FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[S2M]

Moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians and that the evidence shows conclusively Prop 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same sex couples are inferior.--- Vaughn Walker--Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of CA

Very slippery slope my friend...next NAMBLA will claim sex with young boys shouldn't be looked at as an inferior act, moreover, immune to moral insight.....be careful....remember 'Universal Maxim'....

[conversationpc]

Bobby, what about the gay bigots who blocked churches, destroyed church property, harassed pro-Prop 8 voters, etc? Did you speak out about them like you have here about the others?

Do you ever cheer for the away team when they score on your team ?!

Bad analogy...I do speak out on my blog against other conservatives, though. Did a post a while back opposing the use of waterboarding, for instance, amongst other things.

[StevePerryHair]

Moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians and that the evidence shows conclusively Prop 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same sex couples are inferior.--- Vaughn Walker--Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of CA

One thing I haven't heard much talk about is this judge. Doesn't it seem a little out of order to anyone that this judge, who was already well-known to be gay, ruled in favor of gays on an issue that, in my opinion, he should have recused himself from? To me, that would be like a well-known Christian judge ruling just the opposite on this issue.

Well, that's why there is a process of things moving up through the courts. So it's not just one person's judgement but to be sure it's really constitutional and not just one man's agenda. It still has a ways to go.

[BobbyinTN]

Moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians and that the evidence shows conclusively Prop 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same sex couples are inferior.--- Vaughn Walker--Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of CA

One thing I haven't heard much talk about is this judge. Doesn't it seem a little out of order to anyone that this judge, who was already well-known to be gay, ruled in favor of gays on an issue that, in my opinion, he should have recused himself from? To me, that would be like a well-known Christian judge ruling just the opposite on this issue.

Then that would mean a heterosexual judge could never rule on a heterosexual issue.

[S2M]

Just what I need seeing another guy probing some other guy's stool booth on prime-time tv....

[BobbyinTN]

Bobby, what about the gay bigots who blocked churches, destroyed church property, harassed pro-Prop 8 voters, etc? Did you speak out about them like you have here about the others?

They were wrong, but when a group of people are demonized and hated, isn't it understandable just a little bit how they might be ticked off enough to get violent? Not approving of it, just saying.

[Don]

Well, if the fed is going to delve in to this, perhaps statutory rape and marriage laws which differ from state to state should be dealt with also. Maybe look at have everything uniform across the board when it comes to age for consent, parental permission and what not.

[DrFU]

I brought up an ethics scenario ... one that you obviously can't respond to intellectually. It's deontilogical in nature and involves a "maxim" or principle. I suggest Kant, if you want to educate yourself on the subject. Tootaloo, fagsack.

it's deontological ... though I am impressed you know that Immanuel was not a second baseman for the Phillies ...

[StevePerryHair]

Bobby, what about the gay bigots who blocked churches, destroyed church property, harassed pro-Prop 8 voters, etc? Did you speak out about them like you have here about the others?

They were wrong, but when a group of people are demonized and hated, isn't it understandable just a little bit how they might be ticked off enough to get violent? Not approving of it, just saying.

No, it's not understandable. Violence is never understandable and the worst way to try to fight for a cause. It makes them no better than those nuts who kill abortion doctors. Violence is NEVER the answer for getting rights of any kind and that is why people are having a hard time sympathizing with you. Because you can understand this kind of behavior and you think anger and hate back is the answer. Breaking the law and hurting people is NEVER okay no matter what the reasons behind it.

[conversationpc]

Moral disapproval is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians and that the evidence shows conclusively Prop 8 enacts without reason a private moral view that same sex couples are inferior.--- Vaughn Walker--Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of CA

One thing I haven't heard much talk about is this judge. Doesn't it seem a little out of order to anyone that this judge, who was already well-known to be gay, ruled in favor of gays on an issue that, in my opinion, he should have recused himself from? To me, that would be like a well-known Christian judge ruling just the opposite on this issue.

Then that would mean a heterosexual judge could never rule on a heterosexual issue.

Bobby, I know you're smarter than that. This is a contentious issue involving the gay community. The judge being gay himself, would be under lots of pressure, admitted or otherwise, to rule a certain way. I'm not saying he did but that's why judges recuse themselves from ruling on certain cases. In this instance, there is a conflict of interests. This kind of case is an aberration, so to speak. There are NO cases where heterosexuals are suing for "equal" rights.

Take me, for example. I'm a big dude. If I were a judge and let's say a case came before me where a fat guy was suing an airline for charging him for an extra seat. It would be prudent for me to recuse myself from that case simply because I'm a big guy myself. It wouldn't be proper for me to issue a ruling on that case.

Now, in certain cases, you obviously can't pick and choose a judge for certain kinds of cases. Divorce, for instance...There are probably way too many judges who've been divorced themselves to shop around for one that hasn't been divorced.

In this case, in my opinion, it's just too controversial an issue for a judge to rule on something they could have a vested interest in. What would you think if this goes to the Supreme Court, is overturned, and you find out that one of the justices voting to overturn this decision has supported, for instance, the move for a Constitutional amendment to codify one man and one woman into law as the definition of marriage?

[donnaplease]

Our church is supposed to be separate from our government, is it not? So we're enacting law based on what the bible says?

Actually, no it's not. Nowhere in our Constitution are the words "separation of Church and State". Our founders never put that in there. Jefferson wrote about it in a PRIVATE letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801.

I know that won't matter to you, people can just go on pretending that it's there written in invisible ink right next to the invisible "right to privacy" invented to impose a right to abortion.

Separation of church and state, as it's now called, was actually supposed to keep the federal government from establishing an official church, or denomination. I have heard that the states, even under the Constitution, were allowed to create official religions themselves and it was just the federal government that wasn't able to do so. I'm not sure I believe that just yet but I will have to some studying on the topic.

I think that's right. It seems like I read about this in the .gov website I was citing when I was having some other debate on the BO thread with Daniel or Parfait. Don't remember specifics, but it seems like I read that there were some states that were even taxing the citizens for their 'state-run' churches. IDK. Might have to check it out again.

[Behshad]

Well said Daverino. Let's await the response.

[Rockindeano]

This thread is fucking EPIC! We got ourselves a border skirmish. As you were soldiers.....

[Behshad]

This thread is fucking EPIC! We got ourselves a border skirmish. As you were soldiers.....

Glad you could join us , soldier !

[StevePerryHair]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

[Rockindeano]

This thread is fucking EPIC! We got ourselves a border skirmish. As you were soldiers.....

Glad you could join us , soldier !

Oh no, this fight is way out of my league. I don't do very well in disagreements.

[S2M]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

Rest assured...you're Major McMeanie....

[Angel]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

You're only in the latter if (a) you don't agree with Dan and (b) he runs out of ammunition against you when you point out he flaws in his "evidence."

[StevePerryHair]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

Rest assured...you're Major McMeanie....

Yeah, but that's my badge of honor

[donnaplease]

Everything possible and still make a living and have a life. And please, don't underestimate our country, it's still great and ready for anything that comes its way. Mayberry was fiction and I'd bet you 5000 dollars there's lots more homosexuals in your town than you could possibly imagine and maybe the fear of bigots is what keeps them from presenting themselves.

Anything specific you care to share? Are you a member of any political organization that is fighting for the right to marry in Tennessee?

I disagree, I don't think our country is ready for this yet, that's why there is so much passionate disagreement on the topic. Mayberry may have been fiction, but the ideals of the people of Mayberry were true on the show and are still true today. I can promise you that - I have worked with LOTS of Aunt Bea's in the past 10 years. Most of those little old ladies and men don't harbor hate feelings, they just cannot comprehend your lifestyle and therefore cannot accept it. I think you are correct that there are more gay/lesbian people than we know about for exactly the reason you express. The funny thing is that the ones that I know that are openly gay now... I knew they were gay then (20 or so years ago when I was in school). In all honesty, although we knew it back then, it would've been much more difficult to accept then because of society's view of homosexuality.

I don't know what part of Tennessee you're from, but my brother-in-law lives in eastern TN and although we haven't discussed it, I'm certain that the residents in his hometown are just like the residents in mine. Smaller towns are more conservative than bigger cities. They cling to their 'guns and religion' and aren't as accepting of anything they think goes against their religious beliefs. What is unacceptable to you (their views) is the norm for them, just as what is normal for you is unacceptable for them.

I wish you luck, I just honestly believe you're a few years away from what you desire.

[Rockindeano]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

Rest assured...you're Major McMeanie....

If Lynndog is an officer, we have to now call her Madame or Mam.

[Behshad]

This thread is fucking EPIC! We got ourselves a border skirmish. As you were soldiers.....

Glad you could join us , soldier !

Oh no, this fight is way out of my league. I don't do very well in disagreements.

I respectfully disagree.

[StevePerryHair]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

You're only in the latter if (a) you don't agree with Dan and (b) he runs out of ammunition against you when you point out he flaws in his "evidence."

Well, even though I don't agree with Dan completely on this issue.... I have a hard time believing he'd call ME a C-face....

[StevePerryHair]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

Rest assured...you're Major McMeanie....

If Lynndog is an officer, we have to now call her Madame or Mam.

Madame McMeanie!! It has a ring

[Angel]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

You're only in the latter if (a) you don't agree with Dan and (b) he runs out of ammunition against you when you point out he flaws in his "evidence."

Well, even though I don't agree with Dan completely on this issue.... I have a hard time believing he'd call ME a C-face....

Well, aren't you special.

[StevePerryHair]

I hope Im in the soldier category and not that C-face one

You're only in the latter if (a) you don't agree with Dan and (b) he runs out of ammunition against you when you point out he flaws in his "evidence."

Well, even though I don't agree with Dan completely on this issue.... I have a hard time believing he'd call ME a C-face....

Well, aren't you special.

No, cleary you are because you are the one with the special name

[conversationpc]

This thread is fucking EPIC! We got ourselves a border skirmish. As you were soldiers.....

[verslibre]

This thread is something else. The mods are REALLY asleep at the wheel on this one.

[verslibre]

How can a country where we have things like Ashley Madison advertising all over the radio have the nerve to talk about protecting the institution of marriage?

Because the guy who started AshleyMadison.com paid for all that advertising to promote it. Freedom of enterprise, you know. Kind of a weak point to try to make.

No, my point was we live in a place where things like that are promoted... and why? Well, there wouldn't be a "company" like that unless there was interest in that kind of service, so in a country where those kind of morals exist, who are we to place restrictions on another group of people based on moral objection.

Sorry, sis, but your point isn't any stronger with that last statement. Prostitution and homosexuality have been around for what—practically forever? Why is anal sex referred to as "Greek" style? Something like AshleyMadison.com only exists because of a certain technological innovation we all take advantage of on a daily basis. In the '70s, pervs looked for action in print media. And so on, and so on.

[parfait]

I just don't get it. Why the hell do you people use so much of your energy complaining over something that will never impact your life? Who cares if some homos marry (out of the church) - they have the right to it as much as we do. And who the fuck cares if they like to fuck their prudently bleached coloids out?! People got way weirder sexual fetishes too, you know. Jeesh - taking it in the butt is nothing compared to some of the things that's out they're.

And come on, you people throw out scientifically and philosophical terms way too easy. Bringing Kant into this is ridiculous, as his philosophies rarely work in real life - they're theoretical absolutes. A congenital anomaly is far from being as bad as it sounds too - as it would have been probable to view people born with white skin a anomaly, as black skin is clearly the evolutionary better version.

From an evolutionary point of view, homosexuality is a supreme paradox. If it had a genetic cause the trait would quickly go extinct. However, throughout history the rate of homosexuality has remained essentially constant, about 8% for males and 3% for females.
Almost 1/10 isn't a anomaly, it's a natural occurring phenomenon. And please, the evolutionary shortcuts you people take is retarded. If we've had a government that would rule according to evolutionary standards, then we would be better of killing every retarded or genetically sick person, as it's better to phase them out early. Don't try to argue this from a scientific or moral stand point; it's all but clear that the ones that don't wont let gay people marry got some fucked up human values.

In the end... Who the fuck cares what other people do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Go use that energy in something else; go work out or something instead