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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Feb 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By all means :)

    Several studies also have shown that homosexuality tends to run in families.

    Tends is not fact. And it doesn't prove genetics.

    Identical twin studies shed additional light on the genetic underpinnings of sexual preference.

    Which have been completely debunked.

    The "findings" of the twins study

    Their Reported Findings

    52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
    22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
    11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
    9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”)
    48% of identical twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
    16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
    6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (Bailey and Benishay, 1993, “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation”)

    If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation.


    Not even 60% in any study. Debunked.

    http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

    Next

    DNA studies have identified the general location of at least one "gay gene."

    Once again, "general" is not fact. Its theory. You are taking theory and trying to pass it off as fact just as I said.

    Fetal development studies suggest how such a gene might influence such a complex behavior.

    "Suggest" and "might" are not facts. Seriously, did you even read what you are quoting?

    Differences between gay and straight sexual orientation appear at a very early age

    Never always true and no supported theory can even find 60% of any study sharing this claim.

    Next

    Finally, there is some evidence that the brains of homosexuals may be different from those of heterosexual men and women. The differences have been found in the hypothalamus, which controls eating, drinking, temperature regulation and sexual behavior. Studies done in the Netherlands and in Southern California have found such differences in several areas within the hypothalamus. One region, the midsagittal area of the anterior commissure, is larger in females than in males, but also appears to be larger in homosexual males. Another area, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which controls circadian rhythm, is larger in heterosexual males and females than it is in homosexuals.

    LOL Ah the infamous brain study. Also debunked.

    When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay’s work has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270[5]:53, emp. added).

    Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Byne continued his comments on LeVay’s work.

    His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).


    http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

    [/quote]

    Actually its quite the opposite. People who support gay marriage need homosexuality to be genetic. That's where all these debunked studies come from. Its when you actually read them you see the fact replaced with theory which is why they fail to stand up to scrutiny.

    I have never called gay immoral. This is more Anti Christian bigotry without focus. You want to change the law. To do that you need to prove homosexuality is not a choice but a trait people cannot part with like race and gender and you can't do it. Your frustration with this inability to support it is what fuels the debate.

    Your only honest legal road is to pursue and amendment. You wont because you know you'll loose just like you've lost every single up and down vote by the people on gay marriage. 0-33.
     
  2. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except your analogy fails because gays would consent to the separate treatment whereas blacks had no choice.
     
  3. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you think identical twins are exact copies of each other, your funny.

    Why Are Identical Twins Different?

    However, the fact that there is a MUCH greater chance (almost 5 fold) of identical twins being gay then brother and brother, shows that genetics indeed plays a big part in sexuality and that sexuality is ploygenic.

    Keep taking, you just keep proving my point.
     
  4. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Laws that would prohibit same sex couples from receiving the same certificate as mixed sex couples would not be dependent on the couples consent.
     
  5. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose you think that laws that prohibit someone with brown eyes having "blue eyes" written on their birth certificate is also a case of separate but unequal treatment. However, the state has to make certain classifications like that. I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that this treatment is oppressive. I think you'll have an even harder time finding a gay who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) that his/her marriage certificate indicates that he's married to someone of the same gender.
     
  6. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You were the one who threw down the gauntlet to a closed thread. If you lack the courage to go through with it look in the mirror.

    Spare us your BS. You are the one who linked to a closed thread. If you lack the courage to reply in this thread that your fault.


    And if you had any clue you would know the rules prevent anyone from replying from another thread in a new one.

    But that takes careful thought and understanding so its obvious why you were at such a disadvantage.
     
  7. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL Excellent. Now I can embarass you propertly.

    Because of the definition of a bigot:

    a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

    If you believe in law you are intolerant of ideas other than your own. Sure would be helpful if you actually looked up the definition before responding. Thanks for starting this off so nicely :)

    Because you claimed marriage is a civil right. If its a civil right your discrimination based on age is illegal. All to easy. Next.

    You just ducked the point that you cannot descriminate against age. What a shocker.

    You are only making my point for me. There is no basis to discriminate based on age if marriage is now a civil right.

    LOL Thats exactly the same thing. If children agree to marry they can concent. Only law stops them.

    So you believe in pedophilia marriage. Thats good to know and it explains quite a bit.

    Wrong again. If you claim marriage is a civil right you cannot limit that right based on age.

    You really are having a hard time understanding basic English aren't you. The consent laws are not based on choice. They are based on age. If you actually trhought about what you were saying you would know this.

    Frankly I'm disappointed. After all your bluster this was far to easy to defeat.
     
  8. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're the one who ran away.

    It takes effort to re-write the post. I can't just copy/past. I have to redo all of the quotes. I wouldn't have to do this if you hadn't run away the last time.

    Wait. Didn't you just say:
    So is it my fault, or the rules?
    But your point is silly anyway since Shiva's final post in the closed thread said that we could continue the discussion in the next 9th circuit thread.
    How long did it take you to come up with that?

    Instead of defending your honor, or whatever juvenile stunt you're attempting, how about you respond to the posts that I kindly transferred over to this thread for your convenience?

    kthnxbye
     
  9. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its so sad you are this slow on this argument. Your hypocrisy is wanting to allow gay marriage based on an argument that marriage is now a civil right. Then you want to ban laws that ban gay marriage to allow this. While in the same breath you want to hide behind consent laws to limit marriages based on personal preference. It is the very height of hypocrisy.

    You can't hide behind laws that prevent marriages you don't like then still claim marriage is a civil right and want to ban laws that prevent gay marriage.

    So sad. I was hoping for a well thought out argument not another sloppy one.
     
  10. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL keep on thinking that junior. If I was running away I wouldn't be responding to your lazy general arguments in another thread or call on you to post them here so I could legally.

    Try thinking just for a second. Its against the rules of this forum to reply to a thread in another one. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would know this.

    ROFLOL You can't be this slow. You were ducking not posting your response in this thread so I could reply. I called you on that. Seriously, are you just pretending now for my benefit?
     
  11. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,653
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry. You seem to have made a significant logical leap here.


    I'm afraid that citing the definition of intolerance does not support your assertion: If you believe in any law -> you are consequently intolerant of ideas other than your own.

    The missing premise is "people who believe in laws are intolerant of other people's ideas because...."

    Honestly, your assertion makes no sense. I can't imagine what premise could possibly support it.

    The next one requires some context. I asked

    To which you responded

    Fail fail fail fail fail. Please show me where I claimed that marriage is a civil right. If you’ll recall, I said that I agreed with the 9th circuit decision. I don’t think marriage is a civil right. However, I said that people who oppose gay marriage are bigots because it doesn’t affect them.

    You’re confusing legal capacity to consent with general consent. In other words, I’m saying nobody can enter marriage without consenting to it, and you’re saying “that includes kids (because they don’t have the legal capacity to consent), so that’s discrimination.”

    The fact that kids don’t have legal capacity to marry is a separate issue.


    Not sure what you’re getting at with all of these spelling errors and poorly articulated points.

    I said:
    To which you replied:
    Another fail. You assume I think marriage is a civil right. Please re-read the other thread if you’re going to put words in my mouth. And don’t blame me for your failure to reply sooner.

    That aside, if gay marriage were permitted, kids simply don’t have sufficient capacity to consent (so says the law). It’s a matter of maturity. Gay’s looking to marry don’t have the same deficiency (assuming they are at or over the age of consent).

    Once again, this is a separate point altogether. Kids don’t have legal consent because the law finds they don’t have the mental capacity to consent because of their age.

    Cowardly strawman, yet not below you. Two 16 year old kids who want to marry should be able to. That’s not pedo, FYI.

    I’m not going to address your civil rights fail again. I think I’ve embarrassed you enough there.

    Age is only one consideration of consent. You’re focusing on this one consideration as if it did something for your argument. It’s sad.

    I guess it’s easy to declare victory when you have no clue how much of a fool you have made of yourself.
     
  13. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63

    No I don't think that. But I would look very closely at a law which provided a separate legal status for those with blue eyes.




    You're probably right. Remove the laws that prohibit that couple from receiving a marriage certificate and let's find out.​
     
  14. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's like he's two or something. It's unbelievable.
     
  15. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ^^^ sums it all up. :nod:
     
  16. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You have got to be kidding. I'm not going to waste my time, and don't mistake my disacknowlegement for capitulation.

    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
     
  17. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  18. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In the early days of women's sufferage, Christian social conservatives at the time made the argument that if they allow women to vote...next, they would have to give the right to children, criminals, etc....

    Tex thinks if he can just say, "it's not legal everywhere for gays to marry, and hasn't been", and "it's a bad and immoral choice they're making to be gay"...he safe from the stigma of intolerance.

    The problem is....he is on the side of adherance to tradition even if it's an obstacle to equality. Like the segregationists, chauvanists, slave owners, etc...
     
  19. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,340
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree wholeheartedly, but be careful referencing slaves. He automatically assumes you're comparing what gays are experiencing to slavery. I've learned that this guy will try to make a straw man out of anything when he's backed in a corner.
     
  20. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which is quite often I might add!
     
  21. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    With all due respect to my fellow posters on this site...Dixon, and Sillouette are all that way too.

    I use the old "puzzel" anaology, especially with the evolution argument.

    It goes like this...natural selection theory is like a 1/2 complete jigsaw puzzle. It's completed enough to see that it's a picture of a castle on a hill, and the evidence that it's a picture of a castle is pretty compelling...but just because there are a few pieces that are completely grey, doesn't mean the picture could be a 747 taking off on a runway.

    But I find myself off topic...oops
     
  22. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL so you can't debate the facts you attack the source. Typical liberal :laughing:
     
  23. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can't debate facts when they are from creationist sites, because they're not based on studies done by credible academic sources. In this case the pseudo scientific kaka is dreamed up by a bunch of prudish church whackos who think Adam and Eve lived in harmony with Dinosaurs.
     
  24. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Garbage in garbage out. Simple really. :laughing:
     
  25. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its called the dictionary. Might want to check it out.

    Wrong again. If you believe in laws you are intolerant of people doing what they want that violate that law. Its amazing simple logic must be explained to you.

    You can't agree with the 9th circuit and not believe marriage is a civil right. If you had actually read the decision you would know this.

    Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

    By agreeing with their decision you agreed with their reasoning. Its pretty sad this once again has to be spelled out for you.

    Fail fail fail fail fail Next time read the actual decision before you support it.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/9th-circuit-holds-prop-8-violates-14th-amendment/

    Wrong again. By limiting consent to age the law takes away the child's ability to agree to any marriage based on their age. How do you continue to miss this over and over again?

    If marriage is a civil right as this decision says it is you cannot limit a civil right to age. Can you discriminate against a child based on race? Of course. The law does not claim civil rights only apply to adults so if marriage is a civil right you cannot limit it by age which is what consent laws do.

    LOL Don't make me point out your own spelling errors which actually exist. Only a moron loosing an argument sinks to that level.

    Which you do because you support the decision by the 9th court as you admitted. Epic Fail.

    LOL I can't pull that foot out of your mouth fast enough. You agreed with the 9th circuit court that said specifically banning gay marriage is a violation of civil rights. Its too bad you weren't smart enough to read the decision you were agreeing to.

    And that goes to the heart of your moronic argument. Civil rights are not limited to age. There is no civil right from race to gender that states it is invalid until the age of 18 or "maturity" You are inserting road blocks in violation of the new civil right you agreed with in the 9th's decision. You really need to read more next time before embarrassing yourself further.

    WRONG. That goes to the heart of the matter. If you call it a civil right you cannot limit it to age.

    Which is age discrimination of a new civil right. It is beyond easy to blow that theory out of the water as I did by showing children have and use the capacity of consent in their daily decisions from school to jobs to driving.

    You were stupid enough to make the statement. Don't get mad at me because you made a moronic claim.

    LOL Too bad your statement doesn't limit it to that coupling

    You said

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page