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
    I accept your defeat.

    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.
     
  2. texmaster

    texmaster Banned

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    10,974
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL right. And I supposed I made you say this:

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

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

    Which is 100% true.

    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.

    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 :)
     
  3. WalterSobchak

    WalterSobchak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    24,514
    Likes Received:
    21,512
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I find it foolish to hate groups of people Tex.

    Don't you Tex?
     
  4. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.:nod:
     
  5. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is no data to support the existance of God either.
     
  6. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

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

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

    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.

    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.

    So you're basically going to hang your hat on one typo even though the context heavily suggested it was a typo. Typical desperation.
     
  7. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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."
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  9. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  10. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0


    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.
     
  11. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0



    if they want to choose someone of the same gender to marry they can’t

    Why would someone never choose to marry just because they lack a sex drive? Could be a factor though I guess
     
  12. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, your argument precludes what marriage actually is, which is a contract between two people who want to love each other.

    What is different for gays is that they cannot marry someone they want to have sex with, ergo, they are precluded from having what the state considers a legitimate marriage (failure to maintain sexual relations is grounds for divorce in 50 states, failure to ever consummate sexual relations is grounds for annulment).

    Marriage is unique in that it is a contract that involves a promise to have sex. Therefore, gays are subject to a separate rule, in that they cannot form a legal marriage without being forced into a nonconsensual sex act.
    The Supreme Court disagrees, calling marriage one of the "fundamental rights".
     
  13. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More nonsense from the Big Legal Expert, we see.

    "Love" has nothing to do with the legal restrictions regarding marriage.

    A person can "love" his gerbil, but cannot marry it; a person can "love" 10 different people, but cannot marry 10 different people.

    No one can marry someone of the same gender, regardless of who they "love", not just gay people.

    The rules regarding marriage are PERFECTLY EQUAL FOR ALL; gays seek SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS for themselves.

    Marriage is not a "fundamental right" , because NO ONE is ENTITLED TO BE MARRIED; you cannot FORCE someone to marry you, because it is your "right" to be married.

    Try more LEGAL COMMON SENSE and less euphemistic emotion...
     
  14. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's correct. It's because that act violates the definition of "marry".

    They can join in a legal union if they wish - and I support that.

    They're suppressed, I tell you. Call the ACLU!
     
  15. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's correct. Societal rules. gosh darned inconvenient. You cannot marry a lamp or a donkey, either.
     
  16. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  17. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Circular argument. In the context of this thread, we're talking about a legal union, which the government designates as a marriage. It's the legal definition that is in dispute. Legal definitions can be expanded.

    You may hold the opinion that it violates the way you conceptualize marriage, or that it doesn't conform to the fast becoming outdated definition given in a dictionary, but neither your opinion nor dictionaries control the legal definition.

    And as I said above, that legal union is called a marriage; whether you like it or not is of no consequence.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 9th District Court's and the Appeals Court decision only relates to the revocation of same-gender marriage that was allowed under California State law.

    Polygamy, which arguably should be legal, pedophilia which violates the Rights of the Child, and first cousins marrying which is legal under certain circumstances in some states, isn't being addressed by the 9th District Court of Appeals.

    Same-gender marriage doesn't violate anyone's Rights and was legal in California. Prop 8 was an invidious violation of the Rights of same-gender couples that served no purpose except to impose bigoted discrimination based upon religious intolerance upon the People of California.
     
  19. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes yes...but we know that there are actions going on in all 50 states where gay marraige advocates are trying to shoehorn gay sexual practices into the "legitimized slot". So it relates to the topic.

    Give them an inch and they'll have Harvey Milk being taught to kids in school as a "gay hero"...talking about violating minors' rights and throwing salt in the wound for good measure...

    In the big picture, people can see where this gay marraige thing is leading. It's a cultural coup. And they intend to get it done by getting the highest form of legitimacy stamped on their compulsive sexual behaviors via marraige. From there it's "desegregation in schools" and polygamy marraige and so on.

    Once you dissolve such an important social/cultural more such as marraige, you open the barn door to other sexual orientations getting the same "rights".


    Currently, marraige isn't a right, it's a privelege denied to ALL but one adult man and one adult woman, not closely related. So by definition, gays and lesbians aren't being singled out.
     
  20. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Fighting gay marriage is fultile, just like fighting laws against inter-racial marriages was futile.

    If gay marriage isn't illegal in your state...you have every right to spew intolerance.

    However, I suggest you butt out of what other states do. It's none of your business what happens in California.
     
  21. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It apparently is of consequence to the average fairy, who objects to society's refusal to assign the word 'marriage' to their act. They've been able to join in civil union for some time.
     
  22. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure it is. Because this is marching its way to the Supreme Court where gays hope to make the pleading that their behavior is being denied marraige. As sloppy as the Supreme Court has acted recently with regards to Citizen's United creating a non-Oathed loophole for foreigners to affect elections [the core of our democracy] I'm not going to sit back and trust they won't make a similar PC-blind kneejerk blunder when it comes to granting two select behavioral groups [gay and lesbian sexual practitioners] among an entire spectrum of other non-reproductive sexual compulsions "rights' to "marry".

    The entire nation has a vested interest in watching what happens with gays in each state.

    Watching California celebrate a pedophile as its ambassador to children has been a very illuminating experience. It would't be an exaggeration to say it may be responsible for the slurry or recent gay-legislative defeats. Even blindly compassionate people have an alarm-system, however buried beneath politically-correctness it may be..
     
  23. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Society in New York, DC, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and Masschusettes have assigned the word marriage to same sex marriages.

    Within the year to California, Washngton, Oregon, and Nevada will have assigned the word marriage to same sex marital unions.

    It wasn't legal in even one state in 2000. At this rate, same sex marriages will have the word marriage assigned to thier unions nationwide no later than 2025.

    Why fight it?
     
  24. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is in the eye of the beholder...the government can label anything any way they want but the public knows better....'Jobs created or saved' comes to mind...Those wanting to believe do and those who think don't.
     
  25. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why don't you just leave them alone?

    You trump up this pedophile thing to try to justify your intolerance, and it's just creating tension.

    You can't fight it, gay marriage will be legal everywhere.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page