Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (places, business)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about men and women who are past child bearing age? or women who can't have children of their own? Should they be denied marriage as well, since they can't 'produce'??
Already argued this, do a search in past threads. I am not going to regurgitate the same points over and over for the lazy. Your argument is invalid, the fact that some can't, does not change the fact that man and woman can.
There is nothing in a marriage license under civil law that states it is a requirement for or does it make one prove one has the ability to reproduce children to get one. Nor when someone gets married in a church. Gay women can reproduce. Gay men can donate sperm, thus reproducing.
I think it is your moral compass that has the emotional
argument. It's not based in reality.
You are really hung up on procreation. You should rename
yourself Bunny
You miss the point. There is nothing in it specifically because it is a common known fact that man and woman produce progeny which results in blood rights. Your position is fallacious because it attempts to claim that since the blatantly obvious is not detailed, then it must not concern it. Historically it is, legally it merely recognized this practice.
homosexuals serve no purpose in relationships past civil agreement. They can not produce, there is nothing special about it. They are only a civil agreement, nothing more.
Oh yes, the old mob rule argument...that alone is discrimination.
I do agree that there is ignorance, however it is not on the side of those who approve of gay marriage...
Devious in your focus. The poster was saying that times changes, in reference to the word bringing about different meaning. It would be a valid argument if times have truly changed and society had adapted the word to actually mean such. Society hasn't as the majority of society does not see the word as the minority is demanding it be interpreted as.
There is no mob injustice here. People know the word to mean what it means, a man and a woman. The homosexual community demanding it be changed in meaning in the face of the majorities interpretation is nothing more than oppressive dictation from the minority through government rule.
The gay position is nothing but ignorance. It is emotional position, nothing more.
... Still waiting for you to prove that "produce" has ever been a requirement of marriage in this country.
C'mon, you must have SOME documentation to back this up. Shouldn't take more than a second or two of your time to post it... clearly you have a few minutes, you're posting away... so c'mon... just one bit of evidence, documentation, showing that procreation was at any time a requirement of marriage in this country.
Seriously, look up a fallacious argument. Please, for the sake of all sane and rational discussion, please!
Gays are not a race and interracial can produce, gays can not, ever. Sorry, this isn't a civil rights issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I am done here. Argue with yourselves.
So apathetic.
Gay RIGHTS is of course a civil RIGHTS issue. I suggest you learn and understand that when RIGHTS are infrindged upon, it becomes a CIVIL matter. Such as building a mosque, repealing the 14th amendment, or same sex marriage.
And many African American civil RIGHTS leaders would argue it is of course. Gay RIGHTS has been declared the civil RIGHTS issue of the decade.
Devious in your focus. The poster was saying that times changes, in reference to the word bringing about different meaning. It would be a valid argument if times have truly changed and society had adapted the word to actually mean such. Society hasn't as the majority of society does not see the word as the minority is demanding it be interpreted as.
There is no mob injustice here. People know the word to mean what it means, a man and a woman. The homosexual community demanding it be changed in meaning in the face of the majorities interpretation is nothing more than oppressive dictation from the minority through government rule.
The gay position is nothing but ignorance. It is emotional position, nothing more.
And what's your position, one which was divinely insprired? Please. You people talk as if the great minds of humanity past have came forth is some supernatural event and gave unto you the Truth. And yet not a single one of you conservatives has rationally and reasonably given an argument against gay marriage, You pull out your holier than thaou, god's on my side 'cause I said so attitude and expect the world to tremble at your word. Except the the vast majority even in this thread have come to the defense of gay marriage in rational and thoughtful ways. And each time you people have dismissed them as liberal lunatics hell bent on destroying America, or whatever.
The truth is, christian fundamentalists are crazy and afraid, and need someone to scapegoat. Someone to blame for society's ills. Well, start by looking in a mirror. Let he who is without sin, as they say.
You miss the point. There is nothing in it specifically because it is a common known fact that man and woman produce progeny which results in blood rights. Your position is fallacious because it attempts to claim that since the blatantly obvious is not detailed, then it must not concern it. Historically it is, legally it merely recognized this practice.
homosexuals serve no purpose in relationships past civil agreement. They can not produce, there is nothing special about it. They are only a civil agreement, nothing more.
Infertile men and barren women cannot repproduce, and yet are perfectly allowed to get married. Lets ban their marriage.
You haven't been paying attention. Various courts have mandated it to varying degrees (state courts in MA, CT, IA and CA, though subsequently reversed by referendum in the latter case) and a federal court has as well (the recent ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) and other courts have allowed it where not mandated judicially (VT and NH).
But back to Perry v. Schwarzenegger. You think Judge Walker's ruling will be overturned? By which court? The Ninth Circuit? Really? Or perhaps the United States Supreme Court? Then please, tell us which of these five Justices will not vote to uphold Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and please explain why:
Breyer
Ginsberg
Sotomayor
Kagan
Kennedy
You can look at those five Justices anyway you want, but everything about the histories of those Justices suggests that they will uphold Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Frankly, though I think it unlikely, I wouldn't even rule out Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority in such a case. There are no guarantees, but the future of this ruling looks promising if you actually consider the courts and individuals who will decide its fate.
well it really doesnt matter now does it cause argueing on a internet website is not going to change anything. it only looks promising but it is not a shoe in by any means either way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
