Gay Marriage Stuff

RBBailey

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2004
6,758
3
Oregon
www.flickr.com
cptyarderho said:
but the government got involved when the passed a law stopping it correct? so the courts just pushed them back out of it. Correct?

Still waiting for the wording of the law the court passed.:seeya:

There is a distinct difference between the political will of the people and the established powers in the government making a decision against the will of the people.

And if you think you are being cute by asking for some text of a law, you must have completely missed the whole idea of what it means to Legislate from the Bench. Should I explain that? In other words, I thought the conversation could be intelligent enough to understand the metaphorical examples being used.

Put it this way: Is it illegal to deny a person a marriage license in California if they are gay? If it is illegal, then it is assumed that it is against the law -- what law? The California Constitution? The U.S. Constitution? These issues are not in either of these constitutions, and were never intended to be, this is not what a constitution is for; therefore, the court had no right to rule on them in the first place. If they had no right to rule, but ruled anyway, this is called Legislating from the Bench. It is the de facto implementation of a law that did not go through the Constitutional pathways to create a law.
 
Last edited:

Ron L

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2004
194
0
52
SoCal
RBBailey said:
I defined the family as, in it's most standard terms, a man a woman and their children. I defined society, or the beginnings of society, as the family. Two basic parts which make up the whole -- if you distort or change one of those parts, the whole is also distorted and changed. It has happened before. So at the risk of sounding "tacky" I will say: if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. The breakdown of a societies norms and traditions has always been the harbinger of the end of that society, whether it is the cause of that end is anyone's guess, but a warning it is indisputably.

I think Hitler shared a similar opinion.
 

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,071
881
AZ
Ron L said:
I think Hitler shared a similar opinion.

Weak sauce! Let's whip out a Hitler reference to show our moral superiority and your inherent evil. Weak weak weak.

WTF in this paragraph could possibly bring you back to Hitler?

I defined the family as, in it's most standard terms, a man a woman and their children. I defined society, or the beginnings of society, as the family. Two basic parts which make up the whole -- if you distort or change one of those parts, the whole is also distorted and changed. It has happened before. So at the risk of sounding "tacky" I will say: if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. The breakdown of a societies norms and traditions has always been the harbinger of the end of that society, whether it is the cause of that end is anyone's guess, but a warning it is indisputably.
 

jammin

Well-known member
Mar 5, 2007
116
0
Salem OR
I defined the family as, in it's most standard terms, a man a woman and their children.

So you do mean a "nuclear family", as I described it. But you DO include the entire world, and all time periods. OK.

That definition of family excludes extended and complex family arrangements of many types found throughout the world, going back as far as you can find references to anything that could be considered a "family". Some form of extended familiy is considered the basic family unit in at least as many time periods and cultures as nuclear families (if not more so).

if the entire history of all mankind stems from this one fact, that it takes a male and a female to create the next generation of life
Yes. And until modern science introduced other options, gay persons typically took opposite-sex parters for that purpose if they wished to procreate.

it is also logical to say that the gay lifestyle is opposite of what nature intended
You might take a moment to do some research into homosexual behavior in animals. The results might be suprising... it is incredibly common. If nature didn't intend it, nature is failing spectacularly.

Once we have come this far, we realize also that all government had it's origins in the family unit. The first government, the first society, was the family unit as it is traditionally thought of with all of it's various modes, variations, and historical distinctions.

True up until that last bit, where you get murky. The first/smallest societies are extended families. (When describing societies, I've usually seen that type of unit referred to as a "band".) Which is in fact a traditional family unit... but not the one you defined. This type of organization is so universal that it can be found in most social animals. (Coincidentally, the category of animals in which homosexual behaviors are most common.) The smallest societal unit that seems unique to humans is usually called a "tribe".

I suppose you could argue that the nuclear family is in turn the starting point of any extended family. But if you look at how humans lived as far back as we can tell, you'll find that they most often lived together in larger groups than single nuclear families... they lived in bands/extended families. Smaller groups were simply too dangerous, and too difficult. It was a good way to increase your likelihood of getting killed (by animals, another band, or whatever), and a higher probability of failing to raise offspring to maturity.

Whether you like it or not, the society we have, have always had, is built on the family as the foundation. America is a family on a grand scale. Our system of government is a complicated outline of the simple family unit.

Absolutely. But the basic societal unit is the extended family. In which you can find adults both "married" and "unmarried", with offspring and without, and of course children. And experience should tell you that within every extended family can be found a few oddballs.


As for the "Hitler" poster... give me a break. You lose. Go home.
 

cptyarderho

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
2,904
0
Va
My point being, they did not create legislation, they removed it. As they should if constitutional rights are infringed. As they saw it they were. The legislators are free to go back and try to write another version of the law to see if it flies...

I guess I grow weary of those who argue the courts are "legislating" when they strike down a law. It is poor wording. Just say you disagree with the decision. The other wording creates a sense of fear, of an out of control branch of the government reaching into the realm of the others. This is the same argument we saw in the 1950s with race in the South. 50 years from now no one will care, other than the tin foil hat types who hide on a ranch an marry their 12 year old daughters off to old men in the name of religion.

I respect your right to not like it. I do not understand your logic however.
 

antichrist

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2004
8,208
0
68
Atlanta, GA
Roverlady said:
RBBailey said:
I know, I know, there is nothing more important than your Rover, so I'll leave you alone now, I didn't mean to force my thread upon you.
But, you did...
I disagree. He didn't force it on us any more than a homosexual couple forces their marriage on us. We could have just ignored this thread.
 

antichrist

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2004
8,208
0
68
Atlanta, GA
Blue said:
I'll admit I haven't read more than half of the long posts to nowhere on this thread, but this caught my eye as I was scrolling past the meaningless jargon.

Are you seriously questioning the concept of a "gay lifestyle"? Are you telling us that you've never observed someone or some people and thought, "Hmmmm....I believe I am observing some indicators that tell me this person/these people could possibly be involved in a homosexual lifestyle."
Ummm...no, not really. I've seen people who I suspect, or know, are homosexual. But I'm not sure what defines a "homosexual lifestyle". Please elaborate. I mean, I don't think when I see people who are straight, "Gee, I bet that person is involved in a heterosexual lifestyle."
So what maked a "homosexual lifestyle"?
 

DiscoJen

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2004
3,652
0
54
The Lou!
antichrist said:
So what makes a "homosexual lifestyle"?

I was thinking the same thing Tom. I mean, I go to work in the morning, I earn my 40 a week. My girlfriend does the same, except she works a lot more hours than I do. We go grocery shopping together. We hang out with friends on the weekend and go watch Chris do really bad karoake in his beloved discoball jacket. We do yard work together, and just bought a John Deere for making the work go a little quicker. We cook sometimes and eat out more than we should (get your head outta the gutter - hehe). She's mainly liberal and a registered Democrat (although she is not voting Democrat this election), I'm mildly liberal and a registered Republican. We go on vacation together and split the bills. A few weeks ago we fixed a crack in the foundation that caused the basement to leak and cleaned the gutters. We go hiking at least every other weekend. We walk the dogs and watch HGTV and rent $1 Redbox movies. We have arguments over who does the laundry and who does the dishes. We have the infrequent grumble about spending too much and needing to save more. Tonight we went to the park and had a picnic on a blanket with homemade guacamole and margaritas while we watched the paddle boaters go by. She's back doing more work on her laptop while I'm on the desktop checking my email.

I don't really understand what this whole "lifestyle" thing is...am I doing something any different than anyone else on Dweb?
 

antichrist

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2004
8,208
0
68
Atlanta, GA
RBBailey said:
There is a distinct difference between the political will of the people and the established powers in the government making a decision against the will of the people.
Ben, you can't be serious. You mean to tell us you really and truely do want mob rule?

In 1998 the GA supreme court ruled unconstitutional the law that made it illegal for any married couple to have oral sex, even with their spouse in their bedroom, with the blinds closed.
You're telling us that they should have refused to hear it, that it was ok for such a law to stand because it was "the will of the people"?

I ask again, what would you have the supreme courts do if not rule on the constitutionality of laws that are passed? Or are you saying they are only allowed to rule on law mentioning things that are specifically mentioned, with the exact words, in the constitution?
 
Last edited:

maxyedor

Well-known member
May 9, 2006
1,353
0
RBBailey, Quick question, if a majority of voters decided that the bible should be outlawed and anybody caught holding one whould get a fine and possible jail time, the proposition hit the ballot and got passed, would you be oposed to the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people? Wouldn't that be legislating from the bench and thus you'd be against it right?
 

Ron L

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2004
194
0
52
SoCal
Blue said:
Weak sauce! Let's whip out a Hitler reference to show our moral superiority and your inherent evil. Weak weak weak.

Why do you think homosexuals were exterminated?

jammin said:
As for the "Hitler" poster... give me a break. You lose. Go home.

Right:rolleyes:
 

RETROV

Well-known member
Homos are so gay.

Don't touch my dick and I don't care. Touch it and we've got problems. If they want to take it up the butt, who cares. As long as I ain't got to see it. Just like drugs or any other stupid habit. Don't make it my problem. That's why you don't see me bang'n my wife in the dark hallway at a bar. People don't want to see that, gay or not.

I had a gay wedding. One of the guys in my wedding party is gay. Needless to say that was in Texas, he now lives in San Francisco with his 'roommate'.

If they want it up the butt, more power to them...as long as it's in private.