Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

[zqt3344 21]

I could justify that more then you could justify gay marriage.

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost.

I'm not sure I see how permitting gay marriage somehow infringes on rights of heterosexuals. But who are we kidding here - its not like you could justify that comment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I could justify that more then you could justify gay marriage.

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost.

I'm not sure I see how permitting gay marriage somehow infringes on rights of heterosexuals. But who are we kidding here - its not like you could justify that comment.

Even with a truckload of seasoning salt your "neener neener" comments can't disguise the overpowering smell of bull$hit.

[peejay 327]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

Humans have more rights than animals. Its not legal to slaughter humans for food - but going by your reasoning perhaps it should be.

I think I understand. The only questions I have now is whether when a guy sodomizes a billygoat rather than a nannygoat...is that considered #######? Or is it just considered a bit odd in both cases? Or is considered ####### with the billygoat and merely a bit odd with the nannygoat? And is it considered abuse if the billygoat does a human female? After all the beast would have to be willing and consenting to do that.

You'll have to excuse all the questions, but I'm a city boy and not very knowledgable about such things. I defer to your wisdom in these matters.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

Humans have more rights than animals. Its not legal to slaughter humans for food - but going by your reasoning perhaps it should be.

I think I understand. The only questions I have now is whether when a guy sodomizes a billygoat rather than a nannygoat...is that considered #######? Or is it just considered a bit odd in both cases? Or is considered ####### with the billygoat and merely a bit odd with the nannygoat? And is it considered abuse if the billygoat does a human female? After all the beast would have to be willing and consenting to do that.

You'll have to excuse all the questions, but I'm a city boy and not very knowledgable about such things. I defer to your wisdom in these matters.

Congratulations!

[zqt3344 21]

I call Bull$hit on you, cause you sure know how to use it.

I could justify that more then you could justify gay marriage.

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost.

I'm not sure I see how permitting gay marriage somehow infringes on rights of heterosexuals. But who are we kidding here - its not like you could justify that comment.

Even with a truckload of seasoning salt your "neener neener" comments can't disguise the overpowering smell of bull$hit.

[Amby 490]

the gays are people too

[zqt3344 21]

Sure they are, I do not think anyone would ever deny that, but with certain rights.

the gays are people too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure they are, I do not think anyone would ever deny that, but with certain rights.

the gays are people too

If anyone would, it would be you.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

Yeah, that it was.

Yeah, I never saw such big group of sore losers!

It's like ; GET OVER THE ELECTION ALREADY.

Oh this supposed group is OK with the elections. They're not OK with others imposing their values unto them.

[zqt3344 21]

That is right HALIBURTON 9.12!

Which kinda goes back to what I was saying earlier - about why Obama couldn't have picked a less controversial figure from that community, at least someone who wasn't explicitly linked with the Prop 8 bill.

Its hard to look at that as anything but a blatant slap in the face.

Don't know and to be blunt... I doubt most members of the CA gay community really care all that much and can probably just as easily see beyond 'dramaisms' even though this Warren character has his major flaws.

I dunno really. As it is an ongoing issue (as highlighted in the OP article) I would have thought that they'd have reason to be incensed by it.

Yeah I'm sure some are... probably just not all though.

Well sure. But there was a lot of reaction to the Prop 8 vote - to describe it as "highly charged" would not be an exaggeration.

Yeah, that it was.

Yeah, I never saw such big group of sore losers!

It's like ; GET OVER THE ELECTION ALREADY.

Oh this supposed group is OK with the elections. They're not OK with others imposing their values unto them.

[HAL 9000 96]

Retroactively punishing people because of a change in the law would seem rather unconstitutional.

It is. Its called trying to circumvent the ex post facto principle for civil law.

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

Sure, you can pass a law that progressively bans it. As ironic as that sounds.

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Pretty much. Which makes any laws progressively banning gay marriage pretty easy to overturn in the future. Specially as attitudes relax with people imposing quite stupidly, their views upon others.

[zqt3344 21]

It will be banned and the gay marriage nullified just sit back and watch, wait and see sir.

Retroactively punishing people because of a change in the law would seem rather unconstitutional.

It is. Its called trying to circumvent the ex post facto principle for civil law.

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

Sure, you can pass a law that progressively bans it. As ironic as that sounds.

Sure, but telling gay people they can't get married (going forward)? I don't see how that's unconstitutional. I am relatively certain the constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Pretty much. Which makes any laws progressively banning gay marriage pretty easy to overturn in the future. Specially as attitudes relax with people imposing quite stupidly, their views upon others.

[HAL 9000 96]

It isn't overruling the outcome. But the issue that was put to the vote is one that can be challenged in the courts in reference to the constitution and bill of rights. There are limitations on what you can put forward in a ballot initiative - just because people vote against gay marriage doesn't mean that its "right" constitutionally or under the law.

Furthermore this issue is about retroactively nullifying marriages that were previously deemed legal. I can't see how that can be justified at all.

Using the constitution and bill of rights to get ones way is ridiculous considering that the mere notion of gay rights, for example, back them would have been a complete taboo. It is all about context. The bill of rights and constitution had no intention in protecting even a pinch of the ####### that is now erroneously protected by it. But hey this is America and the courts, rather than the will of the people, run the show.

The Constitution and its associated legal principles are written quite bluntly to protect individuals (indeed, a Bill of Rights). Paul has it with the separation concept which is why it was covered quite universally by Jefferson.

It doesn't. The whole idea seems to center around whether we do or don't have a separation of church and state, as the arguments against it are primarily religious.

Another stupid principle which ironically is not even in the constitution. The people need to decide the outcome. After all the government is there to represent their people and carry out the will of the people.

How is it stupid? The issue surely about whether articles of faith are being advanced to the obvious detriment of other law-abiding people in society - in doing so creating social inequalities and second class citzens.

Rubbish. The initial clause was there to prevent a similar situation from unfolding in England when one church was running the show and calling the shots. That not one denomination could rule the government and impose its will on the people. Hence, why so many people migrated here in the first place. It did no mean that religion should be torn out of everything. Or that people's religious views should be disregarded.

A similar rules adopted by English law who follow the actual meaning. The government is allowed and encouraged to celebrate with its people.

This is in effect, what happened in California with Prop 8.

In this context that's exactly what's happening. Hence there is a debate.

But at the same time is it right that the views of the majority are simply disregarded in this country. Where out of a group of 1,000 people if one person complained about something, their opinion would be able to override that of 999 others simply because they do not agree with the rest. This is wrong. Not too many countries out there PD where the minority have the final say while the majority are basically told to suck it up and eat it. And you should know that.

Being that America has states rights, there are other states gay couples can travel to and be recognized. The state of California has rightfully decided by means of ballot that they are not interested in supporting such a measure. Whereas you are basically suggesting that they are wrong and the courts should get to decide.

When the view of the 'majority' is imposing upon others whom coincidentally, do not affect the lives of the majority, then yes, its wrong. Tell me you can see the reason in this.

[HAL 9000 96]

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

Heterosexuals are likely not asking to be sodomized by homosexuals and neither are goats by homosexuals or heterosexuals. Your analogy indeed is slippery.

Besides... what about heterosexual sodomy? Its just as legal as homosexual sodomy in the USA, right?

[HAL 9000 96]

Sure it never advances with people like you cause you think it is ok to infringe upon straight heterosexual's rights at any cost.

I'm not sure I see how permitting gay marriage somehow infringes on rights of heterosexuals. But who are we kidding here - its not like you could justify that comment.

Well its because 'people like us' think that somehow heterosexuals are somehow not buttsecked by homosexuals because we are actually wrong and that is perhaps what the Liberal Communist Homosexual (LCH) Party is really trying to do and that must be why 'heterosexual rights' would be somehow violated by homosexuals attaining equality.

I can go back to wanting to marry a goat if that means you guys stop bickering

Actually, as we have read here..... simply outlawing "sex with an animal"... is in fact, pushing ones religion onto others....

I mean really, where does this notion of not permitting such acts come from if not those religious folk?

We know there have always been people who are oriented toward this type of sexual adventure and I am sure if proper health considerations are taken it might be healthy so.... why would we outlaw it except though tradition and the Religious bigotry of others?

Right PD?

You can come up with all the sexual analogies you want - it just isn't the same.

As far as this new (yawn) example goes - animals can't give consent - and such things are generally considered "abusive" under established laws that prevent animal abuse.

You can legally kill a goat to eat it, but sodomizing it is "abusive"?

However, it is not illegal for homosexuals to sodomize each other or to cohabitate. But since marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman homosexuals cannot marry a person of the same sex. They can marry though, but it must be someone of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry a lesbian.

But neither can sodomize a goat, but they can kill and eat one if they so desire.

I really don't see any rights violated here. The goat is the only one getting the shitty end of the stick though.

Humans have more rights than animals. Its not legal to slaughter humans for food - but going by your reasoning perhaps it should be.

I think I understand. The only questions I have now is whether when a guy sodomizes a billygoat rather than a nannygoat...is that considered #######? Or is it just considered a bit odd in both cases? Or is considered ####### with the billygoat and merely a bit odd with the nannygoat? And is it considered abuse if the billygoat does a human female? After all the beast would have to be willing and consenting to do that.

You'll have to excuse all the questions, but I'm a city boy and not very knowledgable about such things. I defer to your wisdom in these matters.

Sex with animals... somehow is on equal logic with human sex? Slip slip slip...