Gay thread:2-15-07 Democrat Ex-NBA star Tim Hardaway says he hates gays & they should be banned from the world

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: hysperion
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Do you morons really think that by repeating this historical lie a million times, it will somehow become true?

No, marriage has not "always been between a man and a woman".

Just to take a North American example, the native american indians allowed marriage between individuals of the same gender for centuries (possibly millenia) prior to the white man invasion.

Get over yourself.

 

[Truculent]

I hope this bill passes and makes it way to an amendment. I don't care who is sleeping with whom per se, maybe the gays can call their union as "garriage" and have the same civil right as marriage limited to each other with no right to progeny.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Truculent
I hope this bill passes and makes it way to an amendment. I don't care who is sleeping with whom per se, maybe the gays can call their union as "garriage" and have the same civil right as marriage limited to each other with no right to progeny.

not much chance the constitution of the usa will be amended along these lines. promoting the amendment is just a vote grab stretegy, designed to appeal to homophobic morons such as yourself.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Truculent
I hope this bill passes and makes it way to an amendment. I don't care who is sleeping with whom per se, maybe the gays can call their union as "garriage" and have the same civil right as marriage limited to each other with no right to progeny.

not much chance the constitution of the usa will be amended along these lines. promoting the amendment is just a vote grab stretegy, designed to appeal to homophobic morons such as yourself.

Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

Everyone decides their own preferences and choices in this country.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

Everyone decides their own preferences and choices in this country.

You were just deciding that Gay behavior is not normal Mr God.

How bout those that dress and like Goth?

They are all Tattoed up, peircings everywhere, multi-colored hair, garish make-up etc etc.

You must detest that as not "normal" right God?

How come you haven't discriminated and hated them?

Probably just haven't gotten around to them yet until after you have erradicated the Gays?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Truculent
I hope this bill passes and makes it way to an amendment. I don't care who is sleeping with whom per se, maybe the gays can call their union as "garriage" and have the same civil right as marriage limited to each other with no right to progeny.

not much chance the constitution of the usa will be amended along these lines. promoting the amendment is just a vote grab stretegy, designed to appeal to homophobic morons such as yourself.

Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

Do gay people really "flaunt" their behavior in public any more than straight people do? That has certainly not been my experience. Even when I lived in the San Francisco area, I noticed just as many public displays of affection among straight couples as I did among gay couples (proportionally of course). But then again, *I'm* not homophobic, my guess is that you think nothing of straight couples holding hands or stealing a quick kiss in public, but if a gay couple did the same thing they would be "flaunting their behavior".

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

Everyone decides their own preferences and choices in this country.

You were just deciding that Gay behavior is not normal Mr God.

How bout those that dress and like Goth?

They are all Tattoed up, peircings everywhere, multi-colored hair, garish make-up etc etc.

You must detest that as not "normal" right God?

How come you haven't discriminated and hated them?

Probably just haven't gotten around to them yet until after you have erradicated the Gays?

They're equally revolting, but they aren't asking to change the laws.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

Everyone decides their own preferences and choices in this country.

You were just deciding that Gay behavior is not normal Mr God.

How bout those that dress and like Goth?

They are all Tattoed up, peircings everywhere, multi-colored hair, garish make-up etc etc.

You must detest that as not "normal" right God?

How come you haven't discriminated and hated them?

Probably just haven't gotten around to them yet until after you have erradicated the Gays?

They're equally revolting, but they aren't asking to change the laws.

But they will eventually.

So go ahead and hate them now, discriminate against them now and ban them from the Constitution now, right God?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Maybe if gay people acted normal instead of parading around and flaunting their behavior in public they would have more support.

What kind of God are you to decide what behavior you approve or disapprove of?

Everyone decides their own preferences and choices in this country.

You were just deciding that Gay behavior is not normal Mr God.

How bout those that dress and like Goth?

They are all Tattoed up, peircings everywhere, multi-colored hair, garish make-up etc etc.

You must detest that as not "normal" right God?

How come you haven't discriminated and hated them?

Probably just haven't gotten around to them yet until after you have erradicated the Gays?

They're equally revolting, but they aren't asking to change the laws.

But this thread is about 'straight people' changing the law to make discrimination constitutionally required.

(Not 'straight people', but rather discriminating gay hating people).

This reminds me of the activist judge whine. Is it not activism if you like the outcome?

 

[zendari]

Judges are activist, not amendments. Amendments are put in place by the will of the people to ensure a select few activist judges don't make an end run around the nation.

This amendment never would have come up had the gay marraige movement not caused a scene over the last several years.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari
Judges are activist, not amendments. Amendments are put in place by the will of the people to ensure a select few activist judges don't make an end run around the nation.

This amendment never would have come up had the gay marraige movement not caused a scene over the last several years.

Uh, you completely missed the analogy, though to be fair I'm not sure if it was intentional or not.

The amendment is not necessary, under any circumstances; can you name another amendment that removes rights, rather than protecting them? This is even less defensible than a constitutional abortion ban would be, because there is no rational argument that this would protect anyone in any way. It's only purpose is to discriminate, and frankly it's qualitatively no different from putting a 'no blacks and no jews' sign in front of your restaurant.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
Judges are activist, not amendments. Amendments are put in place by the will of the people to ensure a select few activist judges don't make an end run around the nation.

This amendment never would have come up had the gay marraige movement not caused a scene over the last several years.

Uh, you completely missed the analogy, though to be fair I'm not sure if it was intentional or not.

The amendment is not necessary, under any circumstances; can you name another amendment that removes rights, rather than protecting them? This is even less defensible than a constitutional abortion ban would be, because there is no rational argument that this would protect anyone in any way. It's only purpose is to discriminate, and frankly it's qualitatively no different from putting a 'no blacks and no jews' sign in front of your restaurant.

For a God he is very wishy washy.

Can't put his foot down other than to discriminate and hate.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
Judges are activist, not amendments. Amendments are put in place by the will of the people to ensure a select few activist judges don't make an end run around the nation.

This amendment never would have come up had the gay marraige movement not caused a scene over the last several years.

Uh, you completely missed the analogy, though to be fair I'm not sure if it was intentional or not.

The amendment is not necessary, under any circumstances; can you name another amendment that removes rights, rather than protecting them? This is even less defensible than a constitutional abortion ban would be, because there is no rational argument that this would protect anyone in any way. It's only purpose is to discriminate, and frankly it's qualitatively no different from putting a 'no blacks and no jews' sign in front of your restaurant.

For a God he is very wishy washy.

Can't put his foot down other than to discriminate and hate.

He just finds them "icky." What is it you said in another thread: It's like "little kids putting their hands on their ears and stomping their feet"?

God Zentroll, I really hope you're the epitome of a "normal" person. You must be if you feel you have the God-given right to be hateful toward and discriminate those you deem less than you.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: hysperion
Please don't tell me that you truly believe the laws and values of our country at the time of it's foundation would have accepted and allowed homosexual marriage. This country definately was not founded on those values and you're smart enough to know that

What has this got to do with anything?

The prevailing attitude at the time the U.S. was founded was that whites should not marry blacks. Every single state in the union, with the exception of Vermont, either enacted or tried to enact anti-miscegenation laws. Many such laws were still on the books - and still enforced - in 1967 when the Supreme Court, in the the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional.

By your reasoning, that was judicial activism. By your reasoning, the Constitution is written in concrete, and if (for example) words in the Constitutional refer to "public utilities," that must not be interpreted by modern courts as including electric companies, since there were no electric companies at the time the Constitution was written.

By your reasoning, "arms" (in the 2nd amendment) refers to flintlocks. So no 2nd-amendment-advocate's argument that modern pistols and rifles be included under the modern umbrella of "arms" should be given credence by the courts. The same right-wingers who so loudly advocate original intent seem to have a change of heart when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

What I find so despicable about "original intent" is that it's just a scam. Almost all of these so-called strict-constructionists in fact interpret the Constitution tendentiously, to support the conclusions they've already made.

If you want proof, just look at what happens when a court makes a "liberal" decision: Right-wingers immediately label the DECISION activist, not realizing that it's the METHODS of reasoning that are originalist, or activist, or whatever. How is it that (for example) every single time Zendari makes a pronouncement on a decision supporting some gay right, he labels it activist without even bothering to read the reasoning underlying the decision?

Zendari's shrill inanities pass for discourse among the mentally challenged. But I know cow patties when I smell them.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Because gays are not considered a 'suspect class' (a group of people who are recognized by the SC as being historically discriminated against and thus deserve better protections)
This means that there is a lower level of scrutiny in SC cases and would make it harder to declare this type of amendment unconsitutional. So if this gets passed it would not necessarily be thrown out on the basis of equal protection claims. I have heard of a few other ways to argue that its unconstitutional or ways of including gays in the suspect classes but I have no idea how the SC would rule. If strict scrutiny was applied then there would have to be a compelling state interest that infringes on rights in the least restrictive way possible. I doubt that the amendment would be allowed to stand if strict scrutiny was applied even with a conservative leaning court. (though it might fall under intermediate scrutiny...i can't remember)

Then again this is all irrelevant if it doesn't pass. Though in 2004 when 11 states brought laws to the ballot prevent gay marriage....in all 11 states they were passed by the voters. So either anti-gay marriage legislation is not being brought up in areas that are more amiable towards gays or this gives us an idea of how the rest of the states might vote if this amendment were brought before them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
Because gays are not considered a 'suspect class' (a group of people who are recognized by the SC as being historically discriminated against and thus deserve better protections)

This means that there is a lower level of scrutiny in SC cases and would make it harder to declare this type of amendment unconsitutional. So if this gets passed it would not necessarily be thrown out on the basis of equal protection claims. I have heard of a few other ways to argue that its unconstitutional or ways of including gays in the suspect classes but I have no idea how the SC would rule. If strict scrutiny was applied then there would have to be a compelling state interest that infringes on rights in the least restrictive way possible. I doubt that the amendment would be allowed to stand if strict scrutiny was applied even with a conservative leaning court.

Then again this is all irrelevant if it doesn't pass. Though in 2004 when 11 states brought laws to the ballot prevent gay marriage....in all 11 states they were passed by the voters. So either anti-gay marriage legislation is not being brought up in areas that are more amiable towards gays or this gives us an idea of how the rest of the states might vote if this amendment were brought before them.

In other words the SC agrees with Zentroll that Gays are just scum.

 

[techs]

I am guessing the House won't pass it.
The Repubicans don't want to give up such a valuable hate tool for campaigns.

 

[Shuxclams]

This is the way the Republikanz win in the House and Senate this fall, since this will fail, the Republikanz will put on many state ballots Anti-Gay Adoption, Anti-Gay Marriage and Anti-Immigrant bills to bring out the 10% of the people in this country that "vote for God" and who will end up seizing further control of the nation.

Funny we are worried about Jihadist in the middle east that make up < 10% of the population but we are willing to allow the Christian "Jihadists" to run our country, or like the < 30% of NAZI's that controlled Germany.... PATHETIC, comlpetly PATHETIC.






SHUX

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
This is the way the Republikanz win in the House and Senate this fall, since this will fail, the Republikanz will put on many state ballots Anti-Gay Adoption, Anti-Gay Marriage and Anti-Immigrant bills to bring out the 10% of the people in this country that "vote for God" and who will end up seizing further control of the nation.

Funny we are worried about Jihadist in the middle east that make up < 10% of the population but we are willing to allow the Christian "Jihadists" to run our country, or like the < 30% of NAZI's that controlled Germany.... PATHETIC, comlpetly PATHETIC.

It will be interesting to see how many of these are in fact on the ballots.




SHUX

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


In other words the SC agrees with Zentroll that Gays are just scum.

thank you for that interpretation of supreme court law
now go take a legal class *Rolls eyes*

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: hysperion
Please don't tell me that you truly believe the laws and values of our country at the time of it's foundation would have accepted and allowed homosexual marriage. This country definately was not founded on those values and you're smart enough to know that

What has this got to do with anything?

The prevailing attitude at the time the U.S. was founded was that whites should not marry blacks. Every single state in the union, with the exception of Vermont, either enacted or tried to enact anti-miscegenation laws. Many such laws were still on the books - and still enforced - in 1967 when the Supreme Court, in the the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional.

By your reasoning, that was judicial activism. By your reasoning, the Constitution is written in concrete, and if (for example) words in the Constitutional refer to "public utilities," that must not be interpreted by modern courts as including electric companies, since there were no electric companies at the time the Constitution was written.

By your reasoning, "arms" (in the 2nd amendment) refers to flintlocks. So no 2nd-amendment-advocate's argument that modern pistols and rifles be included under the modern umbrella of "arms" should be given credence by the courts. The same right-wingers who so loudly advocate original intent seem to have a change of heart when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

What I find so despicable about "original intent" is that it's just a scam. Almost all of these so-called strict-constructionists in fact interpret the Constitution tendentiously, to support the conclusions they've already made.

If you want proof, just look at what happens when a court makes a "liberal" decision: Right-wingers immediately label the DECISION activist, not realizing that it's the METHODS of reasoning that are originalist, or activist, or whatever. How is it that (for example) every single time Zendari makes a pronouncement on a decision supporting some gay right, he labels it activist without even bothering to read the reasoning underlying the decision?

Zendari's shrill inanities pass for discourse among the mentally challenged. But I know cow patties when I smell them.

Your whole post makes no sense......noone here has argued that electric companies shouldn't fall under 'public utilities'.......by my reasoning "arms" does not refer to flintlocks and not by anyone's that I know........according to dictionary.com 'arms' refers to "A weapon, especially a firearm".........had the second amendmant guaranteed the 'right to bear flintlocks' and it was being interpreted to mean modern weapon you may have a point.......truth is no interpretation is needed, 'arms' mean the same thing it did then as it does now............If you don't think modern firearms meet the definition of 'arms' feel free to argue that point and continue to look like an uneducated idiot.....

The constitution has nothing in there referring to any rights of marriage between any group- hence why noone is claiming gay marriage is constitutional or not. In reguards to equal protection- all are equally protected to engage in heterosexual marriages including homosexuals..........

In reguards to your "intent" line of reasoning........anyone with a brain can figure out that the founding fathers intended to allow the citizenry to own firearms as a check against governmental abuse thru statements many of them are quoted as saying. Please find me one DIRECT statement supporting gay's right to marry.........

That being said I've already stated the government shouldn't be involved in marriage/unions in the first place.............As a single person, I shouldn't have to pick up the tab with higher tax rates due to those in marriages getting tax breaks- where's equal protection for singles?

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

hysperion I believe his point is that using strict interpretations or interpretations that take history of the time period into account are quite often a bad way of looking at the constitution. His point might be that marriage was not enumerated in the constitution to be between a man and a woman. So you are drawing your conclusion of the what the constitution says based off the history of the time period. Shira is doing the same thing but applying it to other protections to show the absurdity of that sort of interpretation.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
hysperion I believe his point is that using strict interpretations or interpretations that take history of the time period into account are quite often a bad way of looking at the constitution. His point might be that marriage was not enumerated in the constitution to be between a man and a woman. So you are drawing your conclusion of the what the constitution says based off the history of the time period. Shira is doing the same thing but applying it to other protections to show the absurdity of that sort of interpretation.

There isn't an article of the constitution that applies to marriage in the first place. Marriage isn't a constitutionally protected right. The only absurd observation is to draw conclusions that the constitution was 'intended' to allow gays the right to marry'.......the constitution gave noone the right to marry.........

I also disagree that taking into account history of when the constitution was written is a bad idea. The constitution wasn't meant to be changed by a judge claiming something doesn't apply anymore or that 'the times have changed'. There is a clear spelled out process to changing the constitution which has proven successful for woman's rights as well as ending slavery.....It does not involve a judge deciding that the constitution no longer applies.........

Obviously, your way of thinking makes sense to support your belief. The minority will always push for judges to grant them rights that the constitution doesn't. It's blatantly obvious gay marriage is still an unpopular idea and in the near future will not become constitutionally protected. Therefore, those who think like yourselves will rally for a judge to declare you have the right rather than looking to actually receive the right by having the constitution changed.

As I've said before- heterosexual marriage is legal for everyone therefore it does not violate equal protection as some would claim.........

I've already stated marriage shouldn't be part of government anyways. Personally, I have no problem with gays and could care less if they want to marry. As a man, I feel marriage is a joke with woman filing 60% of divorces and equity not being split equally due to these same activist judges.......

If you read the constitution it's a pretty clear document- if you don't read it or blatantly let your belief's influence what you read- you're not going to have a foot to stand on when you spout off your incorrect information.

I do not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.........However, I would support a constitutional ban on government being involved in marriage in the first place.