Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

we should get that overruled too then..don't you think? why draw the line there?

 

I love this knuckle-dragging argument that it will lead to more and more debauchery. It was used against women and blacks in the past. Must be tough to see through that white hood.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Incest is a crime in most every state

Ghey marriage is against the law in 33 states.

 

Did you have a point?

[GobbleDog 1,010]

No, still didn't answer the question. I'll ask again, by what authority do you get to decide gheys get the right to marry, and then the changes stop? Why stop there?

99.9% of Americans agree on 4 of the 5 marriage qualifications:

 

1. Human

2. Legal age

3. Sound mind

4. Not immediately related

 

5. Opposite sex

 

It's the last qualification that Americans are divided on. That's why "why stop there?" is why we stop there. It's funny, this is probably the first issue in history that minorities and right-wing-Christians agree on - homophobia.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

SweaterVest won this thread many times over.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

we should get that overruled too then..don't you think? why draw the line there?

 

No I don't think.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Ghey marriage is against the law in 33 states.

 

Did you have a point?

 

Being ghey isn't illegal. So denying siblings the right to marry isn't an equal protection problem, but denying gheys the right to marry is.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

No I don't think.

You just react.

[nikki2200 4]

we should get that overruled too then..don't you think? why draw the line there?

 

This was discussed on this bored before and because of it I changed my mind. The justification behind forbidding incest, is the concept that if you have sex and create a baby with someone in your close family, you are going to have a mongoloid. So it's really not a case of two consenting adults, because there is a third potentially harmed person in the mix.

 

HOWEVER, it appears that the risks of mongoloid-ness with two close relatives procreating is actually relatively small, and one could argue less than with two people who have genetic predispositions to other types of diseases. Based on that, I changed my opinion. If Jim Bob and Sally Sue are first cousins and they want to fock each other, go nuts. AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Being ghey isn't illegal. So denying siblings the right to marry isn't an equal protection problem, but denying gheys the right to marry is.

Being siblings is illegal?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

This was discussed on this bored before and because of it I changed my mind. The justification behind forbidding incest, is the concept that if you have sex and create a baby with someone in your close family, you are going to have a mongoloid. So it's really not a case of two consenting adults, because there is a third potentially harmed person in the mix.

 

HOWEVER, it appears that the risks of mongoloid-ness with two close relatives procreating is actually relatively small, and one could argue less than with two people who have genetic predispositions to other types of diseases. Based on that, I changed my opinion. If Jim Bob and Sally Sue are first cousins and they want to fock each other, go nuts. AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS.

 

Can we get Sally Sue's can size? TIA.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Being siblings is illegal?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Being siblings is illegal?

 

This might be a foreign concept for your redneck ass, but focking your own sister is illegal.

 

Fortunately, it is completely legal for all of us to bang your sister, though.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

This might be a foreign concept for your redneck ass, but focking your own sister is illegal.

 

Fortunately, it is completely legal for all of us to bang your sister, though.

 

And videotape it

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

I think what frustrates a lot of people is the fact that 1% of the population is trying to change the definition of marriage. Name another group in this country with that kind of power?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This might be a foreign concept for your redneck ass, but focking your own sister is illegal.

 

Fortunately, it is completely legal for all of us to bang your sister, though.

1. I don't have a sister.

 

2. Who said anything about fukking your sister? We are talking about the 'right to marry'.

 

3. Ghey marriage is illegal in 33 states. So your argument about fukking your sister fails on two fronts.

 

4. What about a guy who wants to marry 5 women?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

1. I don't have a sister. Disowned her for being a slut, huh?

 

2. Who said anything about fukking your sister? We are talking about the 'right to marry'. Having sex with your sister is illegal. Why would you marry if you aren't going to bang her?

3. Ghey marriage is illegal in 33 states. So your argument about fukking your sister fails on two fronts. Ghey marriage is not a crime. You can do it all you want. It is not recognized under the law. If you bang your sister, you can go to jail.

 

4. What about a guy who wants to marry 5 women? What kind of focking idiot wants to marry 5 women? Marrying one is dumb enough.

 

[nikki2200 4]

I think what frustrates a lot of people is the fact that 1% of the population is trying to change the definition of marriage. Name another group in this country with that kind of power?

 

What?

[gocolts 300]

I love this knuckle-dragging argument that it will lead to more and more debauchery. It was used against women and blacks in the past. Must be tough to see through that white hood.

I love how folks dismiss it as laughable even though the ENTIRE basis for allowing gays to marry is The Equal Protection Clause. Only wanting to give these rights to the gays and to hell with every other lifestyle simply because you disagree with it. Must be tough seeing through that rainbow colored hood.

[porkbutt 897]

I love this knuckle-dragging argument that it will lead to more and more debauchery. It was used against women and blacks in the past. Must be tough to see through that white hood.

huh? who's saying it will lead to more debauchery? i just don't get why they can't marry too. and polygamists. it's all about consenting adults right?

[drobeski 3,061]

Great reply.

Thuper relpy

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I love how folks dismiss it as laughable even though the ENTIRE basis for allowing gays to marry is The Equal Protection Clause. Only wanting to give these rights to the gays and to hell with every other lifestyle simply because you disagree with it. Must be tough seeing through that rainbow colored hood.

 

Who said to only give it to the gheys? One step at a time, Cletus.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I love how folks dismiss it as laughable even though the ENTIRE basis for allowing gays to marry is The Equal Protection Clause. Only wanting to give these rights to the gays and to hell with every other lifestyle simply because you disagree with it. Must be tough seeing through that rainbow colored hood.

 

[GobbleDog 1,010]

huh? who's saying it will lead to more debauchery? i just don't get why they can't marry too. and polygamists. it's all about consenting adults right?

It's all about what the vast majority of the Americans want. And they don't want polygamists or immediate family members marrying. Right or wrong.

 

I agree it's a similar debate in every other aspect.

[drobeski 3,061]

Has anyone explained why they wouldn't be fine with the term civil union ?

Logically please. ....my assumption is they are just that starved for attention.

Can't they be happy with re-defining one word ?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

huh? who's saying it will lead to more debauchery? i just don't get why they can't marry too. and polygamists. it's all about consenting adults right?

 

I think in a few states, you can bang your cousin so long as you can't procreate. I don't have much a problem with marrying your sister. It might make Thanksgiving a little awkward, but if you want to do that, I don't have a huge issue with it. Let's get past this ghey marriage thing first and see where that takes us before we just change everything all at once.

[nikki2200 4]

It's all about what the vast majority of the Americans want. And they don't want polygamists or immediate family members marrying. Right or wrong.

 

I agree it's a similar debate in every other aspect.

 

No. It's really not about what the vast majority of Americans want and should have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. It's about the question of people's right to marry whomever they wish. It doesn't matter if one person wants it or 10 million people want it. It's about rights and the Constitution.

[KSB2424 3,172]

It's all about what the vast majority of the Americans want. And they don't want polygamists or immediate family members marrying. Right or wrong.

 

I agree it's a similar debate in every other aspect.

I voted against the North Carolina Amendement saying Marraige is between one man and one woman only.

 

However it passed. That means the majority of North Carolinians and 32 other states wanted the amendment. Just sayin'.

 

The people have spoken.

[MDC 7,826]

The definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman. People in 33 states have voted to put that into their legal code in one form or another. They did not change the definition of marriage, as you falsely claimed.

 

If the definition of marriage was always one man and one woman, why did 33 states put that definition in their constitution, all since 1998? Pretty recent change for something that's "always" been that way.

 

No, still didn't answer the question. I'll ask again, by what authority do you get to decide gheys get the right to marry, and then the changes stop? Why stop there?

 

You seem to want to overrule the will of the people of Cali, who passed Prop 8 in a landslide, on nothing more than your personal belief.

 

Your question is stupid because I never said that I personally get to decide that the gays have the right to marry. It's my opinion that they do and my belief that within my lifetime most if not all states will recognize that right. Just like its your belief that the nanny state government should tell consenting adults who they can / cannot marry in the eyes if the state.

[nikki2200 4]

I think in a few states, you can bang your cousin so long as you can't procreate. I don't have much a problem with marrying your sister. It might make Thanksgiving a little awkward, but if you want to do that, I don't have a huge issue with it. Let's get past this ghey marriage thing first and see where that takes us before we just change everything all at once.

 

*cue someone bringing up the ability to marry their horse just to disrupt any reasonable discussion on the issue*

[KSB2424 3,172]

No. It's really not about what the vast majority of Americans want and should have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. It's about the question of people's right to marry whomever they wish. It doesn't matter if one person wants it or 10 million people want it. It's about rights and the Constitution.

I really hate the polygimist arguement too but your post screams it to be asked.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If the definition of marriage was always one man and one woman, why did 33 states put that definition in their constitution, all since 1998? Pretty recent change for something that's "always" been that way.

Your question is stupid because I never said that I personally get to decide that the gays have the right to marry. It's my opinion that they do and my belief that within my lifetime most if not all states will recognize that right. Just like its your belief that the nanny state government should tell consenting adults who they can / cannot marry in the eyes if the state.

You lied about the definition of marriage being changed and got called out. It is just spin on your part now.

 

You said let gheys marry and stop there. I asked you why you get to decide that. Still have nit answered that question, puzzy.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

*cue someone bringing up the ability to marry their horse just to disrupt any reasonable discussion on the issue*

 

Is it a mare or a stallion?

[gocolts 300]

*cue someone bringing up the ability to marry their horse just to disrupt any reasonable discussion on the issue*

Yeah, because nobody would ever do that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNtw8HENlI

[GobbleDog 1,010]

No. It's really not about what the vast majority of Americans want and should have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. It's about the question of people's right to marry whomever they wish. It doesn't matter if one person wants it or 10 million people want it. It's about rights and the Constitution.

Legally that's true, but from a practical standpoint that's why those other groups are banned. If say 51% of Americans supported polygamists marriage, then it would be legalized one way or another.

[MDC 7,826]

You lied about the definition of marriage being changed and got called out. It is just spin on your part now.

 

Every state you mentioned changed the constitution to define marriage as 1 man / 1 woman. You lied when you said it's "always" been that way. These amendments are all less than 15 years old. Owned.

 

You said let gheys marry and stop there. I asked you why you get to decide that. Still have nit answered that question, puzzy.

 

I answered it, you're just a focking troll. Personally I think you're afraid to see happily married gheys while you're a miserable lonely closet case.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Yeah, because nobody would ever do that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNtw8HENlI

 

I am afraid to tell you this, Gary, but many of Jerry Springer's subjects aren't real. I know that you are still reeling from finding out about professional wrestling and Lizard Lick Towing, but I feel that I owe it to you.

[nikki2200 4]

I really hate the polygimist arguement too but your post screams it to be asked.

 

I'd be interested to see an issue like that come up. Personally I don't think I have a problem with it. It doesn't affect me at all and if someone really wants to put up with multiple spouses, OK? I haven't thought too much about it. I think there may be some implications of tax fraud, etc. if someone is claiming 22 dependents. And it may lead to a lot of murders. I haven't really thought about it too much. But that's not really what is on the table right now with the SCOTUS. What is on the table is - do American citizens have the right to marry someone of the same gender under protection of the 14th Amendment? My opinion is yes. Let's see what the SCOTUS says.

[nikki2200 4]

Yeah, because nobody would ever do that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNtw8HENlI

 

A horse can neither express consent nor sign a marriage certificate, so it doesn't really matter.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

A horse can neither express consent nor sign a marriage certificate, so it doesn't really matter.

 

Really? What about Trigger and Mr. Ed?

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Has anyone explained why they wouldn't be fine with the term civil union ?

Logically please. ....my assumption is they are just that starved for attention.

Can't they be happy with re-defining one word ?

 

read the thread...