Go fags! = Article number 2

[DangerPaul]

being gay is as much of a choice as being born black, red or white
hippy

[brinstar]

i would imagine that in most cases killing them causes them pain, and if they're not already dead it really hurts to remove edible parts

if they're already dead (and if you want any kind of freshness) you have to dress the carcass shortly after death, and their friends and/or family might have something to say about that, not to mention it puts a kink in the organ donor program

and above all, the people who wouldn't be missed (bums, e.g.) probably don't taste very good at all.

[DangerPaul]

tastes like chicken !

[Lyion]

being gay is as much of a choice as being born black, red or white hippy

Sure, except for that small thing called proof. Anyways, thats a tangent not involved at all with this discussion.

Brinstar, have you seen what donated bodies to science institutions go through? Or checked out what they do during an autopsy? Consider my example based on a person who died of natural causes, and who's spouse wants to make 100 bucks selling it to Curt's Cannibal Cuisine shop or whatever.

[DangerPaul]

Proof? Here is simple proof. Would you suck a dick? I am betting no. Now ask any homosexual male if he would eat pussy, and he will cringe like you did when I asked you. Its not about personal preference, it is about what ever in the mind causes us to be attracted to whatever arouses us sexually.

[Zanchief]

Would you suck a dick? I am betting no.

Don't ask Mindia, he'll ruin your entire argument.

[Scoota McGee]

"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,"

These laws are absolute bullshit. Actions should be punished not ideas. The person should be punished for assault regardless of what race creed or color the assaultie is. Why should beating up a homo carry a stiffer penalty than beating up a hetro?

[Lyion]

Its not about personal preference, it is about what ever in the mind causes us to be attracted to whatever arouses us sexually.

So, what you are saying is its applied behavior, and not inherited. That's pretty much my whole point.

Again, this is a tangent and not at all involved in 'gay marriage', and whether it should be legal or not.

[mofish]

Why does anyone give a fuck whether its a choice or not. Its just another false barrier, another smokescreen that the majority is using as a tool to prevent a minority from enjoying equality. Why does it matter if its a choice, or if its ingrained in the DNA? It doesnt.

Yes, this is just another case of the majority denying rights and pinning blame, for nothing, on a minority (Weve never seen this happen before have we? ) ; their actions and lifestyle violate no laws. Their ability to attain marital status under the law will have zero, '0', nil, none, no effect on anyone else's rights, liberties, or pursuit of happiness.

[Arlos]

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.

-Arlos

[Malluas]

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

first off comparing the hate against gays and the hate against blacks is stupid. One was enslaved and is still enslaved today by their own race... gays.. a few die here and there from hate crimes and they can't marry and are made fun of (same with white blacks and mexicans). When gays are enslaved come back to me with their so called persecution. If anyone is ridiculed today its catholics, i don't hear the outrage.. its a "race" if you wanna look at Gay as a minority (race). Gay is just a thing.. its not a race or minority. If thats the case people that practice beastiality and want to marry those animals are a minority and a race. If a pedofile love children why is that wrong and why aren't we in outrage of that. And of course your gonna say HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THEM... well your comparing slavery to some laws not allowing them to marry and some making fun of.

My point about beastiality and pedofilia is they are both illegal as gay marriage is here (means nothing that the judge overturned it cause its going to a couple more stops along the way) and you consider wanting to break the law to be "equal" ... its the same thing. If a gay is born a gay, isa pedofile is born a pedofile? I would say so. Why don't they have rights?

2nd. And how did Civil Rights come about.... if you wanna make an arguement gotta kno wtf your talkin about. yes before the Civil Rights act slavery wrong... but how did we fix it... A VOTE.. not some judge saying " ok blacks have the right to vote" or whatever. There was a massive movement nation wide. Whats the movement of gays... some liberal judges overthrowing voters votes to advance a political issue. Big difference. And don't kid yourself.. any democrat, republican, moderate, green party canidate for any office is against it. Even gay senators/representives are against it. They say that so they get votes from gays, then they turn around and vote against "gay rights".

either way both ways it comes down to a vote. You have judge throwing the peoples voices out.. whats the point of any government?

What if judges said FDR's social security program was unconstitutional, what if they said going to war in WWII was unconsitutional. They saw a right for women to murder children (was NEVER in the constitution) for birth control.

Really read every major descion... and you find all of them have some wierd reasons why they are made. Especially in the US Supreme Court... using African countries laws or customs to form a descion on US things? wtf

[Lyion]

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.

[brinstar]

haha i knew someone would bring up bestiality and pedophilia

[Zanathar]

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.

Lyion? These same arguements were used in an attempt to uphold the Jim Crowe laws. As well as the mongrel arguement.

[Lyion]

I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on, and are going through the same ordeal of blacks in the 40s and 50s, hmmm? Best start petitioning for them to be called a minority group, be protected from hate crimes, and to call their inability to not marry multiple partners unconstitutional. These people were born wanting more than one wife the same thing as homosexuals wanting to be with the same sex. Marrying multiple partners is the same type of change as marrying the same sex. Its not in the definition, but people want it, so it should be there!

There is no comparison between a group that was denied civil and basic rights and a group who is not being discriminated against, has equal rights and protections, and is trying to change laws for their advantage.

[Langston]

Legistlation via court room is a bad thing. Period. I don't care what topic, what issue, what political position... once you let the courts start *creating* law, then you're doomed. This is happening more and more frequently in the US - and it's a very serious, very worrisome, very destructive process that's gathering momentum and that we are going to have to pay the piper for very soon.

I created a thread a few weeks ago about this very topic. It got about 1/3 of this attention. The discussion here, in this thread, is homosexuality sympathizing - not the travesty of our judiciary wresting power unchecked. Lyion, you're not arguing the same thing they are.

[Lyion]

The discussion here, in this thread, is homosexuality sympathizing - not the travesty of our judiciary wresting power unchecked.

Every thread that mentions 'gay marriage' comes down to this, so it's really no surprise.

If one does not support changing marriage, then many come out and start talking about 'civil rights', constitutionality, and the inevitable and inaccurate Jim Crowe comparisons.

It's difficult to hold a discussion when it segues in so many different directions unrelated to the actual topic.

[Yamori]

I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on

Actually, they are. :P

[shiraz]

Lyion, I understand what you are trying to say, but I think incest and cannibalism are really bad analogies. Incest was originally made illegal as a result of a predominance of genetic diseases in the resulting children. For example, it is commonly thought that incest was to blame for the predominance of hemophilia in the royal European families. Cannibalism (and I guess you mean it in the sense where it isn't attached to murder) usually violates someone's right about what they want done with their body when they die, or what the family wants done with the body.

And I don't agree with you that homosexuality is a choice, though I will concede that this idea has not been "rigorously proved."

http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27742

http://www.dailycardinal.com/news/2004/ ... 5235.shtml

[shiraz]

Quote:
I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on


Actually, they are. :P

http://radio.ksl.com/index.php?sid=148560&nid=19

http://www.detnews.com/2000/religion/00 ... 140011.htm

I honestly think that the reason the marriage admendment here didn't pass by 95% (I think it was only 68%), is that among other things it defined marriage as between one man and ONE woman.

[Langston]

The article about chimpanzees is stupid and in no way, shape, or form has any bearing whatsoever on the "born vs. bred" arguement for Homosexuality. First of all, a chimpanzee would fuck a hole in a barrel if given the opportunity... and secondly, their testing criteria: "under high stress situations" and, in an "all same sex environment"... well DUH. What they don't say is that given a normal living environment with the right ratio of males to females, a chimp is humping the chicks... not the other males. If anything that DISCOUNTS the theory of genetically determined homosexuality.

[shiraz]

lol, I threw those links in as entertainment more than for a serious intellectual discussion.

[Lyion]

I guess polygamists are also having their civil rights trod on

Actually, they are. :P

I admire consistency, even on issues I firmly disagree with.

I fully concede they may be very bad analogies, but my point remains.

I have posted articles in the past that fully refute what you linked, Shiraz. I do not wish to get into a google war tracking down facts in regards to opinions, especially since this discussion was about Activist Judges and not homosexuality.

I am curious how many more segues on homosexuality topics we'll have.

[shiraz]

I have posted articles in the past that fully refute what you linked, Shiraz.

see post above yours

[Malluas]

haha i knew someone would bring up bestiality and pedophilia

yea and its completely ok to bring those up. Those types of people also say they are born that way

Just like gays when there is absolutely no evidence either way.