Reply With Quote
dude -- the law will be challenged again and again and again because someone civil liberties are being denied - someone's rights -
Yes it is. Marriage or civil union would be a contract, right? Can children enter into contracts?
dude -- the law will be challenged again and again and again because someone civil liberties are being denied - someone's rights -
the biggest issue being #1 on that list.. as any religious group who opposes it will be sued -lose their tax status and be a hate group.Well, first of all dont ask a question and then give the answer to that question with your own shallow mind.
Here are my reasons it will affect me negatively.
1. It wont stop with marriage. They are already trying to force religious groups to accept their moral indecency.
2. Once it is accepted by the law, the tv and radio waves will be flooded with gay propaganda.
3. It gives them a legal right to adopt children.
4. Any employer that opposes this choice of lifestyle can be sued in court.
5. Its no longer in the bedroom, its right in our ing face.
Now, I remember being in the 9th grade and the counselor gave me Sex Ed. for my third period. My parents had no problem with that and neither did I. I remember Mrs. Green teaching us about the different types of birth control and contraceptives to use. She explained in detail about the different types of sex acts such as kissing, finger banging/fondling, breast sucking, and then finally entercourse. I loved that teacher for the way she explained entercourse because she gave real life stories of how her and her husband had sex.
What she didnt mention was all the other lewd acts of sex that people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom. Eating pussy, sucking and balls, licking ass, ing in the ass, threesomes, gangbangs, trains, golden showers, allowing someone to on your face, allowing someone to regurgitate and you eat it, snowballing, and some of you bas s even love sex with animals...
Now, supergirl, Im sure you feel that just because you choose to do these things in the privacy of your bedroom then it should be no problem. But what if that teacher had permission to teach those 9th graders some of those fetishes? As a parent, would you want your children learning some of those acts in school? I know my parents would have taken me out of school and home schooled me. The same precausion should be taken against sexuality!!! Not to mention that sexuality is worse than any of the acts that I mentioned above. It should be against the law for men to each other. I dont give two cents about the bible so this is not a biblical thing, its a common sense thing. You do know that men shouldnt each other in the ass, right supergirl?
A wise man once told me that you can sell people on a stick... literally. Ive lived long enough to realize that there is not one thing that people will not do... literally.
Having said all that, Im voting yes on this prop because there are no restrictions to it. I believe in equality under the law for all, but not for those who choose to live an abnormal life. You see... thats the difference between gays and blacks (for those of you that like to compare the two). I would rather give gays a tax credit than to legitimize their abnormal way of life in the name of REVENUE for my state.
nice description of various sex acts... people don't actually do that stuff towards the end of your list do they ?
What she didnt mention was all the other lewd acts of sex that people choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom. Eating pussy, sucking and balls, licking ass, ing in the ass, threesomes, gangbangs, trains, golden showers, allowing someone to on your face, allowing someone to regurgitate and you eat it, snowballing, and some of you bas s even love sex with animals...I just burst into laughter after reading this
Can I ask where religious groups are being made to accept gay marriage?
44, are you saying that if we allow gays to have a legal union that children will be able to enter into contracts?
No -- I didn't say that. It is the first step towards heading that way --it opens the door. but then you lib s don't believe in the slippery slope..
Religious groups that oppose gay marraige will be hate groups - they will be sued and lost their tax status - - but then you dont believe in the slope and are too short sighted to see where things might lead or what might evolve.
I wanna go marry a farm animal. It's ok because there was a slippery slope created when it was made legal for two humans to get married. I like to call that slippery slope Mt. Everest.
Listen dumb , I'm not a lib and you still haven't explained yourself. All I here is slippery slope (code word for I don't know but its going to get worse, I swear)
The second paragraph is straight bull .
hey anus - I can't help you develop a sense of what this decision or that decision might lead to. You are short sighted.
the 2nd is straight BS ? If the law is to recognize same-sex marraige -- and a church preaches it as sin and condemns it - you can bet -- shortly thereafter a lawsuit will be brought on that organization's tax exempt status as either "hate speech" or politics from the pulpit.
Do you have a crystal ball or are you just Nostradamus reincarnate?
Precisely. Why is it that two men getting married augers the fall of society by opening the door to all kinds of relationships, but a man and a woman getting married has no similar effect? The distinction is totally partisan and entirely doctrinal at that point -- it has no real basis in actual logic; it entirely boils down to a religious and traditional view of the latter relationship being palatable and the former being an abomination.
translation: I can't prove it or back it up. I'm just talking out my ass.
Past examples?
Sorry, but there's no helping you here. Pedophilia is an entirely different realm than what consenting adults do. There's no slippery slope. NAMBLA isn't even around anymore. Pedophiles have First Amendment rights, and those rights should be defended, no matter how unpopular and distasteful. I would hope the ACLU defends their First Amendment rights vigorously. That said, child pornography is not protected speech, and molestation is a crime.
I feel like I'm playing T-Ball.
FINALLY!!! Something Shastafarian and I agree on!!!
Sorry, but there's no way gays can hurt the ins ution of marriage anymore than Britney Spears and Madonna have.
Did you go to Texas A&M?
No helping me where? I guess we will know once or if the law changes to include same-sex and then we will see the lawsuits pour in from there in attempts to expand the definition or make it all inclusive.
NAMBLA isn't around anymore ? Check again ... that would be news to NAMBLA
let me get this straight... you want past examples on something that hasn't happened yet ?
If this didn't kill marriage nothing will.
No, past examples of churches losing their tax exempt status due to lawsuits related to hate speech or politics from the pulpit.
You really suck at arguing your points.
Do you have any objection to gay marriage other than your assertion that it is a step closer to legalized pedophilia? What are some examples of current U.S. laws that are in place solely to protect against abuse beyond what is actually prohibited under that law?
Well, you're so damn sure of what will happen, we're trying to be converted by the overwhelming precedent that has convinced you.
You act as if they will have gay people having sex in public and children will have to watch if they are allowed to have legal civil union. Gay people are not going away, no matter what your feelings are. One day they are going to be able to get married
Still, I’ll ask again, if gay civil unions are made legal will children be able to enter into a legal contract?
google it dude -- there are lots of stories -- or you can just look up the tax code and have someone interpret it for you - :
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
page 5 of the code to save you some time.
My education and experience aside, I would respectfully disagree with you both about the textual certainty of Marbury -- notwithstanding its nearly-universal acceptance as an appropriate principle -- and, more significantly, about its use as proof of political motivation in judicial action (which was my real point to begin with).
Marshall's view of judicial review stemmed from his belief that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Cons ution, that the Cons ution should be deemed superior to the legislation (arguably, an application of the Supremacy Clause), and that the act could not stand if it violated the Cons ution. Clearly that approach works -- though it does seem that you're suggesting that where the conflict is even slightly more ambiguous, courts act inappropriately to strike down legislation. But Marshall's ultimate decision -- for that matter, his involvement in the case at all -- had clear political motivation. After all, it was Marshall's duty to deliver Marbury's commission and Marshall had failed to accomplish that task. When President Adams (who had been Marshall's boss) was succeeded by President Jefferson, and competing political philosophies were at stake in terms of ensuring Marbury's service as a Justice of the Peace, the legal question really boiled down to whether Adams' act was voided by Marshall's failure. Clearly, Marshall desired that Marbury obtain his commission and the decision in the mandamus proceeding against Madison saw to it that the desire was fulfilled (and that the competing political views of President Jefferson were undermined, to some small extent).
Accordingly, I'd vehemently disagree with your view that politically-motivated decisional law is somehow only a modern phenomenon.
Even if Marbury lacked any political motivation, I can't more fundamentally disagree with the notion that politically-motivated decision making by courts is either: (1) somehow demonstrative of "judicial activism"; or (2) a 20th century phenomenon. What passes as judicial activism at this point is largely nonsense, in my estimation. Where a legislative or executive body makes a policy judgment that is violative of the Cons ution, either expressly or in terms of how that do ent is commonly-understood, the role of the Courts (as Marshall noted in Marbury) is to strike down that legislation. That's not making policy and it's not an infringement upon the rule-making powers of the executive or legislative branches -- it's the functional application of the checks and balances that our Cons ution ensures (particularly, as Marshall explained those things to apply to the judiciary).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
