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

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

As if we all don't already know, the USSC was referring to RACE.

There was no mention of genital preference,and deviations, as a protected right, despite the asinine pretense of the Gay Guevaras to keep on pretending that the was referring to their sexual peccadillos.

Absolutely childish in its nonstop inanity.

You genital preference is NOT = to race. Sorry. I know you desperately need to pretend otherwise, but that changes nothing.

Put it before the voters...as often as you like...we'll CRUSH YOU...every time, except for one or two small, Northeastern states.

WE, the PEOPLE, will define marriage as we see fit....

do you understand that in places no Interracial marriage was the will of the people

we know sexuality is not the same as race but we also no pointless discrimination can occur related to both race and sexuality

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Race or genital preference , it DOES MATTER; one (race), comprises a Constitutional protection.

The other, comprises no such thing. Your preferred genitalia are not a protected right...

Keep trying to disengenuously equate the two...it highlights the desperation of your position.

There is no "tyranny", as gays are not being denied anything that anyone else has, in terms of ACTUAL RIGHTS, thanks to civil unions.

It is the Gay Guevaras who seek to force a Tyranny of the Minority on the rest of us....we ain't havin' it.

Mostly this is about marriage to your preferred consenting adult
You are free to marry the consenting adult of your choice if your hetero sexual you continue to deny homosexuals that choice because you feel like it

It’s unfair senseless discrimination

Originally Posted by stig42

Mostly this is about marriage to your preferred consenting adult
You are free to marry the consenting adult of your choice if your hetero sexual you continue to deny homosexuals that choice because you feel like it

It’s unfair senseless discrimination

Actually, there's plenty about it that is sensible; you just happen to disagree.

I, for instance, believe that there is a reason that Mother Nature evolved different sexes for the purpose of rearing and procreation, and I believe that homosexuals cannot match the upbringing of a child in a mother/father house.

But this is something that you'll dismiss - without any real good reason. In your heart, you likely know it's true, but you won't admit it.

Originally Posted by rstones199

And in a republic (which is what The United States Of America is), a constitution will overrule the tyranny of majority that tries to enforce its rule on the minority.

So, you can define marriage all you want, as long as its constitutional, which marriage is currently not.

Nonsense. Any gay person has access to marriage exactly the same as anyone else. That they refuse to do so is on them; not the state or the rest of us.

Originally Posted by rstones199

Murder, rape, theft is violated someone elses rights.

Please do explain how gay marriage is violating peoples rights.

Does marrying a goat violate anyone's rights?

Originally Posted by rahl

already proven failed argument. a majority can't vote away the rights of the minority.

Non sequitur. What you're calling 'rights'...aren't.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Nonsense. Any gay person has access to marriage exactly the same as anyone else. That they refuse to do so is on them; not the state or the rest of us.

Statement out of ignorance of what homosexuality is.

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Does marrying a goat violate anyone's rights?

Goats do not have legal rights as human do.

Nonsensical argument.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Race cannot be the basis for discrimination, under the Constitution.

There is no such protection for sexual behavior.

Keep trying to falsely equate the two, as it illustrates how desperate you and yours are to make that LIE "True", as you have NO OTHER BASIS for your argument....

Gay can marry just not to the same sex is the same kind of reasoning as black and whites can marry just not to one another theirs a strong resemblance in the comparison that’s easily made but you don’t like it because it makes you look bad and revels you position to be one of unjust discrimination against a minority by a majority that it is

As opposed to the just harmless discrimination of a majority against a minority group that you so desperately want to think of it as

Saying it a totally different case because your limiting the freedom someone who is still vulnerable rather than someone who is protected doesn’t make you sound any better or act any more differently then bigots of the past

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Nonsense. Any gay person has access to marriage exactly the same as anyone else. That they refuse to do so is on them; not the state or the rest of us.

Nonsense. Any black person has access to marriage exactly the same as anyone else. That they refuse to do marry another black woman is on them; not the state or the rest of us

Same logic. gay or black is simply a variable.