Prop 8: Federal Appeals Court Puts California Same-Sex Marriages On Hold Indefinitely | Updates

lol all gay people are rapists? that's your argument?

I guess you've had the misfortune of meeting only the negative elements in the "gay community" because my experiences here in the United States, Europe and Asia have been quite positive. As for negative experiences, I've had at least as many of those among "straights" as I've had among any other group. It's a matter of focus. I don't focus on or associate myself with destructive personalities - regardless of their specific sexuality, politics, religion or lack thereof or their personal philosophy.

What is certain is this: every human individual deserves respect for their personal sovereignty, i.e., to not be treated as prey or as property by other human beings. Whatever your label or labels, your life belongs to you and it is you who makes its choices - not others - and it is you who reap both its rewards and its punishments. There is no warrant to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens of an nation. This isn't asking for "special rights" or "special liberties" but rather that their already existing rights and liberties be respected rather than ignored partially or in whole by those who are personally disgusted by any kind of sexuality that doesn't fit into their narrow-minded immature chosen limitations.

If you have a personal problem with homosexuals, choose your friends differently.

I've got more gay than straight friends. Well, in all fairness, I've also got more animal friends than human friends.

In my travels over the decades, I've seen all types of attitudes, and none of it had a thing to do with one's sexuality.

Perhaps Omnomynous reeks of homophobia, and just immediately creates a wall between himself and others. In my days in the Civil Rights movement, I could always suss out the racists and, admittedly, felt -- at the very least -- wary.

By the way, I've never had a lesbian try to "convert" me. I've been flirted with, which I found flattering, but no one has ever come on to me in a way that I felt was forceful.

I spent much of my youth managing bars and nightclubs and dance clubs. The predictable result was that most of my friends were people who liked the nightlife, and I went clubbing a lot. I have had men flirt with me, and I have had three men proposition me on three different occasions. On only one occasion did a man actually touch me, and he simply put his hand on the top of my fully clothed leg and gave me an inquiring look. That was it. Once I expressed my lack of interest there was no pressure -- not even a "you don't know what you are missing." I am not saying that others have not had different experiences. I am just saying that I have never encountered anyone more aggressive than that.

On the other hand, some heterosexual men can behave really obnoxiously, and not know when to back off.

guess what omnom?theres viscious,rapist minded straight people around too!and theyr allowed to marry each other...

lucky bastards.our rapists are on my side of the divide, no fun for me.

if you care to do the stats on heterosexual rapists versus homosexual rapists, heteros win sorry.its just what happens from being the majority, you get the bigger stats.that means christians are more likely to rape than muslims too.if you really want to freak you can put the pedophilia stats in thier an it explodes.bedfore it was reasonable, but add the heterosexual pedophiles and man you got some rediculous numbers.

if you fear being taken advantage of, just stay away from heterosexual christians.but seriously jews kicked the door open on libels.it just doesnt work anymore.i know the how we drink the blood of christian children was a hoot and all, but we learned broad demonizations tend to be catagoricaly untrue.gays rape as any group does.no more no less.

your better off going for the destruction of the family, at least that one has legs despite it being bullshit.

^'d

that's how the site works. every time someone comments it bumps the story up

Just to add -- If someone is was convicted of a crime and sentenced to death would you kill him before the appeals process was finished?(OK maybe in TX - lol)

Not the same thing. In the case of homosexuals wishing to marry, the courts aren't tasked with the question of their guilt in a crime. The court is tasked with deciding if they have the same rights and should be afforded the same liberty as anyone else.

In my opinion, until such time an individual's behavior necessarily interferes with, damages or destroys the liberties of others, the rule should be "hands off". In this case, homosexuals are denied the liberty BEFORE it has been determined to be harmful for them to have it.

In effect, they receive the punishment BEFORE any crime has been committed.

My point is until that "right" is firmly decided through the court system (since a court overturned the will of the people in the Prop 8 vote) - probably Supreme Court - the "non-legal" marriages should not be carried out.

A legitimate right can neither be granted nor taken away by others - it is a birthright, i.e., one has it by virtue of being alive. Certainly, it can be argued every individual ought to have maximum liberty to exercise the right to live their own life. Unfortunately, cultures rationalize why individual liberties ought to be curtailed for one reason or another. My point is that one should have a liberty until such time it is clearly shown that liberty to be a danger to the lives and liberties of all other persons. You choose to strip people of liberties until it can be shown they deserve them.

No culture has an arguable right to do such a thing. It is a variation on the "guilty until proven innocent" notion that gets the whole "civilized" idea entirely backwards. A life belongs to itself until such time it can be shown that life is clearly a danger to other life. THAT is the agreement at the root of the "civilization" concept - a man's life is his own PROVIDED he affords others that same respect.

Your view says a man's life is the property of the group with rights and liberties afforded him only on the approval of others. Your view makes a man, a life, into a slave, into property to be used or dispensed of upon the whims of the current majority.

I definitely understand your point but we are a nation of laws. The heart of this court case is defending a valid outcome to a vote to Prop 8. Of course there are underlying possible violations to actual right to marry.

Does everyone have the "Right" to marry, no. Not even heterosexual people have that "right". Although at this time they are afforded the opportunity to marry.

My personal oppinion is rights are often confused with opportunities.

+^d well stated

+^d well stated

Yes, every individual has the right to marry. As I said, one has a right to one's own life by birthright. This "right" is provided by the one essential civilized value - human will not prey on human. The question is, which individuals are afforded the liberty to exercise that right and which are not ... and why.

Heterosexuals are afforded liberty to marry whomever they choose, homosexuals are not.

Why? Why this limitation on their liberty and was that limitation ever adequately justified OR is it simply an irrational and unreasonable prejudice whose weakness of argument has been discovered, finally?

My position is that this limitation on the liberties of homosexuals was never legitimate to begin with and must be ignored outright. The rule of law is wonderful when such laws are rational and reasonable. This one is not and never has been. It is an illegitimate law and genuinely civilized human beings are right to dispense with it entirely - court or no court.

For the sake of argument I will say marriage is a “right” (I do not believe it is – as of now).

You first have to categorize what type of right it is. Is it an unalienable right (which cannot be altered by law) or an inalienable right (which are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law)?

Unalienable Right’s are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness and Inalienable Right’s would be like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Gun Ownership.

I would suggest that if you want to make marriage a right it would need to fall under Inalienable Right’s and a Constitutional Amendment would need to be drafted and passed defining marriage.

Well, yeah.

The concept "civilization" is predicated on one simple value - human beings cannot own or prey upon other human beings, i.e., respect for individual sovereignty over majority view.

To belong to any genuine civilization, you are required to accept and live by at least that one indispensible value. If you do not, you are necessarily "uncivilized" and naturally a threat to those who are. If you genuinely wish to live like an animal, at least be honest and remove yourself from civilization. You're of course free to leave, but if you stay, you must abide by the values of the civilized.

That's the deal.

Of course.
You do not have the right to infringe on other people's rights.

Well, you gotta think... you said Civilization requires humans to not prey on other human... yet Civilization is constantly at war...with itself...
would you say that this is a backwards view, and we are essentially all uncivilized... or there are exceptions

otherwise, +'d

Human conflict is of two varieties - genuinely civilized persons fighting off elements of the jungle, i.e., those who are not or who have chosen not to be members of civilization OR conflict between different factions of the jungle mentality.

Civilization only goes to war against the uncivilized for self-preservation of its way of life, i.e., in self-defense. It does not initiate war but rather only responds to attacks on its chosen sovereignty.

Elements of the jungle war as a way of life. In fact, the jungle mentality MUST war in order to survive - genuine civilization does not because it is by its nature a peaceful cooperative effort of many individuals. Yes, such genuine civilization is more uncommon than many people assume and one would be hard pressed to find it in its purest state anywhere among human beings. Despite our best wishes and pretenses, we are still very much more jungle than "civil" with one another. You'll probably agree, there are fewer instances of true civility among human beings than moments of predation and that is the measure of human intellectual and emotional evolution as a whole.

When one sees human conflict, one must ask what are the genuine and specific elements in conflict - civilized vs. uncivilized OR uncivilized vs. uncivilized. One must then ask which one values most - the civilized or the uncivilized - and then ask why that is so.

Do you choose the role of the civil human being OR do you choose the ancient conflict of predator vs. prey? There are clear consequences to one choice and, at least in my experience, greater benefit to the first than to the second.

Well,....you sort of tell the "vampire" he "owes it" to,....uhm,..."something unnamed" to "go away from the herd and not trouble it. ( He would not be presumed to owe the rest of us a non predatory nature,...any more than a wolf "owes" a flock of sheep free and untroubled room to roam. )
We just have to kill him/her/it. It does not "owe" us its death.

Now,...if you mean- "owes it to his personal honour to be an "above board predator",....well,...now we are talking about universal ethics issues.
Or "GOD",...I suppose.

note - I just found your statement a bit to sweeping for the degree of elaboration it had,....this is not a disagreement with some definition of "a CIVILIZED man ",....it just overlapped into the realm of "man,....just a man as such" a bit .

Uhm,....sorry,....I replied only to the content of your previous post, you had taken this theme farther....

I do think there is an "autonomous man" possible ; that is, non-predatory/non-civilized man. So I contend that you can have have conflict of BOTH a non-predatory AND not-exclusively "civilized" nature.

example - - - -"Hey Grizzly Adams,....your cave is on some uranium,....Sparta wants it" !

1) Adams is not "civilized" and HAS no tribe
2) a tribe however,....has found him,....and claims "greater numbers mean greater need",...if they bother to justify at all
3) if Adams buys that premise,....he will be FOREVER moving,....even if he never takes,...nor wants,...anything these "civilized men" HAVE. He will be at the mercy of THEIR wants.

"Civilized" doesn't imply one has a tribe, only that one doesn't prey on other human beings. In your "Adams" example, it is the civilized man vs. the uncivilized man.

So,....is the tribe "Sparta" uncivilized then ?

Is their central value "human may not prey on human" or is it not?

Lets assume they accept that notion loosely,....but simply believe that "they" are the rightful management of collective mankind,...and all resources found at any time are theres to manage. Adam has a "code of conduct" as it were,...a sense of honor, but simply views Spartans as a predatory pack encroaching on resources he has already "pissed on".

Everybody involved here does not consider themselves to be anything but a "defender",....there are just MORE Spartans.

Why are your Christian beliefs better than others' Christian beliefs? If you believe that the state should respect your particular Christian beliefs over others', then you are asking the state to play favorites with religion. The United States of America is not a theocracy.

... nor are all beliefs "christian" beliefs.

So well put! But yes, it bothers those who are fixated on the sex lives of others.

Straights suck too. Pun intended. ONCE AGAIN - you're reducing a gay debate to sex.

Grow up!

It is true that the Bible never says they were married.

Thank you.

Equality. Really, that's all I "want".

Oh! And World Domination, obviously. ;D

And blacks think they have the right to sit in the front of the bus. The nerve of these people!

You wrote:

"it's always something with them...."

Jesus, what a bigot you are!

Guess you were saying the same thing when women were trying to get the vote. Guess you were saying the same thing when Blacks were trying to get the vote.

Yeah, it's always something with human beings seeking human rights.

There's more than one reason to get married, you ridiculous prick. I'm assuming you're just instigating with that statement, but of course, you may actually be that stupid.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...Rosa, my hero...xxxxxxxxxxxx

"My argument is that only the kinds of unions potentially productive of children need state support and recognition"

i plan on having kids, whether it's with a man or a woman. do you think the state should support my "union"

My wife and I have created no children in thirteen years nor are we planning to. In fact, we had no plans to do so before the marriage was formed. In addition, neither of us is or was capable of creating children if we wanted to from the very beginning.

Does this mean our legal marriage is null and void in your estimation?

Why call such unions "marriage" if what you really mean is "reproductive pair"? If state recognition of "marriage" is only for the purposes of reproduction, doesn't that imply the state has a vested interest in compelling such reproductive pairs to, in fact, reproduce? Having compelled such pairs to reproduce, doesn't the state then have the assumed responsibility to support the children generated by such reproductive pairs? How much reproduction does the state expect? What happens if a reproductive pair doesn't create as many children as the state expects? What happens if they produce too many?

If a reproductive pair refuses to reproduce, wouldn't the state be obligated to compel them to do so OR dissolve the union altogether whether or not the pair agree? If they state is only looking for a steady supply of children, why not simply assign reproductive persons to "good stock" and dispense with all of the inefficient marital niceties?

No, due to the implications of such a position, the obvious answer is state recognition has absolutely nothing to do with potential reproduction but rather more to do with contract law. If it only deals with a legal contract between two or more persons, then any two or more persons ought to be at liberty to form such a contract and, in fact, can whether the state or anyone choose to recognize such a contract or not.

Children are quite beside the point as my marriage and the marriages of millions of others are evidence.

Agreed.

why wish for them to die, i wish they would just come out of the closet already and admit who they really are,

Not entirely in fantasy mind you,still you make a valid point.

lol

Gays don't run around believing in invisible gods who are going to reward them when they die, if they just refrain from sucking cock and plowing ass.

Please, Spanky, explain to me the fantasy world you refer to. I'd LOVE to hear your explanation, but I KNOW that you won't reply.

(yet if you do reply, it'll be nonsensical and/or I'll demolish your claims)

Racial Slurs are against community guidelines. You should check yourself spanky...go spank your banana you fool.

The world doesn't owe gays anything except respect for being human beings...live and let live. If you aren't going to play nice...then we are all up in you ass and will take what is ours by force....if necessary. We have more disposable income than you do while you chase your heteronormative BS fantasy world that leads to more suicides and mental problems than any other social condition.

Fantasy worlds exist for all living beings

.

"JEW BALL" ??!?!?!?!!

Did you actually, really write that?! Did you actually go public like that?! What the HELL?!?!?!?!?

Jew ball???!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, man, I cannot believe you wrote that. I just cannot believe that.

Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame!

How completely ignorant.

The suffering imposed on homosexuals daily by the many in their respective immature cultures is far from a fantasy.

I'll be waiting for the "they bring it on themselves" comment.

Yes, homosexuals are OWED their individual liberty to form a genuine commitment and to have a legal contract between them acknowledged by their elected government.

No one has arguable warrant to interfere in that liberty and the immaturities of those who continue doing so or advocate its continuation will not abide.

In this case, majority view is majority wrong. Perhaps you have the numbers, but you don't have the virtue of a good argument on your side. The constitution also provides that majority view - if wrong - can be suppressed.

e.g., "Congress shall make no law ... " - suppression of majority view.

Funny. Substitute "straights" or "heterosexuals" where you wrote "gays". It's just as true.

To be genuinely civilized, respect for the rights of homosexuals to live as they choose is mandatory, not a choice. Agreement with or admiration for their choices is always voluntary of course. You MUST leave them alone to live as they choose, but you don't have to like it.

No one has the legitimate right to demand such a thing, but they DO have a legitimate right to demand you leave them and their lives alone.

"Respect" means "hands off", not "I like what you're doing".

"I don't care what you think!"

Then why did you even waste your time writing THIS response? You obviously cared enough TO find it necessary to write six additional unimportant words.

actually it does. especially since you believe we chose to be this way. with that reasoning, you chose to be straight (or "straight"). you think the world owes it to you to not disrupt your little bubble.

"your "I want it my way or else" attitude"

yeah. or else we'll continue to fight for our rights.

you don't have to accept anything.

you cared enough to respond!