GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 5 of 8 < 1234 5 678 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   YAY I can marry now! Prop 8 unconstitutional (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=981069)

Vendzilla 08-05-2010 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumdrop (Post 17392670)
"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 (Post 17392820)
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? :winkwink:


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 (Post 17392845)
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? :winkwink:
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 (Post 17392864)
How do you know I'm not a closet twink?
I believe you have already made that more than clear. :winkwink:

The Demon 08-05-2010 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumdrop (Post 17392752)
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 (Post 17392884)
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 (Post 17392958)
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 (Post 17392971)
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 (Post 17392958)
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 (Post 17392981)
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 (Post 17393010)
If I'm at the knuckle dragging stage, then you're still throwing fecies at your surroundings:)
http://brokenzombie.com/junk_bin/gfy...s_a_weapon.jpg

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 (Post 17393038)
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 (Post 17392971)
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 (Post 17392884)
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".
:2 cents:

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 (Post 17393106)
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 :2 cents:

TheDoc 08-05-2010 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brassmonkey (Post 17393119)
i dont trust polls :2 cents:
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 (Post 17393083)
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".:2 cents:
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 :winkwink: congratulations to you and all my gays everywhere :rainfro

The Demon 08-05-2010 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumdrop (Post 17393083)
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".
:2 cents:
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 (Post 17393141)
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 (Post 17393197)
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 (Post 17393206)
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? :winkwink:

Amputate Your Head 08-05-2010 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Demon (Post 17393222)
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? :winkwink:
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 (Post 17393171)
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 (Post 17393141)
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 (Post 17393257)
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 (Post 17393287)
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 (Post 17393287)

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:)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 AM.
Page 5 of 8 < 1234 5 678 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123