YAY I can marry now! Prop 8 unconstitutional - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Only the ignorant and naive actually believe the Supreme Court will uphold this decision.

Bookmarked for future humiliation.

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

So when has it been other than a husband and wife?

"Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

" --- from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 12:58 PM

You found a few exceptions to the rule, congratulations. That doesn't change the fact that the concept and spirit marriage has always and will always be between man and woman.

Then again, you HAVE just described civil unions.

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

You found a few exceptions to the rule, congratulations. That doesn't change the fact that the concept and spirit marriage has always and will always be between man and woman.

Exceptions to the rule? There has never been a "rule". There has never been a definition of marriage that says "between a man and a woman". Only "religists" are trying to make their own rules.

It's a word and that word doesn't belong to religious dogma.

cambaby · 08-05-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumdrop

It's a word and that word doesn't belong to religious dogma.

Dude thats like saying child marriages are ok since it was allowed in other ancient cultures and essentially doesnt belong to a particular "religion". Look it is a slippery slope when you afford EXTRA BENEFITS and protections to people based on sexual preference, I mean you could make a case for Polygamy based on your arguments. You guys gotta realize you cant just have "no moral laws".

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

Dude thats like saying child marriages are ok since it was allowed in other ancient cultures and essentially doesnt belong to a particular "religion". Look it is a slippery slope when you afford EXTRA BENEFITS and protections to people based on sexual preference, I mean you could make a case for Polygamy based on your arguments. You guys gotta realize you cant just have "no moral laws".

As I said above: "marriage" has had many incarnations throughout history, culture and civilization.

It continues to be "rewritten" as man evolves.

And it will continue to evolve as to and with in the acceptable norms of society as we know it today. If you want to call that "moral law" fine.

cykoe6 · 08-05-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Supreme Court must uphold. This isn't about gun control. This is about a certain group of people's basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't get to vote on that, no matter how homophobic someone may be.

You can continue to believe that it is a simple issue if you like, but the fact is that many gay activists were opposed to this lawsuit because they feared it would lose in the Supreme Court and therefore set back the cause of gay marriage for a long time. There are plenty of pro gay marriage people who are doubtful about the outcome in the Supreme Court.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Even some of those who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it was not clear or easy. Doug NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, said that while he considered Judge Walker?s ruling ?a great opinion,? he was skeptical that the strategy behind it would survive through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker?s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, Mr. NeJaime said, the Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact.

?We?ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants? with the factual record, and ?I don?t see five justices on the Supreme Court taking Judge Walker?s findings of fact to the place that he takes them.?

Professor NeJaime suggested the case might turn on the court?s traditional swing vote, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has shaped decisions that struck down laws that discriminated against gay men and lesbians. The rational basis test used by Judge Walker is in line with the standard used by Justice Kennedy in cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state sodomy law. By structuring an opinion that allows the Court to use the lower level of scrutiny, Judge Walker ?is speaking to Justice Kennedy,? he said.

Professor Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it was too soon to tell which way Justice Kennedy might come down on the issue of same-sex marriage. ?I have no way of predicting how he?d come down on this, and I don?t think he does, either, at this point.?

Ultimately, Professor NeJaime said, even the four more liberal justices on the Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. ?The Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,? he said.

TheDoc · 08-05-2010, 01:35 PM

Source "The status of same-sex marriage in California is unique among the fifty U.S. states, in that the state formerly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but then no longer did. The period of granting such licenses began on June 16, 2008, due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on an equal protection argument and ended November 5, 2008, due to the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that limited marriages to those between one man and one woman. Marriages granted by any civil entity, foreign or otherwise, anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights. Also, subsequent state legislation established that any same-sex marriages granted by other jurisdictions after the passage of Proposition 8 retain the state rights that come with marriage, except for the legal term "marriage" itself."

No mater what, gay marriage will be allowed at some point across the entire Country. If this doesn't do it, something else will, just give it time.

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

You can continue to believe that it is a simple issue if you like, but....

I like.

8char

StinkyPink · 08-05-2010, 01:46 PM

Fuck it! Just Fuck it!

Vendzilla · 08-05-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumdrop

"Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.

" --- from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

those are instances, far from laws
The roman empire, talk about decadent behavior
Ever see that show on HBO called Rome? Loved it

cykoe6 · 08-05-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

I like.

8char

That is interesting because even prominent gay rights activist groups don't believe the outcome in the Supreme Court is guaranteed........ perhaps they understand the issues involved a bit better than you?

In regards to the filing of the current lawsuit against Prop 8.......

Quote:

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally won same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the move because they felt that a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good at the present time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

That is interesting because even prominent gay rights activist groups don't believe the outcome in the Supreme Court is guaranteed........ perhaps they understand the issues involved a bit better than you?

That's a pretty wild assumption don't you think? How do you know I'm not a closet twink?

wait... this is getting out of hand here.

cykoe6 · 08-05-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

How do you know I'm not a closet twink?

I believe you have already made that more than clear.

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumdrop

As I said above: "marriage" has had many incarnations throughout history, culture and civilization.

It continues to be "rewritten" as man evolves.

And it will continue to evolve as to and with in the acceptable norms of society as we know it today. If you want to call that "moral law" fine.

No it doesn't. It's between a man and a woman. You've found a few exceptions to the rule. There's no "evolving".

TheDoc · 08-05-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

No it doesn't. It's between a man and a woman. You've found a few exceptions to the rule. There's no "evolving".

It's evolving without question... across the World and in America. 60 years ago without question it wouldn't have been a 50/50 split and today it is. Something is changing.

"The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became even more prominent in U.S. politics in the mid-1990s with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced by Congress' passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. However, over the 2000s, public support for its legalization have grown considerably.[8] An April 30, 2009 ABC News/Washington Post poll found support for allowing same sex couples to marry in the United States ahead of opposition to it for the first time, with support at 49% and opposition at 46% while those with no opinion on the matter was at 5%. In addition, 53% believe that gay marriages performed in other states should be legal in their states.[9] New England has since became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., with four of the six states comprising that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States."

Source

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It's evolving without question... across the World and in America. 60 years ago without question it wouldn't have been a 50/50 split and today it is. Something is changing.

"The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became even more prominent in U.S. politics in the mid-1990s with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced by Congress' passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. However, over the 2000s, public support for its legalization have grown considerably.[8] An April 30, 2009 ABC News/Washington Post poll found support for allowing same sex couples to marry in the United States ahead of opposition to it for the first time, with support at 49% and opposition at 46% while those with no opinion on the matter was at 5%. In addition, 53% believe that gay marriages performed in other states should be legal in their states.[9] New England has since became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., with four of the six states comprising that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States."

Source

You cite one poll as your argument? That's weak. Evolving means changing over long periods of time. 60 years isn't evolving. And more than 50% still oppose same sex marriage. If you want I can post you 5 other polls and see if you discredit them.

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Evolving means changing over long periods of time. 60 years isn't evolving.

So there's no chance of you ever going beyond the knuckle dragging stage then?

cambaby · 08-05-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It's evolving without question... across the World and in America. 60 years ago without question it wouldn't have been a 50/50 split and today it is. Something is changing.

Judicial activism and liberal mass media propaganda is working at full tilt, unfortunately for them I think the "general public" is waking up and getting tired of the minorities socialist agenda. You will see the backlash in November this year and then again when Obama loses in 2012.

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

So there's no chance of you ever going beyond the knuckle dragging stage then?

If I'm at the knuckle dragging stage, then you're still throwing fecies at your surroundings

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

If I'm at the knuckle dragging stage, then you're still throwing fecies at your surroundings

Sabby · 08-05-2010, 02:50 PM

Congratulations.

My son went to see the gay pride parade in Vancouver with some girls on sunday. He's 17. Told me he saw a naked old man walking around holding a globe in front of his peepee. And alot of topless girls. Topless in public for women is actually legal in Vancouver.

Sabby

La_Sexorcist · 08-05-2010, 02:52 PM

Congrats, but I am staying far from marriage, ;P

Sabby · 08-05-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by La_Sexorcist

Congrats, but I am staying far from marriage, ;P

Im not sure if my son is gay or just cultural fascinated (hes an Aquarius) not that it would bother me either way.

He told me hes never having kids and might marry if he found a girl who will make as much money as he will.

He's still young.

Sabby

TheDoc · 08-05-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

You cite one poll as your argument? That's weak. Evolving means changing over long periods of time. 60 years isn't evolving. And more than 50% still oppose same sex marriage. If you want I can post you 5 other polls and see if you discredit them.

Evolving isn't just about time, it's about changing with time, the amount of time is not relevant in this situation.

This is from a religious type of site, full of polls... http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm from sources like Gallup and many other major ones. Good luck trying to discredit the truth.

Pretty clear that just in 10 years it has went from opposed to just about even, and that's still a few years back. It's even less opposed today.

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

No it doesn't. It's between a man and a woman. You've found a few exceptions to the rule. There's no "evolving".

Marriage is a "social union" between two individuals or can also be a legal contract. Whether it's between and a women or a man and a man, or a women and a women makes little difference except to "religists".

pornstar2fag · 08-05-2010, 03:05 PM

supreme court will uphold. guaranteed.

Quentin · 08-05-2010, 03:07 PM

For those interested in reading legal analysis of the decision that does not devolve into partisan mudslinging, I recommend this post from University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.

In case these facts matter to you, Carpenter is gay, an advocate of gay marriage.... and not at all confident that the decision will survive on appeal.

The punchline of his post:

Quote:

The decision, as I read it, relies directly or indirectly upon every prominent constitutional argument for SSM. One could say this is a strength of the decision. If a higher court doesn?t like one reason, it might accept another. But it is also a weakness of the decision, from a gay-rights litigation perspective, since it invites a higher court to address them all if it decides to reverse the result. A sweeping victory becomes a sweeping defeat.

Only time will tell what the higher courts do with this decision, naturally... but Carpenter's predictions in this area (in which he is both an expert who evinces admirable objectivity and an advocate with every reason to give into subjective bias) have been pretty spot on, IME.

brassmonkey · 08-05-2010, 03:07 PM

poop weiner

TheDoc · 08-05-2010, 03:12 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html

"Views on gay marriage are little changed since Post-ABC polling last touched on the topic, in April 2009. Then, 49 percent said they thought it should be legal, 46 percent illegal. In that poll, a wording experiment found little difference between support for legal marriages of "gay and lesbian couples and for those among "homosexual couples." (A CBS News/New York Times survey released yesterday conducted a similar experiment and found the wording did make a difference in their results.)"

The ABC Poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...t-for-sam.html

The PPIC poll found that support for gay marriage has reached 50 percent for the first time since the San Francisco-based think tank began polling on the issue in 2000. A sharp partisan division remains, with 64 percent of Democrats supporting same-sex marriage rights, while 67 percent of Republicans are opposed. However, 55 percent of independents are in favor.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-2...ity-california
"A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage...."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/15/135522/956
A lot of polls from 2008, showing the split now...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/am...-slightly.aspx
As we can see from the Gallup Poll Graph, support is going up, opposition is going down.

This is boring now...

brassmonkey · 08-05-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html

"Views on gay marriage are little changed since Post-ABC polling last touched on the topic, in April 2009. Then, 49 percent said they thought it should be legal, 46 percent illegal. In that poll, a wording experiment found little difference between support for legal marriages of "gay and lesbian couples and for those among "homosexual couples." (A CBS News/New York Times survey released yesterday conducted a similar experiment and found the wording did make a difference in their results.)"

The ABC Poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...t-for-sam.html

The PPIC poll found that support for gay marriage has reached 50 percent for the first time since the San Francisco-based think tank began polling on the issue in 2000. A sharp partisan division remains, with 64 percent of Democrats supporting same-sex marriage rights, while 67 percent of Republicans are opposed. However, 55 percent of independents are in favor.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-2...ity-california
"A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage...."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/15/135522/956
A lot of polls from 2008, showing the split now...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/am...-slightly.aspx
As we can see from the Gallup Poll Graph, support is going up, opposition is going down.

This is boring now...

i dont trust polls

TheDoc · 08-05-2010, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

i dont trust polls

All I'm showing is that years back it was totally opposed and today it's 50/50... that's something changing without question, no doubt the topic is progressing forward.

cambaby · 08-05-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumdrop

Marriage is a "social union" between two individuals or can also be a legal contract. Whether it's between and a women or a man and a man, or a women and a women makes little difference except to "religists".

The USA government only recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not based on religious reasons but NATURAL ones.

Imortyl Pussycat · 08-05-2010, 03:26 PM

so what you're saying is........taking applications now, hot bitches only need apply

congratulations to you and all my gays everywhere

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gumdrop

Marriage is a "social union" between two individuals or can also be a legal contract. Whether it's between and a women or a man and a man, or a women and a women makes little difference except to "religists".

ROFL. So you're saying the only people that oppose it are "religists"? The rationalizations are getting more and more hilarious.

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

The USA government only recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not based on religious reasons but NATURAL ones.

Wrong.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

Marriage laws are established by individual states. In the United States, there are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. Common-law marriage in the United States is no longer permitted in most states.

Though federal law does not regulate state marriage law, it does provide for rights and responsibilities of married couples that differ from those of unmarried couples. Reports published by the General Accounting Office in 1997 and 2004 identified over 1000 such laws.

Restrictions on marriage:

Same-sex marriage in the United States is currently legal in five states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. Laws vary because marriage laws are the purview of individual states. The social movement to obtain the right of same-sex couples to marry began in the early 1970s, and the issue became prominent in U.S. politics in the 1990s. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Nine states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex legal unions that offer some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."

But the bible thumpers had to push it, now it's been debunked, and is probably headed to the Supreme Court where it will be weighed against the US constitution. States may make their own laws, but they still can't violate that document. Ask Arizona.

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 03:39 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/re...ll_040121.html

See Doc, I can find them too

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 03:40 PM

Hahahahha Amputate you continue to humor us with your rationalizations. It's the bible thumpers!!! ROFL

Too bad nothing's been debunked but the incompetent are allowed to dream

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 03:42 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...stitutionality

Here you go amputate, since you like to argue against reality.

Quote:

Section 3. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

Damn, I didn't know it was a liberal democrat that passed this. How humorous

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...stitutionality

Here you go amputate, since you like to argue against reality.

[/b]

Damn, I didn't know it was a liberal democrat that passed this. How humorous

Quote:

one man and one woman as husband and wife

So then post-op transsexuals count too then yes?

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

So then post-op transsexuals count too then yes?

Awww what's the matter champ? Now that you have to go back to the drawing board, you feel compelled to ask me stupid questions?

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Awww what's the matter champ? Now that you have to go back to the drawing board, you feel compelled to ask me stupid questions?

Answer the question Einstein. If a person is born a male, has surgery to become a woman, is that person now entitled to marriage by your definition?

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

ROFL. So you're saying the only people that oppose it are "religists"? The rationalizations are getting more and more hilarious.

Yeah well it's obvious isn't it? (Funny how we are discussing this issue on a porn forum)

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cambaby

The USA government only recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not based on religious reasons but NATURAL ones.

The "NATURAL" argument is one that "religists" use as well. As in six of one and half a dozen of the other.

I suppose you're all for declaring the USA as a "Christian Nation" as apposed to a secular one.

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 03:58 PM

Demon,

If supposing you grant authority for transsexuals to marry, which gender are they allowed to marry? Can a post-op "new" female be allowed to marry a man or a woman?

Sabby · 08-05-2010, 04:04 PM

Actually I am thinking about growing a big dick... they are much more fun than analwarts...

Easy to photoshop and fake... Though im not afriad of a bit of plastic sergery.

Sabby

The Demon · 08-05-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Demon,

If supposing you grant authority for transsexuals to marry, which gender are they allowed to marry? Can a post-op "new" female be allowed to marry a man or a woman?

Since you're pretty much out of arguments and resorting to irrelevant misdirection, I'll humor myself by responding. I'm not on the supreme court so I don't know why you're asking me about what trannies are allowed to do. However, you're delving into spirit vs. letter of the law. From a purely legal perspective, if we were to follow the letter of the law, I suppose trannies could get married yes. However, the majority of the time the spirit of the law is followed so I don't think this would happen anytime soon.

Quote:

Yeah well it's obvious isn't it? (Funny how we are discussing this issue on a porn forum)

Ahh ok so you don't actually have any proof, you just need someone to blame. Gotcha.

Amputate Your Head · 08-05-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Since you're pretty much out of arguments and resorting to irrelevant misdirection, I'll humor myself by responding. I'm not on the supreme court so I don't know why you're asking me about what trannies are allowed to do. However, you're delving into spirit vs. letter of the law. From a purely legal perspective, if we were to follow the letter of the law, I suppose trannies could get married yes. However, the majority of the time the spirit of the law is followed so I don't think this would happen anytime soon.

Interesting. So, how do we weed out the tranies so they don't violate the "spirit" of the law? Should we require medical records and a background check before allowing anyone to marry? Because some of those fags might squeak through. Would it make you more comfortable if some of the men wore dresses and wigs? We don't want you having nightmares about getting ass raped by the evil gays.

gumdrop · 08-05-2010, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Ahh ok so you don't actually have any proof, you just need someone to blame. Gotcha.

The very proof is comparing this to Miscegenation.

Sabby · 08-05-2010, 04:33 PM

Almost every big time talk show host is an Aquarius.

Except Dave and Conan.. they are Aries..

Sabby

08-05-2010, 12:58 PM	#153
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	You found a few exceptions to the rule, congratulations. That doesn't change the fact that the concept and spirit marriage has always and will always be between man and woman. Then again, you HAVE just described civil unions. __________________ Greed is Good Last edited by The Demon; 08-05-2010 at 01:01 PM..

08-05-2010, 01:35 PM	#158
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	Source "The status of same-sex marriage in California is unique among the fifty U.S. states, in that the state formerly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but then no longer did. The period of granting such licenses began on June 16, 2008, due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on an equal protection argument and ended November 5, 2008, due to the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that limited marriages to those between one man and one woman. Marriages granted by any civil entity, foreign or otherwise, anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights. Also, subsequent state legislation established that any same-sex marriages granted by other jurisdictions after the passage of Proposition 8 retain the state rights that come with marriage, except for the legal term "marriage" itself." No mater what, gay marriage will be allowed at some point across the entire Country. If this doesn't do it, something else will, just give it time. __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

08-05-2010, 02:50 PM	#172
Sabby Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,888	Congratulations. My son went to see the gay pride parade in Vancouver with some girls on sunday. He's 17. Told me he saw a naked old man walking around holding a globe in front of his peepee. And alot of topless girls. Topless in public for women is actually legal in Vancouver. Sabby __________________ Fuck off Last edited by Sabby; 08-05-2010 at 02:52 PM..

08-05-2010, 03:07 PM	#179
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 77,143	poop weiner __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law! DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

08-05-2010, 03:12 PM	#180
TheDoc Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Currently Incognito Posts: 13,827	http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html "Views on gay marriage are little changed since Post-ABC polling last touched on the topic, in April 2009. Then, 49 percent said they thought it should be legal, 46 percent illegal. In that poll, a wording experiment found little difference between support for legal marriages of "gay and lesbian couples and for those among "homosexual couples." (A CBS News/New York Times survey released yesterday conducted a similar experiment and found the wording did make a difference in their results.)" The ABC Poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...t-for-sam.html The PPIC poll found that support for gay marriage has reached 50 percent for the first time since the San Francisco-based think tank began polling on the issue in 2000. A sharp partisan division remains, with 64 percent of Democrats supporting same-sex marriage rights, while 67 percent of Republicans are opposed. However, 55 percent of independents are in favor. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-2...ity-california "A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage...." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/15/135522/956 A lot of polls from 2008, showing the split now... http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/am...-slightly.aspx As we can see from the Gallup Poll Graph, support is going up, opposition is going down. This is boring now... __________________ ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825 It's all disambiguation

08-05-2010, 01:46 PM	#160
StinkyPink It's all goooood. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The Hoe Stroll Posts: 1,591	Fuck it! Just Fuck it!

08-05-2010, 02:52 PM	#173
La_Sexorcist Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 337	Congrats, but I am staying far from marriage, ;P

08-05-2010, 03:05 PM	#177
pornstar2fag So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 544	supreme court will uphold. guaranteed.

08-05-2010, 03:26 PM	#184
Imortyl Pussycat Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Cali Posts: 5,449	so what you're saying is........taking applications now, hot bitches only need apply congratulations to you and all my gays everywhere __________________ Julie Larson julie {at} juicyads.com skype: imortylpussycat Buy & Sell Ads on The Most Sexy Advertising Network on the Planet available ad spots \| sign up now

08-05-2010, 03:39 PM	#187
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/re...ll_040121.html See Doc, I can find them too __________________ Greed is Good

08-05-2010, 03:40 PM	#188
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	Hahahahha Amputate you continue to humor us with your rationalizations. It's the bible thumpers!!! ROFL Too bad nothing's been debunked but the incompetent are allowed to dream __________________ Greed is Good

08-05-2010, 03:58 PM	#195
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	Demon, If supposing you grant authority for transsexuals to marry, which gender are they allowed to marry? Can a post-op "new" female be allowed to marry a man or a woman? __________________ SIG TOO BIG

08-05-2010, 04:04 PM	#196
Sabby Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,888	Actually I am thinking about growing a big dick... they are much more fun than analwarts... Easy to photoshop and fake... Though im not afriad of a bit of plastic sergery. Sabby __________________ Fuck off

08-05-2010, 04:33 PM	#200
Sabby Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,888	Almost every big time talk show host is an Aquarius. Except Dave and Conan.. they are Aries.. Sabby __________________ Fuck off Last edited by Sabby; 08-05-2010 at 04:35 PM..