Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[SubicWarrior1988]

Which of these, IYO, justifies government handouts in the form of free legal services to hetero couples?

I'm not following your question, could you please clarify?

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

(purple) Yeah, sounds like a great idea! I think I'll decide to be gay. That way I can spread some disease and then go ahead and kill myself.

That's some rational prospective you got there

Mods:........can we kill this thread already? It's really starting to **** me off. If we wanna clean up this board, posts like these would be a good way to start.

I'm sorry to offend you, honestly, it's just an opinion. regarding the suicide rates, that's quantifiable with statistical data. The other statements can be quantified as well.

I do apologize, hope that clears it up.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

(purple) Yeah, sounds like a great idea! I think I'll decide to be gay. That way I can spread some disease and then go ahead and kill myself.

That's some rational prospective you got there

Mods:........can we kill this thread already? It's really starting to **** me off. If we wanna clean up this board, posts like these would be a good way to start.

CENSORSHIP IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL​

A board/forum can be clean, without promotion of silencing others brothers.

 

[groovatron]

I'm sorry to offend you, honestly, it's just an opinion. regarding the suicide rates, that's quantifiable with statistical data. The other statements can be quantified as well.

I do apologize, hope that clears it up.

I'm not offended.

You say that's all an opinion................then go on to say that all your statements can be quantified. Explain that to me.

You say the suicide rate ar higher because homosexuals are less happy people. Do you really think that it's because the fact that they are choosing to be homosexual is what's making them unhappy?

If you believe all this stuff, explain to me why anyone would "choose" to be a homosexual?

 

[groovatron]

CENSORSHIP IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL​

A board/forum can be clean, without promotion of silencing others brothers.

Maybe to those who share in the same sentiments. If I started saying similar stuff about another social class that was more "accepted" on this board, I would get flamed. The same reasons that Fenway wants race and religion arguements to end, should apply to all other social sects, including the gay ones.

Laugh all you want NHV, pretty soon this will only be a gun board, and you'll have nothing left to talk about.

 

[Expat]

If you believe all this stuff, explain to me why anyone would "choose" to be a homosexual?

Because chicks won't put out for them

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

You say the suicide rate ar higher because homosexuals are less happy people. Do you really think that it's because the fact that they are choosing to be homosexual is what's making them unhappy?

If you believe all this stuff, explain to me why anyone would "choose" to be a homosexual?

I'd venture out to say that IF Homosexuality is NOT a choice, perhaps there is mental illnesses that promote suicide, sort of Nature righting a wrong, I guess? I dont know...

IF Homosexuality is not a choice then perhaps the homosexual is experiences Society and ones abiliy to grind against that wall isnt quite so cool as liberals propergate?

And to answer your last... Speculation doesnt answer for science, but some people would rather be victims in life.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

I'm not offended.

You say that's all an opinion................then go on to say that all your statements can be quantified. Explain that to me.

You say the suicide rate ar higher because homosexuals are less happy people. Do you really think that it's because the fact that they are choosing to be homosexual is what's making them unhappy?

If you believe all this stuff, explain to me why anyone would "choose" to be a homosexual?

I've based my opinion from data and research, but I'm not so arrogant to say that my opinion or interpretation of data is the absolute truth.

Some research, just one link, but there are literally volumes written about the subject.
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

I believe that homosexuals are less happy for a variety of reasons, but EVERYONE has their own sets of problems, me included.

I stated earlier that social aspects contribute to some of this unhappiness. IE, if I say I don't agree with the lifestyle, it pisses someone off, affecting their happiness.......just to make an unrelated example.

Me trying to explain why someone would choose to be gay would be like a person without kids telling a parent how to raise children.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Maybe to those who share in the same sentiments. If I started saying similar stuff about another social class that was more "accepted" on this board, I would get flamed. The same reasons that Fenway wants race and religion arguements to end, should apply to all other social sects, including the gay ones.

Laugh all you want NHV, pretty soon this will only be a gun board, and you'll have nothing left to talk about.

I have absolutely ZERO problems with the choice of the house.

 

[CarmelHP]

After reading some of your arguments on previous threads, I more clearly understand full faith and credit, so I'm more inclined to agree that this is a state issue. If that's the case, I assume you agree that a federal law mandating that marriage only be between a man and a woman is also not defensible?

My answer is, it depends. For example, DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of the operation of federal law, in which case I think that is within Congress' power. Absent a constitutional amendment, if Congress insisted the states only recognize marriages as between a man and a woman for all purposes, without regard to the states' laws, that would be an ultra vires exercise, even if I agreed with the result. By the same token, federal intrusion through the courts or Congress, to demand recognition of same sex unions, without regard to the states' internal laws is equally invalid.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Google type in Unconstitutional basis of 14A.

Somehow I don't think you've even done this.

But I did, and guess what? I found no SCOTUS ruling saying the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional. Why am I not surprised?

Going by what they themselves said...

Given your inability to read posts completely and respond (evidence above), I'm guessing you probably can't cite anything the Founding Fathers wrote that conflicts with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

 

[DarkLight]

It would be hard to give an honest answer without admitting bias due to socialization. From the time we are little boys we are taught to not be sissies and crying is bad. We're also taught that homosexuality is gross. As it turns out, I believe all 3 of those things to this day, good bad or indifferent.


From a rational perspective, Homosexuality spreads disease, inhibits procreation and makes a lot of homosexuals very unhappy people, hence a very high suicide rate. There may be some social effects that influence that, but at the end of the day, I believe it's a personal choice to be gay. I don't buy the physiological, it's a fact perspective.

Sorry, I couldn't let this one by without my .


There is a lot of suggesting evidence that homosexuality has a lot of dependence based upon what levels of certain hormones a fetus is exposed to during certain points in its development while still in the womb. The 'choice' for a homosexual to be attracted to the same sex is much the same 'choice' any heterosexual has to feel attraction to the opposite sex. Now, yes you can CHOOSE whether you will act on those attractions or not...but unless you are Catholic priest, I have to question how much self control you have....and sometimes even they aren't so 'pure'.

Also, I hate it break the happy thought bubble surrounding some of us, but homosexual tendencies are observable in all races, genders, and more or less every person on earth; whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Most children go through a short phase of sexual exploration with their own gender early in childhood...some return to it, some never leave it. The primary motivation for the childhood phase is more than likely simple curiosity.

As far as homosexuality "spreading disease, inhibiting procreation and makes a lot of homosexuals very unhappy people...", heterosexuality spreads disease, causes procreation between a lot of people who just should not be procreating, and can cause plenty of unhappiness.

I just wanted to clarify that stuff.....the real point is what laws are on the books, in the constitution, and whether or not such laws should be changed. Adding personal bias and 'faith based facts' do not help the situation at all.

Also just for the record, several Christian religions have acknowledged that homosexual marriage is A-OK with their faiths.

 

[mrjarrell]

Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on what he thinks is going to happen down the road as this case makes its way through the upper levels of the courts system. He looks at how the courts has previously ruled and comes to an interesting conclusion. -1 to Shepard Smith, tho. The case he tried to reference was Loving vs. Virginia, not whatever it was he said.

YouTube - ‪Judge Napolitano Predicts: Supreme Court Will Approve Gay Marriage!‬‎

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

This is a question of values. America was founded upon Christian values and our constitution was based upon these same values. Homosexuality is not a Christian value and those who choose that lifestyle should not be allowed to benefit from the sanctity of marriage.

Homosexuals have the right to be whatever they want to be, but they should not be allowed to further destroy the values our nation was founded upon.

People don't CHOOSE to be homosexual. You are what you are born, no one would openly choose to be a second class citizen in this country.

They are not destroying the values of this nation, gay people are not evil bad people. They are just like everyone else, they are teachers, doctors, dentists, factory workers, day care workers, etc. Besides its not like all straight people are angels, we have our share of dirt bags, murderers, morally corrupt, child molesters, etc.

My position can be summed up fairly easily:

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, everyone is entitled to live their life how they want.

But laws that everyone has to follow SHOULD NOT be made based upon the religious beliefs of some.

 

[MilitaryArms]

This country was not founded as a "Christian" nation. To think that is to be woefully ignorant of our history.

Our founding fathers sought to separate our government from any formal religion, including Christianity. They sought to create an environment where people could practice any religion they desired, or no religion at all.

Many of our founding fathers were Deists and Unitarians and not traditional Christians. Some were even Atheist as far as we can tell. George Washington made no formal declaration of his religious beliefs and didn't even ask for clergy to be present at his death bed - which was common in his day.

Thomas Jefferson said: "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

Thomas Jefferson also wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc. in 1802 which said: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution said: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

Benjamin Franklin said: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

As a matter of fact, not one of the first six Presidents was an orthodox Christian according to the 1968 Encyclopedia Brittanica (page 420).

Our Pledge of Allegiance as written in 1892 and originally read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and [to] the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The "under God" part was added in 1954.

Heck, "In God we Trust" wasn't even on all US currency until after the Civil War.

P.S. I'm a proud Christian but I'm also a Constitutionalist and Libertarian. I have absolutely no desire to force my religion or morals on others as I believe 100% in freedom - no matter how distasteful.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Somehow I don't think you've even done this.

But I did, and guess what? I found no SCOTUS ruling saying the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional. Why am I not surprised?


Given your inability to read posts completely and respond (evidence above), I'm guessing you probably can't cite anything the Founding Fathers wrote that conflicts with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

So I need the SCOTUS to tell me whats Unconstitutional and whats not?

No thank you, keep the elitism.

If you dont care to self research how the Founders idea of America would conflict with the 14A, then I wont bother.

 

[MilitaryArms]

So I need the SCOTUS to tell me whats Unconstitutional and whats not?

I know, people like yourself don't think the rules apply to you. Got it. Meanwhile, back here in reality (the reality that our Founding Fathers established) the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on such matters. As it stands, they've not ruled it to be unconstitutional.

No thank you, keep the elitism.

I don't suppose the irony of this little gem dawns on you.

If you dont care to self research how the Founders idea of America would conflict with the 14A, then I wont bother.

In other words, I called your bluff and you have nothing.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I know, people like yourself don't think the rules apply to you. Got it. Meanwhile, back here in reality (the reality that our Founding Fathers established) the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on such matters. As it stands, they've not ruled it to be unconstitutional.

Is this the same SCOTUS which think banning various firearms is OK?

Again, the SCOTUS are intrepetating the Constitution through they're ow agenda, not the desire of the founders.

I don't suppose the irony of this little gem dawns on you.

Nope.

In other words, I called your bluff and you have nothing.

Nope, you didnt call my bluff. You merely show that you lack knowledge regarding the Founders and what THEY intended America to be, which conflicts with the 14A.
Washington, Lincoln, Monroe, Jefferson, Jackson etc.. Go read what they had to say, what they did, the laws.

Now you have names, and direction, let google be your friend now.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Again, the SCOTUS are intrepetating the Constitution through they're ow agenda, not the desire of the founders.

According to you. Who are you again?

Nope, you didnt call my bluff. You merely show that you lack knowledge regarding the Founders and what THEY intended America to be, which conflicts with the 14A.
Washington, Lincoln, Monroe, Jefferson, Jackson etc.. Go read what they had to say, what they did, the laws.

Cite please?

Now you have names, and direction, let google be your friend now.

So you claim to have this vast knowledge of the founders (which you obviously don't) and your response to someone that asks you to cite references for your claims is "go Google it"?

Your lack of debate skills mirrors that of your knowledge of history.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

According to you. Who are you again?

Does it matter? Doesnt make my statement any less.

Now go on about your life, as SCOTUS tells you how to life, and when they say Guns are illegal, YOU FOLLOW IT.

Cite please?

Against INGO policy for me to cite as it crosses the line. So unfortunately, I cannot hold your hand, and walk you to the information, but it is certainly there.

I'll give you a bone though.

So you claim to have this vast knowledge of the founders (which you obviously don't) and your response to someone that asks you to cite references for your claims is "go Google it"?

Your lack of debate skills mirrors that of your knowledge of history.

I am seldom found to be what you suggest.

But to help show you for the classy historian you are.

Here are my cites.

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Washington

Book of Fate quote - Jefferson

Liberia = Capital Monrovia - Monroe

Lincoln/Douglas Debate of 1858 - Lincoln

And no need to cite Jackson.

Preamble - Constitution.

These are the bare minimum, keep showing your ignorance of history, coupled with an arrogance of debating; You certainly are not winning anything here, other than showing the Originalist where you failed in American History, Constitution and the Founders intent.

This is your doggybone, you research the above, of your own accord, make of it, whatever you wish. I didnt say anything other than YOU (Full auto) are wrong, and that the 14A is unConstitutional.