Moderator: Dictators in Training
DangerPaul wrote:being gay is as much of a choice as being born black, red or white hippy
DangerPaul wrote: Its not about personal preference, it is about what ever in the mind causes us to be attracted to whatever arouses us sexually.
Arlos wrote:Malluas, in the south, back in the 50s and early 60s, they had state laws for seperation between whites and blacks. These are known, colloquially, as Jim Crowe laws. These laws were legally passed, and fit the belief systems of a majority of the voting populace of the state. When the supreme court struck down those laws as unconstitutional, were THEY legislating? Why aren't you ranting about their interfering in laws that had been in place for a long time in states?
This is the *ENTIRE FUCKING POINT* of Judicial Review, is to strike down laws that are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. Got it? Happened with the Jim Crowe laws. Where's your outrage against that, hmmm? Same EXACT goddamn thing. You may not agree that homosexuals constitute a minority, but guess what, the law says they do already. Go look up the Hate Crime statutes for at the very least here in California. Right there homosexuals are defined IN THE LAW as a minority group, deserving of special mention. Someone beats the crap out of a gay guy yelling "DEATH TO FAGS", they're going to get it worse than a normal assult and battery, same as a KKK guy beating up a black guy yelling, "DEATH TO NIGGERS". Therefore, since California law already treats homosexuals as a minority group, denying them marriage, strictly due to the fact that they're part of that minority group is against the law until such time as a Constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution is passed, and I guarantee you no such amendment would pass.
As for Lyion, I repeat: No one sane is trying to convince churches to perform weddings that violate their faith. Whether or not gay marriage is against the religion of someone is *IRRELEVANT* when it comes to purely civic matters. Seperation of Church & State, remember? Religion is supposedly not a factor when it comes civic laws, else certain religions would be unduly benefitted, which is, even you will admit, against the US Constitution.
Oh and Mindia, Great rhetoric there, keep up the good work! What a well-reasoned and supported argument! Try real hard, and you might progress in your debate skills to the point where you achieve the level of a 2 year old, and start throwing temper tantrums!
-Arlos
Arlos wrote:Lyion, you still haven't answered my point. *YOU* believe they're not a minority group. Fine, believe that all you want. However, the LAW, at least in California *DOES* recognize them as a minority group, at least as far as Criminal Law is concerned. Given that fact, why then should they be NOT recognized as such a group in Matrimonial law?
You can argue what you believe SHOULD be the case all you want, but the point is this: How can this judge possibly be considered "Legislating" when he is taking already existant, challenged, LAW and just making it apply universally? Law 1) In California, Constitution says you can't discriminate against minority groups when it comes to marriage. Law 2) Hate crimes statutes list Homosexuals as a minority group. Law 1 + Law 2 = Cannot discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to marriage. It's that simple.
Scoota: I'm not sure what I think about hate crime laws, I see both sides. As far as I know, they've been challenged in the courts and upheld, so that's where things stand at this point.
Lyion wrote:Arlos wrote:Lyion, you still haven't answered my point. *YOU* believe they're not a minority group. Fine, believe that all you want. However, the LAW, at least in California *DOES* recognize them as a minority group, at least as far as Criminal Law is concerned. Given that fact, why then should they be NOT recognized as such a group in Matrimonial law?
You can argue what you believe SHOULD be the case all you want, but the point is this: How can this judge possibly be considered "Legislating" when he is taking already existant, challenged, LAW and just making it apply universally? Law 1) In California, Constitution says you can't discriminate against minority groups when it comes to marriage. Law 2) Hate crimes statutes list Homosexuals as a minority group. Law 1 + Law 2 = Cannot discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to marriage. It's that simple.
Scoota: I'm not sure what I think about hate crime laws, I see both sides. As far as I know, they've been challenged in the courts and upheld, so that's where things stand at this point.
Al Qaeda could be considered a minority group. That does not mean I want special privileges for them.
Again you completely change the subject. ANY homosexual can get married as long as they follow the letter of the law. The law states marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, they are not discriminated.
You don't want equality you want alteration.
Again I do not want marriage changed. There is no valid reason except for political purposes. You are disguising the complete alteration of marriage as an 'equality' cause and I wholly disagree. It is not a civil rights movement. Gays have the same rights everyone else does. The issue is you want them to have additional rights disguised under the name protection, and I do not.
Despite the fact YOU dont want churces to be forced to perform gay marriages the same judges that are saying these democratically passed pieces of legislation are not legal will also be allowing lawsuits and charges aplenty to be pressed against churches who violate YOUR and YOUR JUDGES interpretation of what the laws should be versus what the actual people voted for.
Mindia wrote:I was wrong obviously.
Ugzugz wrote:The discussion here, in this thread, is homosexuality sympathizing - not the travesty of our judiciary wresting power unchecked.
Quote:
I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on
Actually, they are. :P
Mindia wrote:I was wrong obviously.
Yamori wrote:I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on
Actually, they are. :P
brinstar wrote:haha i knew someone would bring up bestiality and pedophilia
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests