• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal the Laws of Nature nor the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage and the Laws of Nature as well.
Click to expand...
Still channeling that cop killer Jerry Kane, I see.
 
Dessi said:
Voice of the people can't take away minority's civil rights, a fact evident in many prominent examples of case law related to civil rights legislation, discussed in detail throughout the ruling, ultimately determined an inadequate basis for restricting civil rights as fundamentally important as the right to marriage.

Common Law related to statutes expanding legal recognition for same-gender domestic partners, as well as the irrational distinction between same gender and opposite gender partners, received a tremendous amount of scrutiny in the actual ruling, serving as the basis for declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

Natural Law here seems to refer to refer to exactly nothing in the context its used, but its certainly a nice sounding expression, right?

Common Sense suggests that minorities have civil rights no matter the irrational prejudices of any number of others, that eliminating the rights of an entire class of people should actually serve some public good or state interest, points which Prop 8 proponents failed to establish, and subsequently caused them to lose their case.

0 for 4, ouch.
Click to expand...

The question you raise is when is a "right" a "right" and when is it a perversion?
 
johnny karate said:
What does it say about your god when "two deviant black robed oath takers" can so easily subvert his will? I mean, where's the fire and brimstone? The rain of frogs? How about a plague? Or at least a really bad head cold? I guess the old fella ain't what he used to be.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of AIDS???
 
Robert Prey said:
The question you raise is when is a "right" a "right" and when is it a perversion?
Click to expand...

Well let's take David Vitters' practice of hiring prostitutes to dress him up in diapers so he can poop himself.

That's a perversion.

But he still has that right, just not with prostitutes, since that's illegal.

Hope this clears it up a bit for you.
 
Upchurch said:
FTFY. Neither Common Law, Natural Law, nor Common Sense particularly disagrees with this decision. Don't confuse your hatred of gay people (or, if you prefer, "revulsion") as rationality.
Click to expand...

Homosexual married couples will produce children "naturally" when pigs fly.
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual married couples will produce children "naturally" when pigs fly.
Click to expand...

Totally. I also think we should outlaw IVF for straight couples. That kind of perversion will ruin marriage for the rest of us!

Again, look at Newt! The IVF people ruined two of his marriages and made him marry a plastic harpie for his third!
 
Robert Prey said:
Homosexual married couples will produce children "naturally" when pigs fly.
Click to expand...

What natural law does homosexuality break, exactly? None of the physical laws, that I am aware of.

Just because you feel revulsion about a certain group of people does not mean they are unnatural.
 
Unabogie said:
And don't even get me started on what they did to Donald Trump's hair!
Click to expand...
Hey! despite the meme of the gay hairdresser, I can assure that no self-respecting queen had anything to do with that abomination.
 
Upchurch said:
What do you mean by "perversion", in a legal sense?

Do you really want the government deciding what is a "perversion" and legally enforcing it?
Click to expand...

The idea of same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron and a perversion of the word "marriage."
 
cwalner said:
Hey! despite the meme of the gay hairdresser, I can assure that no self-respecting queen had anything to do with that abomination.
Click to expand...

No, it just means the gay conspiracy goes deeper than we ever imagined.

While we're on the subject, how does the Donald keep his hair from moving? Do you think he uses santorum?
 
Robert Prey said:
The idea of same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron and a perversion of the word "marriage."
Click to expand...

Traditional marriage has already been perverted by womens rights. Why it is illegal to force your wife to perform her wifely duties. Total perversion of traditional marriage.
 
Robert Prey said:
The idea of same sex "marriage" is an oxymoron and a perversion of the word "marriage."
Click to expand...

*sigh* No, it isn't. Divorce is more a perversion of marriage than gay marriage is.

You really have nothing, do you? You should really spend a moment and consider why you feel revulsion about gays and in what way it makes sense that your feeling revulsion should deny others rights that you enjoy.
 
Robert Prey said:
Dessi said:
Voice of the people can't take away minority's civil rights, a fact evident in many prominent examples of case law related to civil rights legislation, discussed in detail throughout the ruling, ultimately determined an inadequate basis for restricting civil rights as fundamentally important as the right to marriage.

Common Law related to statutes expanding legal recognition for same-gender domestic partners, as well as the irrational distinction between same gender and opposite gender partners, received a tremendous amount of scrutiny in the actual ruling, serving as the basis for declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

Natural Law here seems to refer to refer to exactly nothing in the context its used, but its certainly a nice sounding expression, right?

Common Sense suggests that minorities have civil rights no matter the irrational prejudices of any number of others, that eliminating the rights of an entire class of people should actually serve some public good or state interest, points which Prop 8 proponents failed to establish, and subsequently caused them to lose their case.

0 for 4, ouch.
Click to expand...
The question you raise is when is a "right" a "right" and when is it a perversion?
Click to expand...
Before you can even ask that question, why don't you define the term "perversion"? What are the criteria for classifying things as being a perversion?

Really, do you think about the meaning of words when you use them? If woman sucking a man's dick == not perverted, and man sucking a man's dick == perverted, man marrying a woman = not perverted, and man marrying a man = perverted, what changed the act from not perverted to perverted? Obviously, the gender of the partners involved is a difference, but what possible criteria for perversion applies to the second act without carrying over to the first?

I'd say there is no criteria separating the two behaviors in and of themselves, just your reaction to them. Perversion, in this sense, is a synonym for "things I find gross".

So, when is a "right" a "right" and when is it's gross? As a matter of fact, people have the right to all kinds of things which you or someone else considers gross, they can be gross with as many people as possible so long as everyone involved is fully informed, consenting, and participates voluntarily.

"Things Robert Prey finds gross" isn't actually a basis for rights in the first place, that's a fact. You can agree with that much, right?

0 for 5, perhaps time to stop betting on that horse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom