Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[wiffleball 4,797]

That probably means at some point in your life you have encountered someone who was gay and had no idea, because they didn't lick your face or something.

 

Oh Crap! My dog's GAY???

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

While both numbers may vary a few points depending upon your source, I've drawn this analogy before:

 

The answer to your question is "Jews".

 

And, if you do any research whatsoever, the IACPA (or whatever) is one of THE most powerful lobbying organizations in the country with HUGE influence over our foreign policy. And, they even brag that "if anybody opposes us, we just call them 'anti-Semitic'.

 

Insert: "Homophobic" and you're looking at roughly the same thing - except on domestic rather than foreign policy.

 

Which is why AIDS gets far more money than Cancer - even though the number of afflicted is retardedly out of proportion to the funding / attention.

 

Which is to say that I agree with you on the principle that no incredibly minor group should have such vast sway in setting public policy.

 

However, I think Gheys should be afforded the same marriage rights as normal people. And I think Israel definitely needs a strong ally in that region as a bullwark against radical Islam.

 

So, I agree with your principle, but I don't disagree with the specific policies espoused by either group in this case.

My link

There were an estimated 12.7 million cancer cases around the world in 2008, of these 6.6 million cases were in men and 6.0 million in women. This number is expected to increase to 21 million by 2030.

There are about 34 million people living with HIV/AIDS. My link

[penultimatestraw 473]

Actually, if you look into it, or talk to people who've served in Mooslim countries, they may be gheyer than the entire Castro District combined. - Yet they don't admit it.

 

There's an expression in places like Saud and Afghan that "Women are for babies, Boys are for fun."

 

And here on this bored was a story posted about how a bunch of the Turdiban and other EC's were being treated by our medics for butt sniffles - syphillus. (sp?) or something like that.

 

There's only one way to get that - Yet, these guys repeatedly denied that they were ghey. = And I think firmly believed it too.

Syphilis is a systemic disease. One can acquire it through heterosexual sex and it can spread just about anywhere, including the butt.

[wiffleball 4,797]

My linkThere are about 34 million people living with HIV/AIDS. My link

 

Not going to get into a battle of the sources, but I'm guessing based upon past readings that 34M number is a global estimate - unless they've actually tested 34M people. And HIV<>AIDS.

 

But, to clear my point up a bit better. Let's look at US - not global funding for AIDS vs. Cancer:

 

Total Federal spending on AIDS/HIV FY 2009 = 24.1 billion

Total Federal spending on cancer (all types) = 4.81 billion

 

I think the AIDS infection numbers are incredibly overblown - usually propogated by groups seeking more funding.

 

I'm guessing the majority of people on this bored know someone who has/had cancer, but the same couldn't be said for AIDS. And, I'd guess more people died from cancer (US) than AIdS.

 

But, I digress...

[Voltaire 5,453]

There is an entire underground gay subculture that enables people to stay closeted indefinitely - I ran an STD clinic so I learned a lot about it. Pretty amazing and sad at the same time.

 

Can't believe Voltaire thinks he can identify every gay dude who's ever crossed his path.

I presume they're there. I just think the numbers are super greatly exagerrated and if you live in a gay enclave, maybe the numbers may seem like its 10% to people who do but it's nowhere near that. That's about how many people are left handed, it's rididucous. Left handers have to outnumber gays at least five to one.

[Voltaire 5,453]

Syphilis is a systemic disease. One can acquire it through heterosexual sex and it can spread just about anywhere, including the butt.

Homosexuality is part of their culture. They can't touch women so they bang each other.

[phillybear 366]

You're completly wrong. In Saudi, the gay rate is close to 100% for reasons similar to the Catholic priesthood is. They can't touch the women so they diddle the nephews. It's the prison mentality there though, only the catcher is gay. You only get stoned to death if you have four witnesses which never happens because the whole country is Jerry Sanduskiland.

 

The Muslim world drives the number of gays through the roof, 99% of the 2.5% live here. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

 

Prison shows gay as a product of opportunity and necessity of adjustment, not inherent nature. Meaning, there is a large number of folks who get sent to prison for many years and eventually dip their toes into the naughty places with other inmates. Yet, they are straight going into prison, and straight after leaving prison. Are they defined as queebs? I dunno. If you put two animals in a cage of the same sex, sometimes they try to diddle each other. What else have they got to do to pass the time? Hell, a stupid dog will hump anything and everything. Is it an act of opportunity more than an act of lust?

 

We do know that people tend to get in touch with their sexuality around the age of ten. So anybody that tells you they were born a certain way or knew they were straight/gay by the age of 4 is a liar, because they are claiming they reached maturity 6 years earlier than most of the rest of human beings. It's remarkable how sexuality is driven so much by environment, circumstance, upbringing, opportunity and experiences.

[phillybear 366]

I presume they're there. I just think the numbers are super greatly exagerrated and if you live in a gay enclave, maybe the numbers may seem like its 10% to people who do but it's nowhere near that. That's about how many people are left handed, it's rididucous. Left handers have to outnumber gays at least five to one.

 

I could see more sword swallowers on the Left and Right Coasts in America, while the parts in between are more traditional.

[KSB2424 3,172]

I really think the gheys need to reconsider thier position. Right now they have it made. They can love another person, live with them, make any sort or kind of personal commitment they want to their loved one. Nobody is stopping John from being with, loving, making a lasting commitment to Jimmy. A legal document that costs money doesn't all the sudden make that love somehow validated.

 

What that legal document does validate though? That if things go wrong somebody is going to pay out the nose, probably both in legal fees and you actually have to go through some stupid process to break up.

 

Gheys have it made and don't even know it.

 

Can you imagine if us guys could date women, even love one passionately but never have the pressure to get married? "Sorry hun, but its just not legal for us to get married. I love you though and am committed to you." And if things went wrong, somebody cheated or whatnot you could...you know....just break up. It's focking beautiful.

 

Attention Gheys!@#! Y'all have your cake and can eat it too. You have the perfect relationship set up. WTF are you folks doing? Two decades from now you'll regret all this, trust me.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

So a simple question for those who support any two consenting adults getting married---would you support any 3 (or any group size) of adults to get married, as long as all 3 were consenting to it?

 

Your answer should be "I'm fine with it. Why should they be denied the right to marry?" or "Of course. It would be discrimination if we don't allow it" Otherwise, you're left arguing against the same policy you are arguing for when debating vs. the anti-ghey marriage side.

[phillybear 366]

Attention Gheys!@#! Y'all have your cake and can eat it too. You have the perfect relationship set up. WTF are you folks doing? Two decades from now you'll regret all this, trust me.

 

If the gheys somehow, someway, despite all logic, prove that ghey is genetic, parents will exterminate all unborn ghey babies in the womb. Much like midgets and retards, the gheys will be borderline extinct in 20 years. So, actually, there will be no ghey issues to deal with at all in a couple of decades in this scenario. Now, if it is lifestyle choice, then you can't make the argument for a protected class demanding rights based on birth rights, but it's then a claim on fetishes and choice, which have no legal standing.

 

A Catch-22 situation. Proving you are born ghey will lead to the end of all gheys.

[Voltaire 5,453]

I really think the gheys need to reconsider thier position. Right now they have it made. They can love another person, live with them, make any sort or kind of personal commitment they want to their loved one. Nobody is stopping John from being with, loving, making a lasting commitment to Jimmy. A legal document that costs money doesn't all the sudden make that love somehow validated.

 

What that legal document does validate though? That if things go wrong somebody is going to pay out the nose, probably both in legal fees and you actually have to go through some stupid process to break up.

 

Gheys have it made and don't even know it.

 

Can you imagine if us guys could date women, even love one passionately but never have the pressure to get married? "Sorry hun, but its just not legal for us to get married. I love you though and am committed to you." And if things went wrong, somebody cheated or whatnot you could...you know....just break up. It's focking beautiful.

 

Attention Gheys!@#! Y'all have your cake and can eat it too. You have the perfect relationship set up. WTF are you folks doing? Two decades from now you'll regret all this, trust me.

Marriage allows them to get tax benefits of filing jointly, spousal health insurance coverge, inheritance, and an assortment of other tangible effects.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Marriage allows them to get tax benefits of filing jointly, spousal health insurance coverge, inheritance, and an assortment of other tangible effects.

Trust me, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

And, guess what, at my company you don't have to be married to qualify for a beneficiary on beneifits. A ghey couple can designate his or her signficant other for benefits and beneficiaries. All they have to do is fill out some form, get it notarized and fax it in. And if Jimmy goes to a inheritance attorney and fills out the proper will or estate planning he can leave all his crap to John if he wants.

 

I'm telling you, they have it made and don't even know it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Trust me, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

And, guess what, at my company you don't have to be married to qualify for a beneficiary on beneifits. A ghey couple can designate his or her signficant other for benefits and beneficiaries. All they have to do is fill out some form, get it notarized and fax it in. And if Jimmy goes to a inheritance attorney and fills out the proper will or estate planning he can leave all his crap to John if he wants.

 

I'm telling you, they have it made and don't even know it.

 

Healthcare benefits for significant other in companies is an exception, not the rule. Just because your company does it, does not mean that it is the same "legally" across all companies.

 

Just being able to get medical information about a loved one to whom you are not married has challenges. Your inheritance example is one that basically indicates that in the eyes of the law, it is not the same.

 

My wife does not have to pay a lawyer or file any other paperwork to have all spousal rights under the law. That is all that they are asking for.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

Just read an article. The gheys are suing science, citing "It's not fair that if we were put on an island, we'd die out because we can't reproduce"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Healthcare benefits for significant other in companies is an exception, not the rule. Just because your company does it, does not mean that it is the same "legally" across all companies.

 

Just being able to get medical information about a loved one to whom you are not married has challenges. Your inheritance example is one that basically indicates that in the eyes of the law, it is not the same.

 

My wife does not have to pay a lawyer or file any other paperwork to have all spousal rights under the law. That is all that they are asking for.

I thought it was all about wanting to marry the one you love.

 

I guess it's all tax breaks and such.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

If the gheys somehow, someway, despite all logic, prove that ghey is genetic, parents will exterminate all unborn ghey babies in the womb. Much like midgets and retards, the gheys will be borderline extinct in 20 years. So, actually, there will be no ghey issues to deal with at all in a couple of decades in this scenario. Now, if it is lifestyle choice, then you can't make the argument for a protected class demanding rights based on birth rights, but it's then a claim on fetishes and choice, which have no legal standing.

 

A Catch-22 situation. Proving you are born ghey will lead to the end of all gheys.

Constitutional rights have no bearing on birth/choice.

 

However, I am sure your first eloquently put scenario has been discussed behind closed doors. The gay community may claim a genetic link, but it does not appear to represent their best interests should one ever be found, and it would not surprise me if one has been found and kept under wraps.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Healthcare benefits for significant other in companies is an exception, not the rule. Just because your company does it, does not mean that it is the same "legally" across all companies.

 

Just being able to get medical information about a loved one to whom you are not married has challenges. Your inheritance example is one that basically indicates that in the eyes of the law, it is not the same.

 

My wife does not have to pay a lawyer or file any other paperwork to have all spousal rights under the law. That is all that they are asking for.

I don't deny being married can make certain things like you say easier, there are certain advantages. However, like anything in life there are postives and negatives, debits and credits, pros and cons.

 

Marraige is no exception. Considering 50% end in divorce, and considering a portion of the other 50% are unhappy, then what I'm saying is the negatives outweigh the positives if we lined them all up on a spreadsheet.

 

Gheys can be in lasting relationships without ever having the pressures of being "married". I'm sorry but that is focking cool. And they don't even know it.

 

Y'all want Marraige. Well come and get it, and EVERYTHING that comes with it!@#!

[tubby_mcgee 701]

So a simple question for those who support any two consenting adults getting married---would you support any 3 (or any group size) of adults to get married, as long as all 3 were consenting to it?

 

Your answer should be "I'm fine with it. Why should they be denied the right to marry?" or "Of course. It would be discrimination if we don't allow it" Otherwise, you're left arguing against the same policy you are arguing for when debating vs. the anti-ghey marriage side.

 

 

bump

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I thought it was all about wanting to marry the one you love.

 

I guess it's all tax breaks and such.

 

Just another example of where you miss the point. It is not about one particular scenario at all, particularly with tax breaks (there aren't any).

 

It is just a matter of being treated the same way in the eyes of the law as heterosexuals. Not better, just the same. It's ironic given that is exactly what women and blacks wanted.

[OldMaid 2,134]

I think the construct of marriage is artificial and unnecessary, but it is important to my wife. I bet the value of marriage is heavily gender-skewed, with most guys agreeing with me.

 

To be fair, my divorce was easier than your break-up from the sound of things. No lawyer, and the only disagreement revolved around reimbursing me for a portion of her car's value (I paid for most of it), which she did. But both of my wives earned more money than I, and we had no kids. None of my divorced friends got off so easily, and I know a lot of long term cohabiters who have split relatively effortlessly (including me on all but one occasion - don't date lawyers).

 

 

I'm a female and I agree with you. Although, I think if you have kids marriage makes more sense.

 

 

 

Nikki, you must have dated some real assh0les... or maybe I've been lucky- but I have never had any major problems with split ups.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Like anyting in life there are postives and negatives, debits and credits, pros and cons.

 

Marraige is no exception. Considering 50% end in divorce, and considering a portion of the other 50% are unhappy, then what I'm saying is the negatives outweigh the positives if we lined them all up on a spreadsheet.

 

Gheys can be in lasting relationships without ever having the pressures of being "married". I'm sorry but that is focking cool. And they don't even know it.

 

Y'all want Marraige. Well come and get it, and EVERYTHING that comes with it!@#!

 

That is all that they are asking for. Do you honestly believe that gheys are sitting there asking for ghey marriage without knowing that 50% end in divorce and that divorce is often painful?

[parrot 789]

Attention Gheys!@#! Y'all have your cock and can eat it too.

 

Fixed.

[KSB2424 3,172]

That is all that they are asking for. Do you honestly believe that gheys are sitting there asking for ghey marriage without knowing that 50% end in divorce and that divorce is often painful?

You're mistaken my stance on this issue. I voted against the Marraige Amendment in my State. Under the current set up of how Marraige is currently, I am for two gheys being married if they want. I have my issues of gov't being in the marraige business to begin with, but that's a different conversation.

 

I do think the vast majority of this conversation is about all the supposedely great things that some certificate gives a couple as if its some magical love document or something. People act as if getting married is some "right" on par with other human basic rights. And not only that they only focus on the positives of Marraige, I truely think gheys really havn't thought this through.

 

Everybody wants what they can't have, even if they truely, deep down, don't really want it. It's akin to two toddlers and one toy. A toy can sit in a room and not be played with by two toddlers for an hour. However as soon as one of them grabs it to play with it the other toddler wants it all the sudden. They throw a temper tantrum because the other kid is playing with it....and they can't have it. Even though the toy actually sucks, was sitting there for an hour earlier and neither really likes it after playing with it.

[wiffleball 4,797]

So a simple question for those who support any two consenting adults getting married---would you support any 3 (or any group size) of adults to get married, as long as all 3 were consenting to it?

 

Your answer should be "I'm fine with it. Why should they be denied the right to marry?" or "Of course. It would be discrimination if we don't allow it" Otherwise, you're left arguing against the same policy you are arguing for when debating vs. the anti-ghey marriage side.

 

 

Ah, the ol' slippery slope argument. Don't forget the next paragraph; "Now, what if a man and a horse REALLY loved each other?"..."Then, what if a 14 y.o. wanted to marry her father?"

 

Setting aside the spurious nature of the 'OSS'. I'd say that all of the instances above have been specifically outlawed (by most jurisdicitions north of the Mason-Dixon line).

 

However, no such law proscription exists for two people of the same secks. The gheys get 'married' a lot - nobody throws them in jail for doing so - the marriage just isn't recognized by the legal entities.

 

see next post

[wiffleball 4,797]

I KNOW I'm going to regret saying this, but:

 

I'm going through a bit of this myself right now. Legally, I don't have the right to do 80% (or more) of what I'm doing for my Mom and my Dad's estate. - And I'm their focking SON.

 

Two months ago, my Mom was off in la-la land and we had no idea when or if she'd come back. It depends upon who you're dealing with, but legally without POA, technically, I'm focked to provide the level of care she needs and continue to maintain her estate.

 

I know it's not the same thing - and not trying to hijack, but I can understand the frustration.

 

Can you imagine a couple in a loving, comitted, 20 year relationship and something happens to the other? The partner who loves him/her can't do diddly diick, but the estranged alcoholic father who beat the shiit outta the kid when he found out the kid was gay can show up outta the blue and make any and every kind of decision - even so far as whether to pull the plug.

 

- Just doesn't make sense. That's why I'm opposed to government and businesses being in the marriage biz. "Civil Unions" for all legal purposes and marriages handled by the respective churches.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Ah, the ol' slippery slope argument. Don't forget the next paragraph; "Now, what if a man and a horse REALLY loved each other?"..."Then, what if a 14 y.o. wanted to marry her father?"

 

Setting aside the spurious nature of the 'OSS'. I'd say that all of the instances above have been specifically outlawed (by most jurisdicitions north of the Mason-Dixon line).

 

However, no such law proscription exists for two people of the same secks. The gheys get 'married' a lot - nobody throws them in jail for doing so - the marriage just isn't recognized by the legal entities.

 

see next post

The beastialty thing is stupid, agreed.

 

However the polygamy discussion has merit in my opinion. It is not THAT different. You have consenting, of age adults who want to be legally married to one another. In this case, as an example one husband and three women. The only reason its not legal is because our past societal values & defintions (rooted in religion).

 

Would the same logic under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment not follow if the SC does in fact rule as such in this case?

 

Right now the defintion is 1 man and 1 woman. The ghey community wants to take out the gender part. The polygamy crowd would want to take out the number part. Not that much different. That slope is pretty dag on slippery.

 

And to be honest, I'm not saying its actually a bad thing, but its worth pointing out. Maybe polygamy should be legal, maybe not. However I think IF the SC rules against Prop 8 then that will be the next thing we find out.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

The beastialty thing is stupid, agreed.

 

However the polygamy discussion has merit in my opinion. It is not THAT different. You have consenting, of age adults who want to be legally married to one another. In this case, as an example one husband and three women. The only reason its not legal is because our past societal values & defintions (rooted in religion).

 

Would the same logic under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment not follow if the SC does in fact rule as such in this case?

 

Right now the defintion is 1 man and 1 woman. The ghey community wants to take out the gender part. The polygamy crowd would want to take out the number part. Not that much different. That slope is pretty dag on slippery.

 

And to be honest, I'm not saying its actually a bad thing, but its worth pointing out. Maybe polygamy should be legal, maybe not. However I think IF the SC rules against Prop 8 then that will be the next thing we find out.

 

I don't see why not(off the top of my head I can't think of compelling state reason to forbid it), let the polygamists lobby go for it.

 

Why is this slope slippery?

[wiffleball 4,797]

The beastialty thing is stupid, agreed.

 

However the polygamy discussion has merit in my opinion. It is not THAT different. You have consenting, of age adults who want to be legally married to one another. In this case, as an example one husband and three women. The only reason its not legal is because our past societal values & defintions (rooted in religion).

 

Would the same logic under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment not follow if the SC does in fact rule as such in this case?

 

Right now the defintion is 1 man and 1 woman. The ghey community wants to take out the gender part. The polygamy crowd would want to take out the number part. Not that much different. That slope is pretty dag on slippery.

 

Yeah, I can see your point. I think there's two things, one legal, one pragmatic:

 

1) SCOTUS has already ruled on polygamy. However, its arguments were/are pretty anachronistic. I doubt those same arguments would hold water under today's scrutiny / mindset.

 

2) I can insurance companies and businesses being MASSIVELY against it - for obvious reasons.

[KSB2424 3,172]

I don't see why not(off the top of my head I can't think of compelling state reason to forbid it), let the polygamists lobby go for it.

 

Why is this slope slippery?

I really havn't thought enough to be for or against polygamy being legal. My point is that, the two (ghey marriage and polygamy) are not that different when we are talking about the context of the Equal Protection Clause which is what this whole SC thing is surrounded by.

 

If the SC ruled against Prop 8 under this clause then that would set a huge precedent for polygamy. I'm not arguing for or against polygamy, I'm just saying that its part of the conversation as a result of this SC decision. Thats all.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Not going to get into a battle of the sources, but I'm guessing based upon past readings that 34M number is a global estimate - unless they've actually tested 34M people. And HIV<>AIDS.

 

But, to clear my point up a bit better. Let's look at US - not global funding for AIDS vs. Cancer:

 

Total Federal spending on AIDS/HIV FY 2009 = 24.1 billion

Total Federal spending on cancer (all types) = 4.81 billion

 

I think the AIDS infection numbers are incredibly overblown - usually propogated by groups seeking more funding.

 

I'm guessing the majority of people on this bored know someone who has/had cancer, but the same couldn't be said for AIDS. And, I'd guess more people died from cancer (US) than AIdS.

 

But, I digress...

Most HIV/AIDS is in sub-Saharan Africa - so is it wrong to try to and understand and treat it? Not sure why you would distinguish HIv infection from AIDS - are you excluding research for cancer screening in its earlier stages? And HIV has only been recognized for ~30 years. Given its rapid spread, can you imagine how many more cases there would be without aggressive research? Plus our record for treating/curing infections is a lot better than malignancy, so why not focus $ where it will most likely benefit people? And HIV afflicts young people, unlike most cancer victims.

 

You want to talk about stigma? HIV is probably the most stigmatized disease, with mental illness a collective second. Do you think people volunteer their HIV status easily??? If you know someone with HIV, they probably wouldn't tell you. And what makes you think HIV numbers are overblown?

 

Based on US cases alone, I won't argue HIV gets disproportionate funding. But that isn't what you said initially…Antiretroviral therapy is one of science's greatest recent accomplishments IMO.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I presume they're there. I just think the numbers are super greatly exagerrated and if you live in a gay enclave, maybe the numbers may seem like its 10% to people who do but it's nowhere near that. That's about how many people are left handed, it's rididucous. Left handers have to outnumber gays at least five to one.

I'd guess numbers are underreported, given the stigma associated with being gay. But we're both just guessing.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So a simple question for those who support any two consenting adults getting married---would you support any 3 (or any group size) of adults to get married, as long as all 3 were consenting to it?

 

Your answer should be "I'm fine with it. Why should they be denied the right to marry?" or "Of course. It would be discrimination if we don't allow it" Otherwise, you're left arguing against the same policy you are arguing for when debating vs. the anti-ghey marriage side.

Arbitrary lines are drawn somewhere…but no, polygamists shouldn't be denied marriage either in theory. The problem is traditional polygamists often coerce their (underage) brides. And the process is ripe for abuse of government aid, as Nikki suggested. Read Under the Banner of Heaven if you are interested in these phenomena.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Marriage allows them to get tax benefits of filing jointly, spousal health insurance coverge, inheritance, and an assortment of other tangible effects.

The tax status only helps those with disparate incomes. Otherwise it actually worsens tax burden to be married.

[nikki2200 4]

I really havn't thought enough to be for or against polygamy being legal. My point is that, the two (ghey marriage and polygamy) are not that different when we are talking about the context of the Equal Protection Clause which is what this whole SC thing is surrounded by.

 

If the SC ruled against Prop 8 under this clause then that would set a huge precedent for polygamy. I'm not arguing for or against polygamy, I'm just saying that its part of the conversation as a result of this SC decision. Thats all.

 

And bringing this up just derails the whole conversation which is obviously the intention of bringing it up in the first place so everybody ends up at "OK fine. It's a slippery slope and a bad idea."

 

This conversation is about 2 consenting adults being able to be married and have it recognized as such by the US government.

 

We'll talk about polygamy (and even bestiality for the real mouth breathers) when it becomes an issue. That is not this issue.

[KSB2424 3,172]

And bringing this up just derails the whole conversation which is obviously the intention of bringing it up in the first place so everybody ends up at "OK fine. It's a slippery slope and a bad idea."

 

This conversation is about 2 consenting adults being able to be married and have it recognized as such by the US government.

 

We'll talk about polygamy (and even bestiality for the real mouth breathers) when it becomes an issue. That is not this issue.

Discussing a Supreme Court case/ruling while ignoring precedent (what was before and what may be after) is sort of naive don't you think?

[nikki2200 4]

Discussing a Supreme Court case/ruling while ignoring precedent (what was before and what may be after) is sort of naive don't you think?

 

Precedent means before. And no... I trust the SCOTUS to look at each individual issue, evaluate it against the laws of the Constitution, and make an educated decision.

 

If that means in 40 years from now when there's a whole bunch of people suing the government because they want to have multiple spouses, and the SCOTUS uses their decision on this case as a precedent, then so be it.

 

Right now all I care about is the issue of two consenting gay people being able to get married because that is what is on the table. Throwing in other shiit is just an effort to derail discussing the issue and the "slippery slope" argument does not apply when it comes to talking about an individuals' rights and the Constitution. I'm sure the "slippery slope", and probably even references to bestiality, came up too in the 60s when the SCOTUS was deciding whether or not to allow states to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

OK. I think I was assuming you felt the way I did when I was in my 20s and thought that pretending to be married, and behaving like you are married, but not actually getting married was a good thing and I was just saying that opens up a whole world of focked-upness if the relationship ends. I'm obviously not one that has rushed into marriage as I am in the worse half of my 30s and am now getting married for the first time. I understand your point about societal pressures and people getting married because that's what they think they need to do and they rush into it. I was just warning against the philosophy I had when I was younger and thought I knew everything and decided I didn't need a "label" but wanted to behave and interact in the relationship like I was married. It's a bad idea.

 

 

 

The 1% is a ridiculous under-estimation. The most recent of studies estimate 4% openly admitting to being gay with up to 12% admitting to being at least a little attracted to members of the same sex. I think these polls are hard to validate the accuracy of because so many people are so far in the closet that they can't even admit in an anonymous poll that they may be gay. So we are totally on the same page and was the reason for my original "What?" to BB but I didn't have the energy to get into it at that moment.

 

I didn't mean to be condescending or anything, I was just trying to warn you against making the same mistakes I did when I was in my 20s and idealistic and all against the "label" of being married. Maybe for men who earn more than their partners this could be a good thing, so I may be a bit skewed in my beliefs on that front. I just felt after that, and learning from my stupidity when I was young and idealistic, that I was not going to enter a financial arrangement like that again unless I was 100% positive that it was real and we were both going to do everything possible to make sure that we were going to try to adhere to the "until death do us part" aspect of the arrangement.

 

 

I live in ghey friendly city. The most recent estimates conducted have the ghey community at about 2%. Your estimate of 4% is an extreme over-estimation. In New York and other heavilly populated areas the % gets higher, but the national average is about 1%. 12%? One in every ten people in the US is ghey? :lol:

 

For the record, I don't care if they get married. They should be afforded the same right as straights. What I do have a problem with is all the circus antics and constant demand to be loved by all. After this battle is won, what's next? More million dollar goverment studies to find out why lesbians are fat?

[nikki2200 4]

I live in ghey friendly city. The most recent estimates conducted have the ghey community at about 2%. Your estimate of 4% is an extreme over-estimation. In New York and other heavilly populated areas the % gets higher, but the national average is about 1%. 12%? One in every ten people in the US is ghey? :lol:

 

For the record, I don't care if they get married. They should be afforded the same right as straights. What I do have a problem with is all the circus antics and constant demand to be loved by all. After this battle is won, what's next? More million dollar goverment studies to find out why lesbians are fat?

 

4% is not my guess. I'm not pulling shiit out of my ass. And this study is consistent with other studies done globally.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565#.UVMzsRysh8E

 

Other key findings were that an estimated 19 million Americans, or 8.2 percent of the population, said they have engaged in same-sex behavior, and 25.6 million, or 11 percent, acknowledged some same-sex attraction.

 

Sorry. It was 11%, not 12% admit to having some level of attraction to people of the same sex.

 

There is also the concept of the gay spectrum, or the Kinsey Scale, and I believe that close to 10% of people are at least a little bit gay and the link I provided on that study seems to agree with that. But that is a whole different conversation for a whole different day.

 

I'm not "guessing". I was using the facts as I know them to talk about the numbers.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Precedent means before. And no... I trust the SCOTUS to look at each individual issue, evaluate it against the laws of the Constitution, and make an educated decision.

 

If that means in 40 years from now when there's a whole bunch of people suing the government because they want to have multiple spouses, and the SCOTUS uses their decision on this case as a precedent, then so be it.

 

Right now all I care about is the issue of two consenting gay people being able to get married because that is what is on the table. Throwing in other shiit is just an effort to derail discussing the issue and the "slippery slope" argument does not apply when it comes to talking about an individuals' rights and the Constitution. I'm sure the "slippery slope", and probably even references to bestiality, came up too in the 60s when the SCOTUS was deciding whether or not to allow states to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

Actually, no, you don't get to up and decide what 'issues' that this case may present. Nikki2200 does not get to make the rules of discussion. Sorry hun.

 

Discussing the precedent a Supreme Court case/ruling may present for future cases is pertinent to the overall discussion in any logical sense. Especially in a Supreme Court case where said precedent must be followed by other courts since the SC is the higher court for all others including appealate and state courts.

 

If you decide to ignore this arm of the conversation then fine, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what matters and what doesn't.