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

What tex and his kind do not understand, is that most traits are polygenic.
So when they ask for sa gay 'gene', there is no such thing, as something as complex as sexuality is polygenic.

 

I was actualy trying to get him to read the study.

I concludes that being gay is not a choice, and if being gay is NOT a choice, the anti gay argument competely collapses.

 

Oh Goody! I LOVE destroying these fake studies. Let's take a look.

Analysis of DNA markers on the X chromosomes of sibling pairs has further narrowed the search to a region called XQ28. It consists of hundreds of genes and is located near the tip of the X chromosome. However, there is some indication that genes located elsewhere may have a similar effect on sexual orientation, Goldstein said.

So, not only can she not prove a gay gene exists, she can't even be sure if it doesn't where it exists! LOL Can't say I'm surprised you bit on that one

 

I concludes that being gay is not a choice, and if being gay is NOT a choice, the anti gay argument competely collapses.

Stanford University does not do "fake" studies.

 

There's been no such agreement. All that has happened is that protectmarriage.com has filed their paperwork to request a re-hearing on time. Doesn't mean the 9th will respond positively to the "en banc" request.

I'm guessing the defendants are predicting that USSC will refuse to hear this particular case as the ruling is so narrowly tailored to CA. That would stop this litigation in its tracks. At least this way the lawyers get a few more paychecks.

 

If this BS were true then you could be able to identify the specific "gay" gene that exists in all gay people.

Where is that gene? Where are the studies that confirm it? That's right, nowhere. You hang on to theory and try to laughably peddle it off as fact. They have a theory nothing more and they admit it.

If you actually read your "study" you would know this.

 

Which is a lie because they never make that conclusion with certainly. They claim it "may" be in these genes or "could be" somewhere else.

Nowhere do they claim they can prove it. But like a sucker you lapped it up anyway.

 

^^^^ I rest my case.


Sexuality is a polygenic trait. All Tex is gonna do is look at the article see this: “ However, there is some indication that genes located elsewhere may have a similar effect on sexual orientation, Goldstein said”. Then say “there is no gay gene.”

Of course there is no a gay gene....one gene wont control something as complex as sexuality.

A+ post on showing just how ignorant some are on genetics.

 

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection under the law.

We keep going back to the same problem. Why do some people oppose equal protection under the law? They come up with absurd rationalizations as to why equal protection under the law should be denied but why do they oppose equal protection in the first place?

We know why NOM, the defendants of Prop 8, want to deny equal protection under the law. They are bigoted Mormans that previously were racists and now they're homophobics but why do others oppose equal protection under the law?

 

Figured as much. Seems Silhouette is creating multiple threads that purport to discuss one topic, while all are in fact about Harvey Milk.

 

When you are willing to address the rest of the sexual preferences you allow in with this thoery I know you'll be ready to actually debate.

 

A driver's license is a privilege too. We don't have Jewish driver's licenses and we don't deny drivers licenses based on race. Neither should we have a separate same-sex marriage license nor should we deny marriage licenses based on a couples sex.

People have a right to discriminate, so do the clubs and businesses they own. Playboy practices sexual discrimination when it hires models, your country club might discriminate based on race, and you might choose to discriminate based on religion when you pick a spouse. Yes, her gym might also practice sexual discrimination. That's freedom of association -- it's legal.

When states deny privileges to folks based on their race, religion, or sex the right that's being abridged is the right to equal protection under the law. The law we all pay for, the law that applies to us all, isn't free to favor one group over another in the same way you might prefer a group of people based on their race, religion, or sex. Her gym can discriminate based on sex, his golf course can discriminate based on race -- our law cannot.

 

Is this about the rights or about the term "marriage"? If its just about rights than a civil union gets you those rights. If its about changing the meaning of marriage, then this seems more to be a problem with the GBLT group. Why should they care how marriage is defined when a civil union achieves exactly what they want?

 

Seperate (Civil Unions) can never be equal (marraige).

 

Sexual preferences are none of my business nor are they the business of government. The government does not dictate religious beliefs and shouldn't dictate religious beliefs in the law. It should be protecting the Rights of the People such as equal protection under the law.

Allowing same-gender marriages does not infringe upon any Rights of opposite-gender couples. The prohibitions do not protect anyone's Rights under the Constitution and do violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of same-gender couples. It is an invidious violation of an inalienable Right that serves no purpose related to the Rights of Others and is almost exclusively based upon the religious intolerance of the Mormon Church which was the financial backing of Prop 8 through NOM.

 

A conclusion reached by the California State Supreme Court in it's decision in declaring Prop 22 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the California State Constitution.

 

Allowing polygamist marriages does not infringe upon any Rights of opposite-gender couples. The prohibitions do not protect anyone's Rights under the Constitution and do violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of same-gender couples. It is an invidious violation of an inalienable Right that serves no purpose related to the Rights of Others and is almost exclusively based upon the religious intolerance of the Mormon Church which was the financial backing of Prop 8 through NOM.

Allowing pedophile marriages does not infringe upon any Rights of opposite-gender couples. The prohibitions do not protect anyone's Rights under the Constitution and do violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of same-gender couples. It is an invidious violation of an inalienable Right that serves no purpose related to the Rights of Others and is almost exclusively based upon the religious intolerance of the Mormon Church which was the financial backing of Prop 8 through NOM.

Allowing 1st cousin marriages does not infringe upon any Rights of opposite-gender couples. The prohibitions do not protect anyone's Rights under the Constitution and do violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of same-gender couples. It is an invidious violation of an inalienable Right that serves no purpose related to the Rights of Others and is almost exclusively based upon the religious intolerance of the Mormon Church which was the financial backing of Prop 8 through NOM.

And I could go on and on and on and thats the point.

You want to be honest? Pursue an amendment for gay marriage don't try to open up a definition of a law that had nothing to do with sexual preference if you aren't willing to stomach the consequences of doing so.

 

If there's no difference in the rights provided by a civil marriage as compared to a civil union, then there's need to saddle same sex-couples with a separate term that marks them as targets for discrimination.

My state doesn't allow civil marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, at this juncture even civil marriage for same-sex couples doesn't provide legal equality at the federal level, where civil unions are non-existent.

The only reason for civil unions to exist is so that some people can maintain a false sense of superiority by not having to share the word marriage with a group of people they don't like.

 

You're missing the larger implicaions of the findings of this very reputable study.

Lets' look at the major conclusions.

You can take the genetic component out of it completely if you want, and what is left is not a choice.

People who oppose homosexuality need it to be a choice, and not just a choice, a bad choice, and an immoral choice, and if it isn't, they have no justification for thier opposition to it.

 

Except I didn't compare the two, but I will try to keep-up with your imagination.
If I did attempt to compare the two, I would be defending that comparison now. I am however equating people willing to deprive gays of the right to marry to people willing to enslave AAs.

Except it is hate. HTH

 

This is true, and I don’t give a dam what consenting adults do.

For the uptenth time, Pedophilia is illegal because children cannot give their legal consent. Get over it. The same applies to bestiality.

More states allow 1st cousins to marry than homosexuals to marry.

Maps: States That Allow Gay Marriage vs. States That Allow First Cousin Marriage

You cant go on and on because you have nothing left.

 

That's a lot of work. Guess you'll have me jump through all of the hops out of the hope that I won't make a fool of you once more. Sure. I'll repost it just for that "privilege".

Only because you ran away after I made a fool of you. Your "I waited until the thread closed so I couldn't respond" schlick is getting old.

 

Why is that?

Arbitrary? What makes you think parties would ever be able to enter into marriage without consent? That is a necessary assumption of your position. You are necessarily saying that it is conceivable that people could be able to marry without consent. Please think about this for a moment.

Consent is the traditional limit for rights. See John Stuart Mills on liberty. The only time it is acceptable for the government to limit someone’s rights is when exercising those rights imposes on the rights of another party.

The idea was that children don’t have consent to marry adults – not that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. This is the same principle behind statutory rape. To be honest, I’m indifferent about consent with regards to kids. I was just listing a party that traditionally does not have legal consent to marry.

Comparing gays right to marry to “non-consenting” parties rights to marry is like comparing apples to testicles.
And once again, the only limitation on rights is when rights would impose on others rights. Allowing non-consensual marriage would allow other parties to impose their right to marry on non-consenting parties.

 

To sum up our exchange, you asked

To which I replied

To which you responded by claiming there would be no way to limit who could get married to what. See:

To which I responded that there are already ways to prevent marriages that don't affect you or the rest of society, thus taking the slippery out of your slope.

To which you reply that consent is not a prerequisite for marriage (chuckle)

And then you proceeded to accuse me of "creating limits to rights" while pretending to give rights to others when I was merely showing you that giving people the right to marry when no third parties are affected doesn't mean giving people the right to marry non-consenting parties.

In other words, I was showing you a limitation that was already in place, and you claimed I wanted to limit rights. That is how laughably bad your position is.s how laughably bad your position is.

 

The same reason Jews would be offended if you started putting gold stars on their driver's licenses or started asking blacks to call a separate 800 number for IRS support. We don't need black phone numbers, Jewish driver's licenses, or same sex marriage licenses. Separate but equal treatment based on arbitrary criteria stigmatizes groups and without a ridiculous level of management ends up with separate but less than equal results when implemented.​

​