California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[MGlBlaze]

I don't disagree that the outcome is best for those in the gay community. I support them as I continually have tried to make clear. I do not, however, believe that ends justify the means.

I don't care to say any more on this matter right now.

Well, 'the ends justify the means' is usually an idea I really despise.

Also, I'd like to apologise; I knew that you did think the outcome was for the best and I'm sorry if I gave another impression.

I'm getting the feeling I was going in fairly pointless circles/tangents now...
Anyway, I'll drop the subject too. Thank you for remaining patient with me.

 

[azukar]

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Not even. Let's first welcome America into the *present*, before we think about admitting them into future-ville.

 

[MoganFreeman]

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

Yeah, man, there's nothing more American than tyranny of the mob, amirite?

 

[lordbuxton]

[/quote]Nope you just lost the game, as the only way to win is to choose not to play.[/quote]

So true

 

[Oilerfan92]

just like we would remove genes that caused austism.

As someone who has Autism (Asperger's Syndrome, to be precise), I take offense at that. People with Autism are not as disfunctional as 99% of sterotypes make us out to be. We can do the exact same things neurotypicals can do, and we can do them just as well. There is nothing wrong with Autism, and it isn't something that really needs to be "fixed".

Oh shit it's on.

Seriously, I also know someone with Aspergers, and while I know he probably would be happy without it. He'd be offended that your making it sound like he's an unfunctioning person who is a burden on society who needs to be "cured".

Was that directed at me or the person I quoted? Because I was trying to say that Autsim is not something to be cured and that persons with Asperger's and Autsim contribute to society just as well as neurotypicals do. Apologies if it didn't sound that way, or if your quote was directed at lordbuxton.

It was directed at him.

 

[Matt_LRR]

I do not agree with gay marriage. What is happening to this country.

It's progressing it's way out of 1950.

-m

 

[Sovvolf]

Encouraging overpopulation. Not to say it's not bad as it is, but there's tempting fate, and then there's giving it a lapdance.

The United States has a massive aging population. It needs a a large young population to pay for the soical security. So it's not a problem.

Maybe for third world nations but there wouldn't have access to the treatment anyway.

Even still... Over population is still an issue which homosexuality is helping balance out. Most families have 3 kids a piece, those kids grow up and have 3 more of their own... Those kids grow up and have another three of their own. This keeps spreading and spreading. 3 adults producing 3 kids a piece is 9 kids. 9 kids grow up and have 3 kids a piece that's 27 kids + 9 Adults + 3 Elders = 39 . Those 27 kids go off and have 3 kids of their own = 81 + 27 adults + 9 elders - 3 of the original elders that have died = 117.

Probably not as dramatic as that, I'm using 3 as an average and there's also a bunch of variable including who will die before breeding and such.. Every homosexual that is born, with no desire or ability to breed would help reduce the numbers. Curing it (if that's even possible) would only cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Dorby5826and360]

I believe gay marriage is wrong, that is just my opinion, Its just sounds like an oxymoron to me

Fair enough, care to elaborate?

[http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/warboss5/?action=view&current=its-a-trap.jpg]

hehe, sorry, couldn't help myself =P

Im with this guy, I think its wrong but I fear that if I elaborate the majority of you will unnecessarily start slamming, condeming, and or me for defending my beliefs and my reasons for having them

Yeah,I am against gay marriage to, I agree, I am not going to try and fight with these people.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

I said that tax breaks do not qualify as "necessary and proper" to the execution of Amendment 16.

The 16th Amendment says that the government can tax incomes as it sees fit. The "necessary and proper" clause says they can make laws to enforce any power given to them, in this case that power is to tax incomes as they see fit. Your argument is that tax breaks lower the inflow of tax money, therefore it is counter to taxing incomes. You're right, it would be, except that's not what the 16th Amendment is about. Government already had the ability to tax incomes, but they were constrained by certain limitations, the 16th removes those. Thus, the government has the power to tax incomes in any way they wish, taxing more from some and less from another as they choose to do. Period. Tax Breaks for married couples is the wrong way to think about it. It's not a break for married couples, it's an extra tax for unmarried people. There's no difference but the wording. Government is allowed to increase taxes on unmarried people if that's what they want to do. If it goes down better by calling it a "tax break" for married couples, then that's the wording, but the action is the same and the action is allowed.

 

[Macgyvercas]

just like we would remove genes that caused austism.

As someone who has Autism (Asperger's Syndrome, to be precise), I take offense at that. People with Autism are not as disfunctional as 99% of sterotypes make us out to be. We can do the exact same things neurotypicals can do, and we can do them just as well. There is nothing wrong with Autism, and it isn't something that really needs to be "fixed".

Oh shit it's on.

Seriously, I also know someone with Aspergers, and while I know he probably would be happy without it. He'd be offended that your making it sound like he's an unfunctioning person who is a burden on society who needs to be "cured".

Was that directed at me or the person I quoted? Because I was trying to say that Autsim is not something to be cured and that persons with Asperger's and Autsim contribute to society just as well as neurotypicals do. Apologies if it didn't sound that way, or if your quote was directed at lordbuxton.

It was directed at him.

Ahh. My apologies then. I was a tad confused.

 

[zehydra]

I'm American, and while I generally dislike the Federal government telling the states what to do, I support this, as it was a breach of the constitution. Now, what's more important, is that people need to realize that any definition or tax breaks for marriage, by any government under the U.S. flag, is unconstitutional.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I thought the law was a bad idea, but I have one question to ask. You both say it's a breach of the Constitution: which part? I don't think the Constitution or any of its ammendments have anything to say about marriage whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, the Tenth Ammendment pretty specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government defaults to the states or to individuals.

Where does the Constitution specifically give the federal government the right to dictate to whom states can grant marriage contracts?

I'm not being facetious. I think the law was a bad law, but I think it was perfectly Constitutional, so unless a federal law is passed to supercede the state law or the constitution is ammended, it should've been allowed to stand. Please explain to me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, I have to view the argument that it was unconstitutional as a slightly less defensible position than, "They shouldn't be able to be married because Jesus says so." At least people who say that can cite their sources.

touche. By "any power" not specifically granted to the federal government, does this mean that any power imaginable not covered by the constitution is an allowable power for a state to have?

In a word? Yes.

That's kind of why the language is intentionally vague in many cases, and why our courts have such powerful roles. But I would think that if marriage was as fundamental a right as we would be lead to believe, the founders might have mentioned it at least once in the framing, or it would have been added as an ammendment.

Well, then. It looks like ban wasn't unconstitutional after all... Then I suppose what is needed here is a constitutional amendment, not a court case.

 

[Oilerfan92]

I do not agree with gay marriage. What is happening to this country.

If you have an argument outside of "the bible says it's bad", quoting outdated scientific evidence, or just general dislike of someone different by all means post it. We need a debate on this issue that doesn't involve our pal buxton here.

 

[hardlymotivated]

It would be cheaper.

Besides, you missed my point, so i will re post it

genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

That is what i propose to do, no test tube babies, none of that.

Just simple gene therpy.

You realy did take me off topic.

You keep saying I missed your point but you've totally missed mine, so I will reiterate.

Why even cure a disorder? It is illogical in an emotionless world, wherein the best course of action would be to simply eliminate the specimen. The only reason to cure is a desire not to kill, which is irrational according to you. Especially seeing as in such a world, people who would not have reproduced would be better able, increasing the population exponentially.

Also, I did not take you off topic. You brought it up when you proclaimed, in your infinite wisdom, that emotions are irrational and unnecessary. Such a proclamation naturally leads to the topic of child-rearing, which would, according to your logic, be best undertaken free of any love or support, possibly in a tube then by a series of machines for education and maintenance.

But seriously, dude, you're fairly messed up. What happened to you to make you this way? Did your parents not love you? Did the kids pick on you at school? Did they tease you? Well, you'll just have to wait to exact revenge upon their inferior minds until the lair is complete and your white cat is back from the grooming place.

Also, I've decided that I'm above even arguing with you (and its 3am here) as frankly I have better things to do than "debate" with an emotionally crippled narcissist.

Of course, you'll think you've won. You're welcome to because I know better...

This is made me smile.

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do.

Your going to leave ?

Suppose this means i win.

"I win"? Throwing around "liberal" as an insult? Shamelessly flaunting a lack of ability to obey even the most simple rules of spelling and grammar?

Textbook troll. Leave your bigoted bile back at the Daily Mail with all of the other shitmunchers, please.

 

[lordbuxton]

It would be cheaper.

Besides, you missed my point, so i will re post it

genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

That is what i propose to do, no test tube babies, none of that.

Just simple gene therpy.

You realy did take me off topic.

You keep saying I missed your point but you've totally missed mine, so I will reiterate.

Why even cure a disorder? It is illogical in an emotionless world, wherein the best course of action would be to simply eliminate the specimen. The only reason to cure is a desire not to kill, which is irrational according to you. Especially seeing as in such a world, people who would not have reproduced would be better able, increasing the population exponentially.

Also, I did not take you off topic. You brought it up when you proclaimed, in your infinite wisdom, that emotions are irrational and unnecessary. Such a proclamation naturally leads to the topic of child-rearing, which would, according to your logic, be best undertaken free of any love or support, possibly in a tube then by a series of machines for education and maintenance.

But seriously, dude, you're fairly messed up. What happened to you to make you this way? Did your parents not love you? Did the kids pick on you at school? Did they tease you? Well, you'll just have to wait to exact revenge upon their inferior minds until the lair is complete and your white cat is back from the grooming place.

Also, I've decided that I'm above even arguing with you (and its 3am here) as frankly I have better things to do than "debate" with an emotionally crippled narcissist.

Of course, you'll think you've won. You're welcome to because I know better...

This is made me smile.

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do.

Your going to leave ?

Suppose this means i win.

You have just stated that you wish to kill all homosexuals for being different. That is hate speech. I hope you burn in Hell with all your kind. This website is one of discussion and debate. Not hate. This also implies that you wish to kill everyone who is blind and autistic. Having a brother that went blind and a friend with Aspergers this is horrible.

You have a "if they rant perfect we must exterminate them" message, which is very similar to the Nazi attitude during the hHolocaust.

I know you will now hide behind the shield of free speech like the pussy you are.

Idiot.

Didn't say to kill because there different where the logic in that ?

 

[ChazzBurger]

I do not agree with gay marriage. What is happening to this country.

If you have an argument outside of "the bible says it's bad", quoting outdated scientific evidence, or just general dislike of someone different by all means post it. We need a debate on this issue that doesn't involve our pal buxton here.

+ 1 rep

 

[-Drifter-]

It would be cheaper.

Besides, you missed my point, so i will re post it

genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

That is what i propose to do, no test tube babies, none of that.

Just simple gene therpy.

You realy did take me off topic.

You keep saying I missed your point but you've totally missed mine, so I will reiterate.

Why even cure a disorder? It is illogical in an emotionless world, wherein the best course of action would be to simply eliminate the specimen. The only reason to cure is a desire not to kill, which is irrational according to you. Especially seeing as in such a world, people who would not have reproduced would be better able, increasing the population exponentially.

Also, I did not take you off topic. You brought it up when you proclaimed, in your infinite wisdom, that emotions are irrational and unnecessary. Such a proclamation naturally leads to the topic of child-rearing, which would, according to your logic, be best undertaken free of any love or support, possibly in a tube then by a series of machines for education and maintenance.

But seriously, dude, you're fairly messed up. What happened to you to make you this way? Did your parents not love you? Did the kids pick on you at school? Did they tease you? Well, you'll just have to wait to exact revenge upon their inferior minds until the lair is complete and your white cat is back from the grooming place.

Also, I've decided that I'm above even arguing with you (and its 3am here) as frankly I have better things to do than "debate" with an emotionally crippled narcissist.

Of course, you'll think you've won. You're welcome to because I know better...

This is made me smile.

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do.

Your going to leave ?

Suppose this means i win.

Turns out he guessed your response correctly.

Really, my own disagreement with your opinions aside, you should keep in mind that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to stop acting like a child.

 

[Broken Orange]

My view on marriage? Anyone who wants to be married and miserable should have the right to be. Either it be woman/man, woman/woman, man/man, woman/robot, or ghost/horse

 

[lordbuxton]

51.5% voted against it, 48.5% voted for it? why did people vote if it didnt matter?

Because we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. If we were in a Democracy than it would be majority rule all, all the time, aka tyranny of the many, but thats not the case in America.

The title says it all, but here's a link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/04/proposition-8-gay-marriage-california?CMP=AFCYAH

Basically, a judge found the ban was unconstitutional.

Personally, I am pretty glad they've done this. It's a victory for civil rights and just generally great (speaking as a brit).

Thoughts? I know you're all reasonably enlightened so I can't imagine much hate for this news.

This is absolute bull.

To support gay marrige is to accept a mental disorder as "acceptable".

We should be trying to cure this disorder rather than accepting it as a part of life.

mate they are going to slaughter you, but i think its a fair opinion...

Right, ill cast the first stone...

Who are you to decide who should and shouldn't love each other? who is anyone to decide for another person who they can and can't be with. It's fuck heads like you that bring the world down, it's fuck heads like you that feel you have the authority to tell my family members how to live their life. You sir can fuck right off.

No son, you can fuck off.

Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it.

As a species we should be trying to constantly improve our selves, removing genetic mutations and developing natural immunity to disease.

So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race.

Hey you sound really familiar. Wait... removing genetic mutations... advancement of human race. Oh! You're Hitler! (Godwin's law ironical)
Sorry but your idea is to "cure" every one who isn't perfect sounds like the final solution.

Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.

"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?

Please for the love of God open your fucking eyes and stop trying to be so damn "smart" and "advanced".

Where to begin ?


Let me tell you something, homosexuals are not a threat. They don't kill anyone, they are not contagious, they are not going to sneak in your house and rape you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No where did i say we should kill homosexuals rather i said we should be trying to cure it.


"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

"So it's "fuck heads" like you that are crippling the advancement of the human race"
So you think civil rights are crippling the advancement of the human race?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so much the civil rights but the view of accepting a disorder as acceptable instead of trying to cure it.

I am going to focus on this.

LB-"Love is a chemical, it's pathetic to try and romanticise it."
TLBB-People like you are going to kill the humanity of the human race. We aren't fucking robots, we have emotions and feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LB-Emotions are primitive animal urges that are no longer necessary in mordern society.

Are you crazy? Really, I have a strong impulse that you are just trolling around (You just started posing on this topic) but this is extremely alarming.
No emotions. Well then with no emotion we wouldn't have art. With no emotions we wouldn't have love, sure we would mate to reproduce, but it wouldn't be love. With no emotion we would have nothing that gives us joy, nothing that gives us pleasure in life. Removing emotion would be a devolving step for the human race. Every single culture would be wiped off the face of the planet and replaced with a grey utopia of nothing.
You must have had one fucked up childhood to be thinking like this, you must be one fucked up person to think that the human race should kill off the genetic inferior. You must be one arrogant person to think that people with abnormalities are less than you, but in reality you are the weakling.
You are weak, you want to feel special and you act like a fucking God over the internet, when in reality you are probably a scroungy little shit that can do fuck all. You are a pathetic example of a person.

There was never a point in life. The only reason we live is to try and be happy. We give to charity because we feel guilty. We eat bad food because we it releases endorphines. It realy is a never ending quest to fufil our minds wants and desires. I took a pragmatic aproach to this, humanity should try to better it's self. Also, if you had no emotion you wouldn't feel unhappy would you ?

Read this.

 

[zehydra]

I said that tax breaks do not qualify as "necessary and proper" to the execution of Amendment 16.

The 16th Amendment says that the government can tax incomes as it sees fit. The "necessary and proper" clause says they can make laws to enforce any power given to them, in this case that power is to tax incomes as they see fit. Your argument is that tax breaks lower the inflow of tax money, therefore it is counter to taxing incomes. You're right, it would be, except that's not what the 16th Amendment is about. Government already had the ability to tax incomes, but they were constrained by certain limitations, the 16th removes those. Thus, the government has the power to tax incomes in any way they wish, taxing more from some and less from another as they choose to do. Period. Tax Breaks for married couples is the wrong way to think about it. It's not a break for married couples, it's an extra tax for unmarried people. There's no difference but the wording. Government is allowed to increase taxes on unmarried people if that's what they want to do. If it goes down better by calling it a "tax break" for married couples, then that's the wording, but the action is the same and the action is allowed.

Ah, ok. You see, I thought you were deriving "tax incomes as it sees fit" from the necessary and proper clause, rather than the 16th amendment. I was confused, my apologies.

 

[lordbuxton]

It would be cheaper.

Besides, you missed my point, so i will re post it

genetic disorders should not be accepted but rather cured.

That is what i propose to do, no test tube babies, none of that.

Just simple gene therpy.

You realy did take me off topic.

You keep saying I missed your point but you've totally missed mine, so I will reiterate.

Why even cure a disorder? It is illogical in an emotionless world, wherein the best course of action would be to simply eliminate the specimen. The only reason to cure is a desire not to kill, which is irrational according to you. Especially seeing as in such a world, people who would not have reproduced would be better able, increasing the population exponentially.

Also, I did not take you off topic. You brought it up when you proclaimed, in your infinite wisdom, that emotions are irrational and unnecessary. Such a proclamation naturally leads to the topic of child-rearing, which would, according to your logic, be best undertaken free of any love or support, possibly in a tube then by a series of machines for education and maintenance.

But seriously, dude, you're fairly messed up. What happened to you to make you this way? Did your parents not love you? Did the kids pick on you at school? Did they tease you? Well, you'll just have to wait to exact revenge upon their inferior minds until the lair is complete and your white cat is back from the grooming place.

Also, I've decided that I'm above even arguing with you (and its 3am here) as frankly I have better things to do than "debate" with an emotionally crippled narcissist.

Of course, you'll think you've won. You're welcome to because I know better...

This is made me smile.

It would be cheaper to kill them, if i had my way that's what i would do.

Your going to leave ?

Suppose this means i win.

Turns out he guessed your response correctly.

Really, my own disagreement with your opinions aside, you should keep in mind that if you want people to take you seriously, you need to stop acting like a child.

It's a forum so it realy doesn't matter.