Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

[Robert Prey]

A lot of words, none of which answered the question I put to you. But that's no surprise since you kept ducking that same question on the other thread.

I'll ask it again, are there cases in controversy at law that the judiciary lacks the authority to settle?

Absolutely.

 

[Robert Prey]

Just so we're perfectly clear, Robert, morality is not a legal issue. I think your anti-gay bigotry is amoral, but that is no reason to make your hatred illegal so long as you aren't harming others. Just because you think homosexuality is amoral is not reason enough to make it illegal.

We're talking about the legality of gay marriage.

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Robert Prey]

So do you similarly oppose divorced folks from remarrying? After all, in such cases the child will have two mommies—the biological mom and the step mom. And they also have two daddies—the biological dad and the step dad. Isn't that also just as confusing of the child and thus deserving of your concern?

Yes, yes and yes. That is why divorce is bad.

 

[Robert Prey]

True, humans reproduce sexually, but in your original quote you stated:

As I stated before, many, if not most species actually reproduce asexually, also sexually reproduction is newer, so life began asexually. Many species successfully propagated before gender existed, and many continue to do so. Both sexual and asexual reproduction is natural.

Also in every species that uses sexual reproduction that has been observed has shown same-gender sexual behavior. Your claim that homosexuality is unnatural and necessary for propagation is contradicted by all available evidence.

Baloney.

 

[BenBurch]

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

Seems to me those all came from a mythical sky god? Who appeared as a burning bush?

 

[Bri]

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

You forgot a few:

Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

Thou shalt not make thee any graven images.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.

Honor thy father than thy mother.

Thou shalt not covet.​

Morality is only a legal issue when it's a legal issue.

-Bri

 

[Upchurch]

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

Er... It's not illegal to commit adultery. Nor to disrespect your parents. Nor to take the Lord's name in vain. Nor to have other gods.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So at the Parent Teacher conference, Heather has two Mommies but no daddy? How about if Heather has 3 Mommies? How about 10 Mommies, but no Daddy? At some point doesn't Heather become uh, confused? Are there any limits at all to an amoral anything goes society? What?

This is also a good reason to not let parents get divorced. That can easily result in two moms and two dads. Too many apparently.

 

[Robert Prey]

So do you also oppose marriage among heterosexuals who cannot have children? Some of us have chosen to have vasectomies and hysterectomies. What about women who've experienced menopause? Don't you think they shouldn't be allowed to marry since they can't have children?

And by the way, the population right now is about 7 billion. For thousands of years--indeed, for most of human history--world population was less than 1 billion. So what threat to species do you perceive being posed by same sex marriage? (Aren't you concerned that our population is "unnaturally" high? Without all our high-tech food production we couldn't support this population.)

And exactly how is there any logical extension of legalizing same sex marriage and the suicide of the species?

You do realize that banning same sex marriage in no way encourages gay people to suddenly have children, don't you?

Or do you suppose it does?

You obviously have some very nutty ideas, so I'm curious to know what this one is.

The subject matter here is not civil unions, but changing the definition of "Marriage." Stay on point. A government can make bad law, but it cannot change the definition of "marriage."

 

[Bri]

The subject matter here is not civil unions, but changing the definition of "Marriage." Stay on point. A government can make bad law, but it cannot change the definition of "marriage."

Where are you getting your definition of marriage from? It's not the Bible, so what is your source?

Also, you're factually wrong -- a government can change the legal definition of "marriage."

-Bri

 

[Upchurch]

The subject matter here is not civil unions, but changing the definition of "Marriage." Stay on point. A government can make bad law, but it cannot change the definition of "marriage."

You're a little late. Gay marriage already exists. What we're talking about is legal recognition of those marriages.

 

[Robert Prey]

So you're basically committing yourself to the position that, by allowing same-gender couples to be marry, opposite-gender couples will suddenly lose the capacity to procreate. To borrow the language of the Ninth Circuit decision, I'm am aware of not basis on which this argument would be even conceivable plausible.

No, same-gender marriage will not stop heterosexual couples from procreating. Hell, it won't even stop same-gender couples from procreating, as they occasionally do in previously heterosexual relationships or medical intervention.

The "species suicide" belief is a bizarre fantasy which exists only in the heads of conspiracy nutjobs and bigots. It so far divorced from reality, so removed from any string of logic, so void of any factual basis whatsoever that it cannot be taken seriously any context, let alone form the basis for depriving gay couples of their fundamental right to marry.

0 for 9, getting pretty bleak now...

Your ad hominems duly noted. Fortunately, Nature has seen to it that homosexuals cannot procreate, thus keeping their population in relative check.

 

[uk_dave]

I wouldn't kick Clooney out of bed. Especially if he used the Everret McGill persona the whole time.

I bagsy Robert Prey.

It'll hurt more if you struggle, bobby.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Morality is always a legal issue.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

Thou shalt have no god before me. This clearly means that the first amendment is immoral. Only theocracies are moral governments.

 

[BenBurch]

I bagsy Robert Prey.

It'll hurt more if you struggle, bobby.

I'll loan you my restraints.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Er... It's not illegal to commit adultery. Nor to disrespect your parents. Nor to take the Lord's name in vain. Nor to have other gods.

But face it we need to punish people for working on the Sabbath.

 

[RandFan]

Morality is always a legal issue.

The Bible, thank goodness, isn't the source of our laws. According to the Bible eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics is immoral. Working on the sabbath is immoral. Taking the lords name in vain is immoral. Slaves who don't listen to their owners is immoral.

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt not steal

Coincidentally illegal.

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Etc., etc., etc.

The etc., etc. are not illegal. F' the Bible. It's full of immoral ****.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely.

Name them.

 

[BenBurch]

But face it we need to punish people for working on the Sabbath.

And don't forget this one;

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." - Leviticus

 

[quadraginta]

But face it we need to punish people for working on the Sabbath.

Which one?