as you said you support in that decision. I don't know who you think you are fooling but I'll keep quoting you as long as you have the capacity to keep embarrassing yourself over and over again

So you're basically going to hang your hat on one typo even though the context heavily suggested it was a typo. Typical desperation.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Its called the dictionary. Might want to check it out.

Derp.

You basically hang your argument on one typo when I have repeatedly said in the past that I disagreed with the 9th circuit decision. It's about as juvenile as hanging my hat on your frequent misspellings of "discrimination."

[quote]

Originally Posted by texmaster

Yep

nope.

Wrong again. Both genders can marry so gender is not restricted.

nope. they are restricted from marrying the person of their choice based on gender.

I proved a heterosexual genetic link through biology. Too bad you didn't think that through.

no you didn't. you proved a reaction to sexual stimuli. nothing heterosexual about it.

Got anything like that for homosexuality? Didn't think so.

yep. homosexuals react to sexual stimuli differently than heterosexuals. they are attracted to members of the same sex.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Who are you to restrict marriage to consenting adults? I thought marriage was a "right" for all?



Faith is covered in the 1st Amendment. Try again.



Because you say so? Sorry, that's not evidence.



But you aren't trying to base law off that theory. You are with homosexuality. That's the difference.



Your argument to compare race to homosexuality is invalid since race is a proven genetic trait and homosexuality is not. Why do I have to keep repeating myself before you get it?

Marriage should be offered to those who are mature enough to freely chose it and who have freely chosen it if i forced you to marry me that would be unfair to you don’t you think.
If I married some other guy who wants to marry me how is that making either one of us less free and knowable about what we want and what we will want then if I married a women?

i do get it you can’t choose your genetics you can choose who you marry

You can choose to try and get sex with the same gender or the other one

i also get that laws banning interracial marriage never claimed that people could not chose there race

i get that all black and white people were treated the same under those laws black and white could marry just not one another

i get that was unfair to black and white people who wanted to marry one another because they could not marry the consenting adult of their choice while other people who wanted to a marry some one of the same race could

i get that the argument that homosexuals can marry under current law

i get that current law is still unfair to them when it denies them the ability to marry the consenting adult of their choice because of gender to suit people who are allowed to marry who they would want under current law

i get that pretending the ban on interracial marriage or in gender marriage is fair because everyone can still marry the same race and different gender regardless of how they feel and who they want to be with because people who would never choose that for themselves chose to deny it for all others as well as themselves by force. Is still bull (*)(*)(*)(*) that (*)(*)(*)(*)s on the idea of freedom and fairness and is the same self-serving pile of crap and lies in both cases?

i get that if you had a magic button that could make you gay or heterosexual or black or white it would still be unfair to deny interracial marriage and homosexual marriage to people that want it

i get that even if freedom of religion was not protected that banning interfaith marriage would still be unfair and that the 1st amendment doesn’t make religious discrimination wrong the wrongness of religious discrimination makes the 1st amendment right


i understand a lot im still waiting on you

Originally Posted by Subdermal

If they wanted access to those rights, they must simply marry someone with different plumbing than themselves.

Just like anyone else. Your objection is dismissed.

no that’s still treeing heterosexuals better by giving them rights for marrying who they would choose to anyway

and denying that to homosexuals because...um because you don’t want to i guess

But hey if you could only marry if you had 9 or less separate fingers that would be fair to most of us we could just stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about discrimination and cut some fingers off

what could be more fair you have the same rights to marry as someone born with flipper hands


Sure maybe some people don’t have to painfully cut bits of themselves off

But some people don’t have to marry the gender their not attracted to in order get married

In either case what could be fairer? Or a better example of not treating arbitrarily one group of people worse than another under the law because you feel like it

Surly if only homosexual marriage was aloud we hetero sexuals would not be treated like 2nd class people because we would be free to only marry the same gender and forbidden to marry the other one just like everyone else.