Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[SnakeBoy]

So you're saying that Islam also disapproves of sexuality.

Thanks.

No I'm asking why you didn't know the answer to that question? Why didn't you know?

[ChumpDumper]

And the non gay catholics stay human. Do they not want to be human or are they lying to God?

Is literally being human a sin of which the church disapproves?

Nope.

Sure you aren't.

[ChumpDumper]

No

So you're saying Islam does approve of sexuality?[/QUOTE]

[SnakeBoy]

So you're saying Islam does approve of sexuality?

You still don't know the answer?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So there is no evidence of any biological reason for being gay?



Just seven, one family member the rest are friends.

So I guess I could ask you to prove biologically that a person is heterosexaul..

I'll wait for the proof

[ChumpDumper]

You still don't know the answer?

So you still aren't answering it?

I guess you don't know or just afraid answering would hurt your argument.

That's fine.

You can be ignorant or afraid.

Or both.

[clambake]

snake, i think if you go back over this thread you'll see where your tires hit the shoulder.

[spursncowboys]

Honestly, I don't give a crap if three people want to marry, other than how much of a pain the issue might be contractually. I'm sure there would be some issues popping up, but assuming three people all were committed, I don't care.

Incest has some serious ramifications, as in re ed children, so that would still be a no-no.

The way the judge interpreted the equal protection clause, no one can be withheld from being able to marry. The legal definition of marriage right now is man & woman. since he discarded that, whos to say his precedent wouldn't be set for multiple partners, children, etc as a cons utionally protected right?

[SnakeBoy]

I'll wait for the proof

Well I hope they find the proof. It will be funny to watch the gay community celebrate when scientists find the biological cause of sexuality and then watch them protest when scientists discover a cure for it.

[SnakeBoy]

I guess you don't know or just afraid answering would hurt your argument.

What is my argument?

[ChumpDumper]

The way the judge interpreted the equal protection clause, no one can be withheld from being able to marry. The legal definition of marriage right now is man & woman. since he discarded that, whos to say his precedent wouldn't be set for multiple partners, children, etc as a cons utionally protected right?

Age of consent laws have not been ruled uncons utional.

[ChumpDumper]

What is my argument?

You don't know what your argument is either?

This all makes sense now.

[clambake]

i can't imagine that scientist are looking for a cure. it would have to be a conservative scientist.........and you know how they feel about science.

[SnakeBoy]

You don't know what your argument is either?

This all makes sense now.

I haven't made any argument other than to ask of any evidence of a biological reason for sexuality.

[spursncowboys]

so do you think all people who are at higher risk of having children with medical disorders should not be allowed to get married?

How much weight should having children have in determining who can and cannot get married?

in his perry ruling, judge walker cited both romer and lawrence, arguing that their logic leads inexorably to a finding that same-sex marriage is a cons utional right. One jurist who agrees is justice antonin scalia, who sharply dissented in lawrence (citations omitted):

today's opinion dismantles the structure of cons utional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and sexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of sexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to sexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the cons ution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of sexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this court.

http://online.wsj.com/article/sb1000...ddletopopinion

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't made any argument other than to ask of any evidence of a biological reason for sexuality.

So you also don't know the difference between a question and an argument.

It's all very clear now.

[CosmicCowboy]

In reading the ruling the judge seems to have very carefully restricted the ruling to gays being discriminated against. I don't see the ruling opening up any other doors unless it is just used as a precedent for future suits from pedophiles or beastiality lovers. I may not like it but I suspect this ruling has a good chance of being upheld all the way through to SCOTUS.

[spursncowboys]

well he did discard the legal definition of marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, what was the testimony in favor of the ban in this trial?

Can you conservatives give me a synopsis of the evidence?

[SnakeBoy]

snake, i think if you go back over this thread you'll see where your tires hit the shoulder.

How so? I stated that I don't care either way about gay marriage. I asked for evidence of a biological reason fo sexuality when told it is not a choice, none has been given. I stated how many gay people I know when accused of not knowing any. I answered Chumps question as to their reasons for not supporting gay marriage. The rest is Chump trying to argue with THEIR reasons by asking stupid questions as he always does and me answering them with equally stupid questions as I always do in response to Chump.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey, what was the testimony in favor of the ban in this trial?

Can you conservatives give me a synopsis of the evidence?

nope. I don't care enough either way to read the transcripts even if I could find a copy on the internet.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a easy message. Gay people are born gay.

You can have a dude sucking kawk for 10 years telling his friends and family he was born that way. Then one day he is ing chicks. Explanation, guess he wasn't born gay. Then he can go back to sucking kawk 10 years later and they will say, I guess he was born gay.

you know this guy?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well I hope they find the proof. It will be funny to watch the gay community celebrate when scientists find the biological cause of sexuality and then watch them protest when scientists discover a cure for it.

a cure for sexuality? Why do these people need to be cured? it is who they are..

[George Gervin's Afro]

i can't imagine that scientist are looking for a cure. it would have to be a conservative scientist.........and you know how they feel about science.

But it would cure s!

[SnakeBoy]

So you also don't know the difference between a question and an argument.

So you still don't know why you are so stupid as to not know Islams views on sexuality.