1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

California setting a trend again

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by joseephuss, May 15, 2008.

  1. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,891 Messages
    4,241 Likes Received
    So by your logic we should not make any changes to any laws or ways of thinking because if we do than it means we will HAVE to make more drastic changes for anyone that wants change.

    Come on give me a break.

    And if we should not make any changes to existing laws....but was it not a ban on gay marriages that was voted into law? So why did they feel the need to vote to ban gay marriages? I mean why change the law in the first place? Seems like they were doing something to make sure that gays could not get married.

    But by your logic should we not even allow the ban? Should we not allow a future vote to make an amendment to the Cali constitution in order to once again ban gay marriages?
  2. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,481 Messages
    148 Likes Received
    Paraphrase alert:

    "There is no tyranny more absurd than that of the past over the living."

    Thomas Paine
  3. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,205 Messages
    1,165 Likes Received
    I have to agree with TB that the issue is not really the same as a race issue. I never liked that argument, either.

    I also don't like the argument that a judge is legislating from the bench. If it were a conservative judge(s) overturning a law that allowed gay marriage, these same people would not be complaining that a judge was legislating laws from the bench because it supported their point of view. The same works both ways.
  4. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,891 Messages
    4,241 Likes Received
    Agreed. When I use the term minority it is not always about race. It is about those that are far from being the majority and therefore have little to no chance of changing things in a vote.

    For example. There are 25 guys at a job. The boss says, I will send someone to get lunch for you all but they will only go to one place. So you all will vote. 20 of them want burger king for lunch, 5 of them want McDonalds. The five would be in the minority and not have a chance.

    And of course my definition in how I was thinking is a legit definition so is the one the others are talking about.

    So there might be some confusion in that from where I am coming from.

    It is hard to get your rights changed, if you are in the minority.

    Now on to your other part...you are right again. Hard to say don't make a change just because people want it, but at the same time it was already changed because others wanted it. And your point about if it should be changed on the bench does indeed gel or go against someones opinion of the decision based on how they view the topic.

    I guess by their logic, we should never allow the SCOTUS to ban abortions because it would take judges of a different political lean to make the change, and we all know that is part of the reason many want more republican presidents so they can appoint more SC Judges in order to change that very ruling.
  5. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,481 Messages
    148 Likes Received
    Maybe the problem is our society's insistence that people be legally defined by their sexuality. If they had the same legal status as homosexuals then they wouldn't constitute a distinct group except with respect to their sexual inclinations which would be legally irrelevant.
  6. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    You're still resisting logical based on erroneous assumptions. Which begs the question with which I finished my last post with.

    What reason do I have to lie to you? Do I care about what you think of me? Am I afraid? What I've written as far as my beliefs and consideration of gay marriage has been crystal clear; the fact you would insinuate they are lies and excuses tells me only that you must agree to to disagree. I will recognize that you're wrong.
  7. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    I can tell you is one of my Biology profs had a peer when he worked at I believe UC San Diego Med school that did research on homosexual brains. This guy dissected hundreds of supposed gay brains and over 80% of them had sub hypothalamic nuclei that was anatomically different from straight brains. He came to the conclusion that in the vast majority of cases supposed gay brains are anatomically different from straight brains.

    All I can say is you have no clue what you are talking about. I doubt you have any scientific training to judge whether being gay is something that is biological. Just because you "work with gay people" doesn't mean you know poopy. It is something that you definitely born with. A lot of these gay people wish to god every day they weren't gay because of the pressures society places on them, and a lot of them end up committing suicide because of it.

    And even if it is not something one is born with what right does society have in telling someone who they can love and get married to. In America we make laws based on the Constitution not the Bible. And if we did we could sell our daughters into slavery.
  8. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    As I've stated numerous times that I don't contend whether or not homosexuality is a biologically natural state, all I can say is you have no clue how to read.

    Learn that fundamental skill first, then try to enter into a debate with an adult.
  9. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Someone is getting a little snippy. I think you need to sit this one out tiger.
  10. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Never in your life time Q.
    I'm just thorough.
  11. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,615 Messages
    70 Likes Received
    So you're suggesting men get married to women because they are sick and tired of doing whatever they want whenever they want? That men long for somebody who wants to know if what they're wearing makes their butt look too big? Or what color drapes best match the carpet?

    Gays prolly enjoy sex AND express love with about the same range of varience as heteros.

    It's no longer illegal to be gay - and rightly so. Do we really hafta understand the lifestyle to realize it harms nobody?

    Comparing homosexuality, between two consenting adults, to child molesting seems kinda thick to me.
  12. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,590 Messages
    1,559 Likes Received
    What IS wrong is when four can say to millions of voters "I don't think you are right and I have the power and you do not"

    Judges are way too quick to deny the will of the people.
    As was pointed out, 70% voted for that law.
  13. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,590 Messages
    1,559 Likes Received
    Did someone in here claim that there was no dominance in a gay relationship?
  14. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Are you pulling this out of thin air or trying to be funny/witty? It has no relevance to anything I've said.

    I know. And...?

    The lifestyle isn't in question. The reasons for seeking validation are. Logically so.

    Then I can only figure that recognizing the similarities of sexual desire that exists in all humans is beyond your depth of understanding.
  15. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    There is something called minority rights in America, and the courts enforce that. That is why there can never be a holocaust in America (theoretically). In Nazi Germany a majority trampled over the rights of a minority. In America the courts are the safeguard to protect against this. Hamilton and Madison talked about it in federalist paper 51 (second).

    So basically I'm calling you a Nazi.
  16. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,404 Messages
    369 Likes Received
    what if the people voted that soldiers had no rights? would you be ok with judges saying oh well the people voted so we won't change it
  17. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Or maybe if there just and benevolent god you would go to hell. You're sick man.
  18. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

    No Q, just honest.
  19. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,404 Messages
    369 Likes Received
    it was me and it was in the context of the domination/exploitation that occurs in polygamous unions.

    of course in all relationships, one wears the pants and is dominant, hell I bet you let your wife walk all over you, but that is not domination, it is just being whipped, no pun intended
  20. quincyyyyy

    quincyyyyy Benched

    463 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Don't you understand? The right could give a crap what the federal and state constitutions say. Minority rights be damned.

Share This Page