Page 40 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #391
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Why? Where is there a definition that states that? And why does it have to be adult humans? And yes, a child can consent. They may not be informed on their decision, but they can still offer their consent. I'm pretty sure teenagers can consent to sex and contracts as well. Your definition of marriage is that it is a union between consenting adults. Why does your definition trump Billy who's sexual orientation is bestiality? What about his definition that marriage is a contract between to consenting organisms that love each other? Why can you impose on his beliefs?
    It has already been explained to you. Will you listen for once?

    Marriage is a legal contract. This means you sign a piece of paper. It has to be between two consenting adults. A child cannot sign a contract because they are not of legal age. A horse cannot sign a contract because they are not even human... they can't understand english, read a contract, or sign a contract. How obtuse are you that you are asking me to explain why a horse cannot sign a contract??? lol...

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Huh? My vote=my right. Prop 8 is on the ballot, my right to vote for Prop 8 is legal. Elections=enacting state law and appointing elected officials. Prop 8=elected proposition.
    You exercised your right. You voted. The vote was voided because prop 8 itself was unconstitutional. How many times does it have to be said before it gets through your thick skull?

    THE RESULTS OF A VOTE DON'T MATTER IF THE VOTE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.

    THERE ARE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT THAT CAN OVERRULE THE PEOPLE IN MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LAW.

    God damn... how thick headed are you? Pick up a book and read about how your own law works. I'm Canadian and I know your due process better than you do!

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Your personal attacks are futile. nice try at offending me though.
    I don't think anything can get to you, not even the facts. You have your fingers in your ears while shouting, "LALALALA MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED LALALALA GAYS ARE FORCING ME TO BECOME GAY AND GET A GAY MARRIAGE LALALALA"

    Looking at you reminds me of the exact reasons why Prop 8 got shot down. You've got nothin'.

  2. #392
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by rudygetsplenty View Post
    Cool, we're zoning in here then. I am actually not debating the morality of homosexuality either, totally different argument. But the fact is, marriage, in this country, is a civil contract, which directly affects many other aspects of a person's life. At this point it's basically a "you say why, i say why not" thing. Why WOULDN'T homosexuals have the right to marry? Why can't a man make the same contract with another man which a man can make with a woman? And why would one group of people have the right to tell another group of people that they cannot do something which doesn't affect them? You are right however, if there were a third sexuality, it would certainly apply.
    Why not? Because that contract has boundaries. In America, it's a contract between only two people. In other countries that contract can be with multiple countries. why is marriage different around the world? Because societies are different. it's a contract that society sets the terms for. Why can't a man enter into the marriage contract with a man? Because that contract is defined and restricted only between a man and woman.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #393
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    You don't get it do you? Homosexuals are not I repeat NOT infringing on your rights. You don't have to recognize their marriage, but the government does. You are very different from the government. You can have whatever belief you want, but if you want to push those beliefs into the government then thats when I, and many others start objecting. You don't have to like homosexuals, but you can't persecute them. Also yes it is a Constitutional right, the 14th amendment provides equal protection under the law for every citizen, not just heterosexual citizens. As it stands now LGBT people are second class citizens under the law, and that has to change. Whether you want it to or not.
    Next step will be to demand churches marry them,

  4. #394
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    10-25-11 @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    116

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I am not debating the moral stance of homosexuality. I have said in other threads how it is illogical to compare homosexuality to those things. What I am doing is trying to keep things logically consistent legally when people say homosexuals have an inherent right to wed and that no one has the right to trounce upon that. By is their right to wed based on? And why can't it apply to other sexualities? Again, I am not debating the morality of homosexuality, I am debating the legality of the decision to wrongfully rule Prop 8 as illegal because it infringes upon the rights of others.
    The legal process concerning your vote has been clearly explained to you. As far as what their right to wed, what do you mean "it can't apply to other sexualities"? You have homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. If gay marriage were legal, it does apply to all those sexualities. If you're talking about other "different" sexual preferences like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy then there are pretty good practical reasons not to allow those that are related to tendency towards abuse, oppression, health, and consent that you don't find with homosexual relationships.

  5. #395
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    They also violate the "rights" of bestiality and pedophiles. I don't think the right to marry a horse or marry a child is right either.
    So animals cannot enter into contract, nor can minors. Nice try though.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    They were voting to define a right though. Your opinion that homosexual unions is a right is just as valid as mine, which believes that it isn't marriage and thus doesn't have the right to be called such.
    No, my opinion is that since marriage is a contract between two people, that the individual has the right to engage in that contract as they have the right to contract the same as you. Since the contract in question is the marriage license, all parties, regardless of sex, should have the equal right to exercise their right to contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    They are legal, my state has defined marriage, and they were found to be illegal when brought to court by the ACLU. My beliefs are legal. We aren't a direct democracy at the federal level. At the state level things are different, and the rules for voting on Prop 8 was that the majority vote would be put into law.
    There is no State government which is a direct democracy either. It's all very Republic style. Also, States cannot violate the Federal Constitution either. It's why Chicago was able to be sued over its handgun ban. The State cannot make a law or amendment to their own constitution which violates the rights and liberties of the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It soon will be if "hate speech" legislation is passed just like Canada. My voicing my beliefs I was talking about voicing them through my vote.
    And you got to vote. But you voted for something which violated the rights of others. And thus the protection measures which we have built into our government kicked in to prevent that oppression.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    See above. As a Constitutional Republic the state's have rights. Please tell me about the voting rules in California and how being a Constitutional Republic means that in Porp 8's case, that the majority vote should not become law. The voting rules were that the majority vote would be put into place. It wasn't to be represented by districts in California with electoral votes that would determine things.
    Yet we are all held to the rights and liberties of the individual. A State may not make law counter to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Again, if the majority of people in the state wanted slavery, they would have to amend the constitution or secede from the US.
    You would have to amend the Federal constitution and then see if you could get it past the voters and Congress. Otherwise, the only option would be to secede. And even if you did, for instance, get the federal Constitution amended, you'd have a fight on your hands and you'd learn why it is that we uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal. In order to re-instate it they would have to repeal that amendment. However, there is no amendment that says gay marriage should be legalized, and many other states have defined marriage without it being ruled unconstitutional.
    The Constitution was amended to make clear that all people had rights and liberties which must be acknowledged by the government. You do not need an additional amendment that says gay marriage is legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Do you realize what you just said? Marriage is a state issued and recognized contract. And the state of California asked the citizens of the state to define the boundaries of that contract.
    And they can do that so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. The marriage license was originally installed for exactly the purpose it's being used for now; discrimination. After the civil war certain folk thought inter racial marriage to be a sin and that they had to protect marriage. So the instituted the marriage license which was only originally held towards interracial couples and used as a means to prevent their legal marriage. The SCOTUS said it was unconstitutional, so the marriage license was extended to everyone and interracial marriage was recognized as legal marriage. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The other side wants to define homosexual unions of marriage yet not include child marriages, bestiality, and pansexual marriages. It is an enforcement of morality in that it equates homosexuality with heterosexuality yet puts other sexualities as immoral and not legally marriage.
    That's because child marriage and bestiality do not flow logically from the argument. Animals cannot engage in contract. Nor can minors before age of consent. The age of consent laws are in place to protect right to contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    No, we wish to define the legal boundaries of that contract just as the other side desires to do. Two moral stances are butting heads when it comes to defining the contract of marriage.
    One is not a "moral" argument, however. It is a rights argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The court here wants to trample on people's votes and force a moral stance that homosexual unions are the same legally as heterosexual unions. Why can they infringe upon someone's "right" to marry a cat, or a spoon, or a child? Why aren't those things rights? What would your position be if people wanted to marry their loyal dogs and pets and states no one has the right to tell them their union is illegal or wrong?
    Because apparently some of us are logical and understand that animals and objects cannot enter into contract. Nor can a child, that's why there are age of consent laws. Let's try to be reasonable here; this slippery slope argument has been tried many times in the past and it is still as invalid now as it was then.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #396
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I do get, it. Do you get that my right to my beliefs and my vote are being infringed upon? My right to have my moral stance represented in California has been trampled on. You say I don't have a right to vote my opinion into law because it infringes upon the "rights" of others. The vote itself was to define who gets marital rights. It was to establish what that right is. What law says specifically that gays that the "right" to wed? they were voting to define that right.
    The vote should of never happened. You aren't allowed to vote peoples rights away, which is what that vote was doing. Gay marriage shouldn't be up to a vote, it should be legalized nationwide, just like heterosexual marriage. I still have no idea how your rights are being violated? Will this law someone change the way you live? No it won't, it won't effect you adversely, or take away your right to marriage, so your not making a point. Your just re-framing arguments that were used by the opposition of the civil rights movement. Nothing more than bigotry.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  7. #397
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Huh? My vote=my right. Prop 8 is on the ballot, my right to vote for Prop 8 is legal. Elections=enacting state law and appointing elected officials. Prop 8=elected proposition.
    You don't understand that all laws are subject to a constitutional litmus test, and that the courts are a check on the legislative branch at both the state and federal level? Didn't you learn this in elementary school?

    YouTube - ‪Facts of Congress - Checks and Balances‬‎
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 08-04-10 at 10:01 PM.

  8. #398
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Next step will be to demand churches marry them,
    No it won't. That would be illegal, and I would be against that. Church, and State are two different and separate things. Or did you not get that memo?
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #399
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Next step will be to demand churches marry them,
    Guess what? If the people voted that in, it would be thrown out by the courts due ti it being illegal. I wonder if you can relate that back to today's ruling...
    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.

  10. #400
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    10-25-11 @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    116

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Next step will be to demand churches marry them,
    Hopefully, some churches would see the error of their ways and accept them, but of course they won't be forced. Our country protects the rights of bigots too (the Klan isn't forced to take non-whites, so I don't see why churches would be forced to take homosexuals).

Posting Permissions

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