Page 29 of 36 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 357

Thread: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

  1. #281
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Not at all. An abstinent man who never engages in physical activites with anyone, but who is attracted to other men and not to women, would be gay despite any "behavior" not being exhibited.
    Maybe in some "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it" philosophical sense, but not in the real world.

  2. #282
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,167

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Gay sex can't procreate. They don't spawn new taxpayers.
    Not all straight couples can either. Should the marriages of infertile people be nullified?

    Post-menopausal women cannot procreate. Should we put an upper age limit on marriage for women?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #283
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Maybe in some "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it" philosophical sense, but not in the real world.
    Actually, by definition he is completely correct. Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

    Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a personís sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of oneís own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #284
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    So what gives gays the right to refuse a bisexual individual's right to change the definition of marriage is to fit what they want then?
    They don't have a "right" to refuse it....any more than heterosexuals have a "right" to refuse gays...or any more than gys have a "right" to have it changed. No one has a "right" to a DEFINITION being any particular fashion. So your question is idiotic to begin with as it's very premise is illogical.

    10 years ago the concept of gay marrying was inconceivable.
    Which is irrelevant to now. You don't seemingly understand or know what "precedence" means. 13 years ago many of the portinos of the PATRIOT Act that have been upheld would've been inconcievable to be implimented or viewed as constitutional. Twenty years ago the notion of needing to worry about charging underage kids with child pornography due to sending their boyfriend a naked picture was inconcievable due to the logistics of how it could be done. 65 years ago the notion of a woman serving in the military was blasphemous. 50 years ago the thought of a black and white couple marrying in the south was inconcievable. What is "inconcievable" in the past is not a basis for a strong and useful argument on how to function within the present.

    The founders never would've concieved of gay marriage. They also never would've concieved of an Air Force, Cyber Security, and the world wide web. This is why the Founders laid forth a framework and foundation for the country to function on going forward...because htere's an understanding that they could not hope to know what 100 or 200 or 500 years in the future would bring, so they sought to create a document that would hopefully be both limiting in terms of the governments scope while adaptable to new realities.

    Now, do I disagree with the notion of Marriage being some absolute constitutional right? Yes. HOWEVER, unlike some other conservatives, I understand as well that the SCOTUS was established by that very same constitution. As such, I generally function from a mindset of reality. The reality is that until such time that the decision regarding marriage as a federall protected right is overturned, that it IS a right protected by the constitution. And as such, rulings and laws in the future need to adhere to that decision. To not do so it completely invalidate our legal system and the constitution itself as it basically proclaims that the system in place should be replaced with egotistical anarchy.

    Would my preference be to over turn the precedence that marriage is a federally protected right, allowing individual states to govern it largely because it's simply yet another thing I don't believe the federal government needs to be involved in? Absolutely. But, until that happens, then subsiquent law relating to it MUST adhere to that ruling because THAT'S how it constitutionally works.

    As to your paranoid conspiracy theorist tin foil rant at the end, save your breath typing that **** to me because I'm not going to gift you the benefit of any further response to such trash.

    Precedence matters. If people want to define what the definition of marriage is at a state level and vote on it, fine put it up for a vote. The Founders never would have conceived of gay marriage. It was alien to them. Throughout history, gay marriage has never been a societal norm. Sure you can find a snippet here or there, (someone actually used Nero with a straight face earlier) but the concept of 2 men marrying has never been thought of on the same relevant plane of existence as "marriage" as it's been known throughout the history of mankind. You know, where a man and a woman come together to procreate and raise a family. Their sexual organs serve a purpose when joined. Propagation of the species. Marriage is an institution that brings the opposite sexes together. It has economic and social value.

    Gay marriage is really about the destruction of the traditional family unit. It's one of the main objectives of cultural marxists.[/QUOTE]

  5. #285
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    The 14th amendment never applied to sexual behavior
    Actually, it has applied numerous times to sexuality.

    Now, you could claim at its inception it was'nt the intent. And that may be right...but tha'ts irrelevant AND is not necessarily fact but rather simply your opinion. In reality, if they wished it to singularly apply to race then it would've singularly stated race. It does not.

    Trying to equate the two is racist
    I'm sorry, bull**** attempts at pulling the race card are something I laugh and roll my eyes at regardless of the political affiliation of the person so desperate as to pull it.

    As to the rest, you clearly show a refusal to actually read what other people have stated becuase I've addressed yoru idiotic question NUMEROUS times. Actually READ what other people write, and then respond...it'll actually get you much farther.

  6. #286
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually, by definition he is completely correct.
    Maybe in some "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it" philosophical sense, but not in the real world.

  7. #287
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Maybe in some "if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it" philosophical sense, but not in the real world.
    So in such case, virgin priests who have never touched a woman and enter the priest hood, swearing the celibacy and never touching a woman in an intimate way for the rest of their life....or to flip the gender, a nun in the same circumstance....those individual would not be Heterosexuals because sexual orientation is defined by physical actions, not attraction?

    Please, tell me then...what would such a Nun or Priest be. Also, don't tell me that those don't "exist" in the real world as it was a path a high school friend took.

  8. #288
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So in such case, virgin priests who have never touched a woman and enter the priest hood, swearing the celibacy and never touching a woman in an intimate way for the rest of their life....or to flip the gender, a nun in the same circumstance....those individual would not be Heterosexuals because sexual orientation is defined by physical actions, not attraction?

    Please, tell me then...what would such a Nun or Priest be. Also, don't tell me that those don't "exist" in the real world as it was a path a high school friend took.
    You are what you eat.

    The nun or priest in your example wouldn't have a determinate sexuality attached, they could not be said to be homo or heterosexual but rather in a state of flux. The Schrodinger's cat of sexuality.

  9. #289
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:25 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So in such case, virgin priests who have never touched a woman and enter the priest hood, swearing the celibacy and never touching a woman in an intimate way for the rest of their life....or to flip the gender, a nun in the same circumstance....those individual would not be Heterosexuals because sexual orientation is defined by physical actions, not attraction?

    Please, tell me then...what would such a Nun or Priest be.
    I have no idea and neither do you - nor could anyone ever know without some sort of telltale behavior on the part of the priest/nun.

  10. #290
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: 5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    You are what you eat.

    The nun or priest in your example wouldn't have a determinate sexuality attached, they could not be said to be homo or heterosexual but rather in a state of flux. The Schrodinger's cat of sexuality.
    One, you get a gold star for the Schrodinger's cat reference

    Two, that's a reasonable way to look at it even if I disagree...IF it actually is applied consistently. IE if a "gay" is only "Gay" because of their actions, than a "straight" person is only "straight" at such a point that they're physically engaging in "straight" actions.

Page 29 of 36 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •