Gay marriage ban upheld

[Darwin333]

The government regulates farms that sell raw milk more than the transmission of hiv.

I want to drink raw milk, so what? But yet the government regulates it.

Someone wants to go around having unprotected sex transmitting HIV, the government has a hands off approach.

Yet here you are, not advocating anything that would regulate the transmitting of HIV and instead are trying to advocate monogamous relationships which at least contains the transmission.

But to be clear, are you saying that we should regulate fucking between consenting adults because that just doesn't ever work out very well.

 

[BoomerD]

Looks like we are heading to the supreme court on this issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/06/federal-appeals-court-upholds-gay-marriage-bans/



Supreme court needs to decide people who decide to live outside socially accepted norms should not be catered to.

I know, right? What's next? Will people start trying to breed outside their natural species? Blacks with whites, whites with Ornamentals, Asians with Blacks?
Thank Gawd we have the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to protect us from those weirdos...

 

[Texashiker]

Yet here you are, not advocating anything that would regulate the transmitting of HIV and instead are trying to advocate monogamous relationships which at least contains the transmission.

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

 

[thraashman]

Catered to? How is being treated the same being catered to?

You're outside the norm, perhaps we should start treating you differently.

Look what you've done Texashiker, you've got me agreeing with BoberFett.
With over 50% of the population in the US being ok with gay marriage, it IS the socially accepted norm in America. And even if it weren't, public opinion doesn't matter when it comes to rights.

 

[hal2kilo]

I know, right? What's next? Will people start trying to breed outside their natural species? Blacks with whites, whites with Ornamentals, Asians with Blacks?
Thank Gawd we have the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to protect us from those weirdos...

Ornamentals are soo kinky.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ornamentals are soo kinky.

I know, that's why I married one :biggrin:

 

[bshole]

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

Um..... seeing as you are a complete and UTTER failure at marriage and parenting, why do you think anybody should give a fuck what you think? I am dead serious. You have no idea what it takes to make a good marriage as evidenced by your personal life. Your opinion on marriage is therefor of absolutely no value.

 

[zinfamous]

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

I doubt hetero marriages are either, tard.

what's that divorce rate, again?

 

[SlowSpyder]

So homosexuals, representing approximately 1.5% of the population, account for 20% of HIV infections?

Wow, looks like a higher rate of HIV among homosexuals. But, what does that have to do with marriage?

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

So people cheat when their in a relationship. What does that have to do with why they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Maybe being officially married and recognized as such will lower that number. But not sure why it matters. Good thing hetro couples would never do anything outside of their current relationship.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

But again, not sure what any of this has to do with why they can't marry.

 

[sm625]

If you were to travel back in time to any time period you want, and ask 100 people to define marriage, 99 would define it as being between a man and a woman. Man and woman. Husband and wife. Bride and groom. And through all the ages you've had plenty of homosexual activity. So what the heck has changed in the last 20 years that this is somehow become "an issue"? That we should throw all that history and all that tradition out the window now? Its silly beyond the point of absurd. The issue is stirred up and promoted solely due to the fact that people have lost the general ability to reason and the owners of the media know this and using this issue to distract from the mass looting operation currently underway. And it works wonders. Apparently, being robbed and finacially raped doesnt matter as long as you win your petty arguments over your pet issue of the day.

 

[OutHouse]

this shit is so confusing. one court says ok then another says its banned then another says its ok and the news is flooded with gay couples running to the county clerk to get a marriage license. then another court says no its illegal then a few months later another court says its ok and again the news is flooded with gay couples running to the county clerk to get a marriage license.

didnt the supreme court already rule on this last month?

its total chaos

 

[OutHouse]

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

and hetro stats are what? 50%+?

 

[thraashman]

this shit is so confusing. one court says ok then another says its banned then another says its ok and the news is flooded with gay couples running to the county clerk to get a marriage license. then another court says no its illegal then a few months later another court says its ok and again the news is flooded with gay couples running to the county clerk to get a marriage license.

didnt the supreme court already rule on this last month?

its total chaos

The Supreme Court opted not to hear the cases. Which since all district cases were in agreement at the time, it effectively made gay marriage legal in the districts those courts oversaw. Once the Supreme Court rules it's legal for the entire nation pretty much. So now that there's a district court in disagreement, the USSC may have to take a case. It may have been an intentional ploy to get the USSC to take a case, or these judges who ruled may simply (much like Scalia) have virtually no understanding of the Constitution.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you were to travel back in time to any time period you want, and ask 100 people to define marriage, 99 would define it as being between a man and a woman. Man and woman. Husband and wife. Bride and groom. And through all the ages you've had plenty of homosexual activity. So what the heck has changed in the last 20 years that this is somehow become "an issue"? That we should throw all that history and all that tradition out the window now? Its silly beyond the point of absurd. The issue is stirred up and promoted solely due to the fact that people have lost the general ability to reason and the owners of the media know this and using this issue to distract from the mass looting operation currently underway. And it works wonders. Apparently, being robbed and finacially raped doesnt matter as long as you win your petty arguments over your pet issue of the day.

What if you go back a couple hundred years, or pretty much any time period you want before that and ask if slavery is ok. 99 out of 100 say yea, that's been the way it is forever, it is ok to own other people. Fast forward to today, what the heck has changed in the last couple hundred years that somehow became an issue? Who cares if other humans rights were completely trampled, why did this become an issue now? We should throw all that history going back to ancient Egypt out the window?

I don't see how this issue distracts from anything else going one... care to explain?

 

[BoberFett]

Oh fuck off.

Funny, that's usually my response when I see you post, fucktard.

 

[CitizenKain]

If you were to travel back in time to any time period you want, and ask 100 people to define marriage, 99 would define it as being between a man and a woman. Man and woman. Husband and wife. Bride and groom. And through all the ages you've had plenty of homosexual activity. So what the heck has changed in the last 20 years that this is somehow become "an issue"? That we should throw all that history and all that tradition out the window now? Its silly beyond the point of absurd. The issue is stirred up and promoted solely due to the fact that people have lost the general ability to reason and the owners of the media know this and using this issue to distract from the mass looting operation currently underway. And it works wonders. Apparently, being robbed and finacially raped doesnt matter as long as you win your petty arguments over your pet issue of the day.

Good thing we shouldn't care what people 100 years ago would have thought about issues today. Should we ask them their opinion on space flight as well?

 

[Cozarkian]

So what the heck has changed in the last 20 years that this is somehow become "an issue"? That we should throw all that history and all that tradition out the window now? Its silly beyond the point of absurd.

I'm not sure it is limited to the past 20 years, but the answer is the general expansion of rights and the erosion of marriage as a cultural necessity.

Back in time when women couldn't work and were merely the property of their husband there was substantial social pressure for woman to get married to avoid being a burden on their fathers and brothers and for men to get married to have heirs. Once we recognized that women aren't merely property, the pressure to become married gradually eroded, to the point where no fault divorce and children out of wedlock have become acceptable behavior with virtually no stigma.

Once it became acceptable for people to remain unmarried and still satisfy their sexual urges, homosexuals started to realize that they can also satisfy their sexual urges and don't need to enter a traditional marriage with secret sex partners on the side. After homosexual relationships started to gain acceptance people and based upon the erosion of marriage as the only acceptable social form of lifestyle and child rearing, people started realizing that a government stamp of approval for only traditional marriage is silly.

Another factor beyond just social progression is social services. If a woman in the past slept around and got pregnant, it placed a burden on the family. Thus, you had fathers taking more care to insure it didn't happen and/or to force a marriage when it did, and mothers teaching public shame to discourage women from giving it up for free. When the government starts paying for out-of-wedlock babies and forcing child support regardless of marriage, it takes the burden off the families and makes marriage less important as a survival tool.

Further, non-wealthy people and people without a pension (or their husband's pension) used to depend upon their children to survive retirement. However, with greater understanding of financial planning, tax laws and incentives to promote retirement plans, and social security, people are better able to provide for oneself in retirement, without the need for children.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If you were to travel back in time to any time period you want, and ask 100 people to define marriage, 99 would define it as being between a man and a woman.

If we were to pick a random time in history to ask this of 100 people, the odds are that they would scream at you in what could only loosly be called language, poke you with a pointy tool, tie you to a piece of wood, and burn you as a witch. This is what you want to set as the bar for our society?

 

[datalink7]

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

And again, those stats mean nothing without further context and tested against control groups.

 

[Meghan54]

A federal judge ruled on Friday that Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...-marriage-violates-us-constitution/ar-AA70OnT


Damn, TH, another one bites the dust!!!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny, that's usually my response when I see you post, fucktard.

Was grade 10 really the highpoint of your life? Given the communication skills/style you you show in the forum it appears so.

You can't even answer a serious point without some childish, and usually foul mouthed, 'gotcha' line.

Well, if that's all you aspire to, you're doing a great job so keep up the good work.

 

[Aegeon]

See post 27 of this thread.

Anywhere from 50% - 86% of gay marriages are not monogamous.

Even if theoretically true, this would STILL mean the AIDS point should rationally be an argument in FAVOR of legal recognition of Gay Marriage. (Since obviously gay people are not going to quit having sex just because you won't legally recognize their marriages. It also should be obvious they should usually at least do less sleeping around when married.)

Of course as noted there are huge problems with the figures and there always is the related question of how many married opposite sex couples end up having one partner cheat.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Even if theoretically true, this would STILL mean the AIDS point should rationally be an argument in FAVOR of legal recognition Gay Marriage.

Right, that would make Gay Marriage anywhere from 14 - 50% effective at stopping the transmission of HIV. That means that in the long run it is at worst the second most effective method ever developed for preventing the transmission of HIV.

 

[BoberFett]

Was grade 10 really the highpoint of your life? Given the communication skills/style you you show in the forum it appears so.

You can't even answer a serious point without some childish, and usually foul mouthed, 'gotcha' line.

Well, if that's all you aspire to, you're doing a great job so keep up the good work.

Well asshole, if you weren't responding to my posts with a condescending retort such as "Think about it for a while and you'll realize you're wrong and I'm right" then maybe I'd treat you with more respect.

As it stands, and in response to your first statement above: Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty pitchfork.

 

[doubledeluxe]

I don't understand how any rational human being could be against gay marriage. Why do you care who someone loves?