Shes fixed, meaning no more hormones and female and humping like a male and i am not a dog - by what stretch of your imagination is she trying to have sex with me?
Why does she stop when i toss her a ball since you think perhaps its about mating?
Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Shes fixed, meaning no more hormones and female and humping like a male and i am not a dog - by what stretch of your imagination is she trying to have sex with me?
Why does she stop when i toss her a ball since you think perhaps its about mating?
Quetzal
New member
I don't know Angel, I really don't. Even with my lack of knowledge aside, there are studies being conducted and the evidence suggests homosexual behaviors in other animals. Even if your own dog does/doesn't exhibit it.
I think its more like wanting it to be that way, so some people ascribe motives that arent there.
Quetzal
New member
I did not conduct the studies. I did not have any impact on the findings. I did not have any impact on the articles My bias/preconceived notions had no weight, period.
Many animals eat their young. Are you suggesting Planned PareTheHood open up a restaurant?
In general, no I'm not.
I don't reject introspection, intuition...etc. though I recognize the inherent problem of objectively/empirically proving the personal/subjective... which was the prior point I was making to TH.
TracerBullet
New member
So if a woman has a hysterectomy she stops being heterosexual???
Shasta
Well-known member
People who are fined for not making wedding cakes for homosexual couples are not being compelled? Their free "choice" is to get out of the business altogether. This is what we call freedom now. Who are you kidding?
The services we were talking about were not life and death matters. They were not even essential and could be obtained elsewhere.
No, i just seems to me that when you bring the word "minority" into the discussion that it automatically is given weight as if it meant something.
The question is not about what I would or would not do. We all hopefully try to think about what is the long term good of society not just ourselves. I think it was a horribly bad idea and will lead us into a quagmire of different models of marriage that the Court will never be able to straighten out because they have no firm standard to go by than their intuition and emotion.
What the court said did not come from the constitution. It was not in the constitution. If you think this "right" was in there, then where was it?
.
There are two sides to the coin. When your side got lucky you did not merely take advantage of the law they used it to force the issue on people who did not believe in it. We have only seen a bit of this so far but the gay community will not rest until society thinks the way they do. You would probably like it if the schools to re-educate everyone to accept your view even if that meant going against parents wishes. You could make the same excuse that you did here. "We are not compelling them. If they don't want to hear it let them put their kids in private school. This is what we call tolerance and liberty.
We did not lose the argument. Neither logic, or the legal argument we made had anything to do with their decision. Certain Justices had already made up their minds on the subject not on the basis of what was said or on the constitution but because they were liberals who believed that way already. They did not need the constitution to guide them even though they are supposed to uphold it. If they had really been concerned about sticking to what the contitution says they would have sent it back to the states.
Justices should not rule on matters the constitution does not address. That is the rare phenomenon called "Judicial Restraint." All un-enumerated powers (like making laws about marriage) belong to the States. That is in the constitution.
That laws should protect everyone and due process should reign is not in question. In this case an entirely new definition of marriage was invented and foisted upon society without democratic consent or constitutional grounds. Since the institution of gay marriage did not exist before so it could not have been "protected" or "respected." Neither can an individual's right be protected if no such right exists. Race by contrast is biologically intrinsic to humanity and universal.
A war was fought to establish equality between races. As far as I am concerned that point was made. Again, there is more biological sense in a male and female of different races marrying than for two males or two females.
The fact that interpretation is their role does not mean that is what they actually did or do. I do not see that their ruling had anything whatever to do with what was written in the constitution. Apparently the other Justices did not think so either.
Your definition of what the constitution seems to be just "the majority of the court" but the constitution has meaning in its own right. It was written centuries before the current court existed and all those generations of judges never saw these secrets hidden in it. The constitution is not an OP Ed piece written extemporaneously by Justices every time they meet. The Supreme Court is not an ongoing Constitutional Convention and the Constitution is not the pad they write their notes on. It is a legal document consisting of interrelated principles that has it's own meaning apart from anyone's opinion. What it really means must be found in the document itself or in related writings of the framers Otherwise we might as dispense with any constitution and introduce a system of Common Law - which is exactly what is happening.
You think putting so much power in so few men is a good thing simply because the current members voted in your favor. This is very short sighted. I have a feeling if the court were packed with activist conservatives you might not put so much faith in them. Of course, it probably will not happen since the conservative Justices lean towards strict constructivism. Liberal justices have never respected the Constitution. They make their words the constitution.
Last edited:
Shasta
Well-known member
Do you consider reason itself as something that is personal and subjective?
TracerBullet
New member
just like what would happen if they refused to serve a black couple.
Just like the "whites only" establishments of the segregation era. Black people were welcome to take their business elsewhere.
Try reading the Loving v. Virginia ruling
You are putting quite a strain on the irony meter
Again go read teh decision in Loving v. Virginia
you want laws to protect everyone...but not minorities you want to discriminate against. :thumb:
Jose Fly
New member
That's a choice every business owner and public employee makes. If they're going to open a business or serve as a public employee, they have to be prepared to abide by the law and serve the public.
Does that surprise you?
"They can go somewhere else" has been tried in courts and rejected.
It's just a fact that gays are a minority.
It should be. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then don't get gay married. But why do you think your beliefs should dictate the freedoms of others?
Some Christians think marrying outside of one's race is wrong. So to them we say "Then don't marry outside your race, but your beliefs don't limit my freedom to marry who I wish". The same sentiment applies to you.
That may be what you believe, but that only matters to you.
First of all, the point was that under the Constitution, it is the court's role to determine the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, their ruling is within their job description.
To the larger point, the Constitution says the government cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS ruled that state bans on interracial marriage were the government depriving citizens the liberty to marry. They specifically noted, "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
The recent ruling on gay marriage was under the same framework.
Sorry, I don't buy into your paranoid fantasies.
You lost at the Supreme Court. Accept it. Denial of this reality just makes you look ridiculous.
So you disagree with Loving v. Virginia on the same grounds?
Thus, when a government deprives its gay citizens the ability to marry and enter into a consensual contract, it is denying them liberty without due process.
I don't think it's a good idea to subject questions of minority rights to a majority vote. What do you think would have happened if we'd put Jim Crow laws up for popular vote in the 1950's south?
That may be what you believe, but the court ruled otherwise. As I showed above, there is legal precedent in the SCOTUS that the ability to marry is a "vital personal right".
The legal issue is the same. In both cases, the government was depriving citizens of their liberty without due process. Thankfully, both have been rectified.
You're dodging the issue. You argued that the SCOTUS cannot overturn state laws regarding marriage. Did you object to Loving v. Virginia on the same grounds?
That may be your opinion, but it's settled law now. And as with other countries that did this before us, as it becomes common and open, and everyone sees that allowing gays to marry doesn't bring about the apocalypse and plagues, public opinion will continue to trend towards acceptance.
Simply put, you're on the wrong side of history and will be looked back on the same way we now look back on Christians who pushed for anti-miscegenation laws.
Again, reviewing laws and determining their constitutionality is exactly the role of the supreme court as outlined in the Constitution. Would you change that? If so, how?
I've disagreed with SCOTUS decisions (e.g., Citizens United). But I didn't allow that to turn into questioning their ability to make such decisions.
It's their role, as outlined in the Constitution.
Shasta
Well-known member
Gay marriage is a legal innovation
This is a ridiculous analogy. A more suitable one would be like someone compelling me to provide decorations for a Nazi wedding complete with Swastikas which would be both offensive to me personally and an affront to my religion. Because it is I should not be compelled to do it even though the Nazis may be a hated minority.
People may have a right to celebrate but they do not have the right to compel anyone to contribute to it should they find it objectionable. Because YOU believe in Gay Marriage and the court legalized it you are okay with this. By decree of the court Gay Marriage is within the bounds of morality and every decent person should go along with it. I wonder, had they ruled the other way would Gay marriage have been immoral to you or is legality only equivalent to decency when you happen to agree with it?
Here we have the buzzwords that are supposed to make us hoist the flag of surrender. Well, the simple answer is that whether the people who practice a given behavior are in a minority or not has nothing to do with whether that behavior is right or wrong. If I believe the behavior of a group of people (majority or minority) is morally offensive then I am not going to do anything to participate in it or promote it. I would be a hypocrite to do so.
I disagree with a lot that is commonly done. Many times I comment on it when I think it appropriate. I express my beliefs on Gay marriage to the children who live with us and plan to do so even more as the occasion arises. I have to do something to counteract the propaganda put out by the schools. The last time I checked we still had freedom of speech. Liberty can really a pain can't it? If there were only some way to shut us up using the hate speech laws
Homosexuality would not be any more right if an overwhelming majority of society approved of it. The proportion of a population that agrees on a practice has nothing to do with the wisdom, appropriateness and morality of that practice. As George Orwell wrote "sanity is not statistical"
Christianity started out as a tiny minority in a society that glorified homosexuality, pederasty, abortion and infanticide. We practiced our faith then even when it meant opposing the law. If we have to go that far and be stripped of our livelihood and property then those who are faithful among us will. Many Christians in the world pay a lot heavier cost for their faith than we would. Meanwhile I will continue to help as many people as I can escape this kind of sexual bondage.
Is this really the kind of imagery your mind gravitates to?
So the best way to "polish up" Christianity is for us to compromise our beliefs. Well, Jesus said "if a salt has lost its flavor it is good for nothing except to be thrown on the dung heap." According to you the best Christians are those whose beliefs are less like the Christian faith and more like the world. "Discrimination" means differentiating between things that are moral and immoral and this is in fact we we are supposed to do - which does not mean hurting people but speaking the truth in love while avoiding their evil. The scriptures say do not be conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of your mind. Christians and the world around us are going two opposite directions. I intend to think less not more like the world.
Well here it is - the threat is being stated plainly. Now we see that it is not just about what the law allows groups to do. It is about how the rest of us will be compelled to actively cooperate under threat of persecution and prosecution. Coercion is the final weapon in the imposition of the Gay agenda...and I was told by someone here I was being paranoid.
I see you have determined that what motivates us is not our belief in the set of moral principles that a been part of Christian teaching for two thousand years. No, this is all just pretense. Our true sinister motive is the secret hatred we harbor. Assuming the worst of your opponents has always been the way persecutors assuage their own consciences.
Being in a minority confers no special virtue on a person. It does not make what they believe right or wrong. Whether the minority in question has a legitimate claim on certain right rests on other factors.
And this remark is juvenile. Make your point if you have one. Otherwise put your post on the bathroom wall
We fought a war to confer full citizenship of Blacks. The South was on its way to losing the right to own slaves anyway which is why they attacked.
Unless you express your beliefs by refusing to act in a way that supports the concept of Gay marriage. Believe- do not do anything or say anything.
But the Gay marriage was not a right. It was invented.
1. The constitution had nothing to do with this ruling.
2. Are you prepared to accept all models of marriage based on this all encompassing principle?
I do not see how that involved anything so fundamental. You paint with such broad brush strokes that you cannot make distinctions
Jose Fly
New member
That's a completely different legal issue. The gay couple in Oregon that won in court did not ask for a gay wedding cake with special writing or symbols on it. They merely approached the baker and as soon as they began the process, they were immediately told "We don't bake cakes for gay weddings" (and they were even called an "abomination" by the bakery owner).
So the legal issue was the bakers refusing service based on the sexual orientation of the customers, not based on the cake itself.
I think it is because he was raised in a time where 'civil instruction' is part of the education curriculum, rather than relying on ones own, independent realization that for most of modern history, homosexuality was a perversion. Moreover, homosexuality was key to neurosis, such that repression and related anxiety were confounded with homosexuality and latent homosexuality.
Homosexuality weakens the moral fabric, thus it harms anyone who accepts it. It led to a tolerance of such diagnosis as autism, which has risen sharply only because it is now a benign label. In truth there is not reason for such a increase in autism, Most of these are way and means to decrease the standards of mental normalcy and the demand we place on persons to achieve. This is part of why we have so many inept in the USA who claim they cannot work. Their recreational freedom of self-expression is sickness. Those who self determined they are a special case and need special care; as well those 'sick' must be handled with special care. Any rejection of disability means hater for those less able.
We have today the false sense of freedom because self-expression is tolerated, yet few realize this, which is mainly useless to the majority, are conned into relinquishing their real freedoms, such as the rights to property and privacy. The prevailing rational is why need privacy when there is no condemnation for the ills of behavior. Although privacy has a cause beyond tolerant gawking. Today, most of us can be intruded upon by our government by such as DNA tests,as why does anyone need to hide, that is, hold as private, anything?
TracerBullet
New member
does diminishing other people's relationships make you feel better about your own? How sad.
and I still wasn't talking about and "legal innovation"
you don't seem to have good reading comprehension.
I was pointing out just how stupid the idea that selling anyone something makes one a participant in any future event that object might be involved in.
Now even if i were talking about what you responded to your analogy would still fail. The baker you side with did not refuse decorations or even baking a cake. The couple was denied service even before a discussion of cakes and decorations came up. Your baker refused service based on the fact that the person on the other side of the counter was a minority.
And no one is being compelled any more than my example of the person selling a car that ends up killing someone is participating in that killing.
Bull. You tried to pretend that making a simple choice to be the same thing as discrimination against a minority. I called you out on it citing a lack of integrity on your part for making such a childish word game in the first place.
And you continue to have the right of free speech and you will always have the right to say stupid, hateful, nasty things about gays or blacks or Jews or whoever you don't happen to like. You are confusing the right to free speech with the right to have anyone listen to you or right to not be challenged or corrected or to face the consequences of the things you say.
and your disapproval of it or the disapproval of any portion of the population doesn't make it wrong.
Exactly, a huge number of people approving of discrimination doesn't make that discrimination right.
the victim card? Really?
if you want to talk about this then start with the fact that in 29 states you can be fired from your job just because you are gay.
It is an accurate description of your "new regime" fantasy
Trying to play the word game again?
If you are claiming that facing consequences of your choices is a threat than you are paranoid.
if you were defending (glorifying?)discrimination against African American's my statement would remain the same.
who said it does?
Sounds as if i made my point very well
you do know that it was the courts that ended segregation don't you?
Again: Beliefs don't make people bigots, actions do.
Again: Your right to discriminate ends when it infringes on the rights of others.
nonsense. Go read the constitution and the dozens of rulings made by the courts.
Like interracial marriage? Sure I can accept that.
TracerBullet
New member
Does applying labels such as 'perversion' and claiming unsupported 'harm' help you feel better about yourself?
Ratiocination itself, no... the premises affecting it, yes.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Update:
Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marriage case
Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marriage case
A Kentucky county clerk must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected contentions that she is being forced to violate her religious convictions.
The justices, without explanation, refused to lift a lower court order requiring Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to resume distributing marriage licenses. She stopped issuing any licenses -- and defied an order from the state’s governor -- after the Supreme Court ruled in June that gay marriage is a constitutional right.
The emergency appeal marked an early test of how the Supreme Court will handle religious objections to gay marriage in the aftermath of the landmark June 26 ruling...
The justices, without explanation, refused to lift a lower court order requiring Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to resume distributing marriage licenses. She stopped issuing any licenses -- and defied an order from the state’s governor -- after the Supreme Court ruled in June that gay marriage is a constitutional right.
The emergency appeal marked an early test of how the Supreme Court will handle religious objections to gay marriage in the aftermath of the landmark June 26 ruling...
Another update, when the gays tried again, after that ruling, she still said no. Good for her to stand up for what she believes in. Now gays want her punished.
Gay couples ask judge to punish defiant clerk
Gay couples ask judge to punish defiant clerk
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
She is a public servant. Her job is to uphold the laws of the government which employs her. She does not live in a theocracy.