Another Activist Judge Overrules the Will of the People

No, not at all... I'm just saying that I'm not surprised he would include that. It's been used by the right, as you said, as a tool to disgust people about homosexuality. We had this same discussion with Kiamat a little over a month ago, where he tried to tie in the same arguement: allow gay marriage and what's next?

Ok...first of all it's Kiamat, K-I-A-M-A-T. And I'm male.

Second of all, I do NOT associate the sickos in NAMBLA to homosexuals anymore than I associate the child molestors in the Clergy to Christians, or the child molestors in the teachers' unions to teachers in general.

I do NOT believe that homosexuals are any more prone to child molestation than anyone else.

The point I am making is, while currently the distance between adult/child marriage is great from the current vantage point, it's not so far from where you all want to go. Once you break down the obstacle of same sex marriage then all that's left is to break down the obstacle of age, and I'm telling you the assualt has already begun. Kids in this country are given more and more rights and freedoms while the parents' rights and freedoms over their own children are being eroded. A parent doesn't have the right to listen in on their children's phone conversations because of the child's right to privacy!?

But let's get away from the NAMBLA thing for a second and take a different tack. How about polygamy? Why aren't you all screaming for that. Show your support for the polygamists in Utah. Hell, under Islamic law a man can have as many wives as he can support, but we don't recognize that in the US-aren't we violating their freedom of religion? Same thing with some Mormons. But I don't see you taking up their banner.

Why bother defining marriage at all? Why should the government legislate matters of the heart. If someone really feels that they love their dog, shouldn't they be allowed to get married, too? I mean what happens in the bedroom-right? Already people have left their estates to their pets. Why not let them get married?

You are making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, but you don't care because it's what *you* want. So if we allow gay marriage, where do we draw the line? And if we move it for gays how dare you fight against the polygamists or the pet lovers?

So tell me, Neehai, and the rest of you where *exactly* do *you* draw the line? Precisely how do *you* define marriage. At what point are *you all* willing to say "Here and no further." And, if you do, what will you say to those who come after who want to move it a little further along that won't make you sound hypocritical?

As for your question, Neehai, I think these activist judges should be removed from the bench. I don't think they should be flogged, beaten, threatened, killed, etc. I think they should be fired.

Also, Christiano, Juro wasn't giving me a free pass, he was having an intelligent discourse with me rather than resorting to name calling and vicious attacks of which you and Neehai are so fond. I'm a Christian, and I'll tell you no church I've ever been to has equated homosexuals to molestors or any other type of criminal.

Lastly, if you all think so highly of judges, where are your voices of reason when the Democrats keep filibustering Bush's judicial nominees? Could it be you're afraid of them sitting on the bench?

Who's afraid of a little judicial activism?

-Kiamat Dusk

I don't buy it Kiamat - not for a second. This has nothing to do with whether *I* want marriage or not. These arguments are, I can only imagine, the same ones that were being used back in 1948 against interracial marriage. I know that some people felt it was an affront to the tradition of marriage and, unfortunately, there are still people who feel that way. Thankfully, the law sides against them.

You didn't answer my question, Juro.

... You do realize that "slippery slope reasoning" is an argumentative fallacy, and not a clever method to gain support for your argument, right?

---
"My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape."
---

... indeed. As long as we're pointing out fallacies, you can call this one a 'straw man' fallacy. But I do indeed believe you picked that quote for a reason. How very Christian of you!

God this, crumbling that, children the other. You just -don't like gay people-. I wish the right wingers would just get the *cojones* to say that. "We don't like queers." Stop hiding behind secondary reasons to try to explain it. You don't like it when people are gay, and want to get rid of them.

So just *say that*, and then we can move on from there. Don't try to be nice about it. You don't NEED to be nice about it. You're not *trying* to be nice to them, or their sympathizers.

Is it just that you guys think you need to be 'nice and semi-rational' about it to get some laws passed? Really. It's hate. And i'm not saying "OMG YOU CANT HATE!". Everyone hates. Everyone has a group, or type of person, that they have hatred for. Just don't call it something it's not. Shit or get off the pot.

Your people have control in EVERY governmental branch right now -except- the judicial in this country, and that's likely to go over to you guys soon, too. So pretty soon, you'll be able to simply ask for a referendum: "Shoot the queers: Y/N" - and be able to get it passed with a resounding majority. (Of the legislators, that is. Don't give me this 'they are representatives of the will of the people!' bullshit. They're representitives of slick campaigning and the rising "ya'll gonna get BOMBED if ya don't vote for the guy with the huge belt buckle! Oh! And you're not a patriot, either, and WANT us to get bombed!" method of 'getting out the vote'.)

Have fun legislating your religion onto others. You're the most activist Conservative I've seen in a while. No Big Government! ... (unless it's to get rid of them sinnin' fags. Then we need to get our big gubmint on.) Gays. Guns. God. Glory. Yee-Haw, and if ya don't like it, go to France.

Are you guys all running the same program or what? Let me ask you, Kiamat. How -is- Rev. Fred Phelps doing? He's just the *mostest awesomest* guy isnt he?

Seems to me, after a conversation with the Thinkers last week, that the US courts are the only thing keeping America from becoming a facsist state.

On the subject, what the hell business is it of anyone else if two people want to marry, same sex or not?

Alexa

Neehai,

The cases you mentioned are irrelevant because they were cases that were argued before a judge-not a judge waking up one morning and acting on his own.

-Kiamat Dusk
..thank you, come again.

Michi,

I have no idea who you are talking about. Second, I do *not* hate gays. I base my relationships on people on their character, not their sexual partners. In fact one of my closest long time friends is a lesbian. *shock and horror* I also have two close bisexual friends. And may I introduce you to the Log Cabin Republicans?

Lastly, let me point out that the most scathing and venemous attacks in this thread have been launched by Neehai with Christiano a close second. So, really, who hates whom?

Oh...and when are you Liberals gonna admit your hatred of America?

-Kiamat Dusk

Oh, sorry.. which one, there were a few in your post.

Out of curiosity.. what do your non-straight friends think of your opinion on gay marriage?

So tell me, Neehai, and the rest of you where *exactly* do *you* draw the line? Precisely how do *you* define marriage. At what point are *you all* willing to say "Here and no further." And, if you do, what will you say to those who come after who want to move it a little further along that won't make you sound hypocritical?

All of 'em!

And to answer *your* question, they sorta shake their heads and change the topic. We've been round around just about the way you and I have been. Neither one of us is going to change the other's mind, but, like you, they hold a civil and intelligent debate. Then we go off and do something else.

-Kiamat Dusk

So are you telling me that you, a militant Republican, do not support the views and efforts of Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? (www.godhatesfags.com)? Most Conservatives I've met think that what he's doing is just *fab*.

I've yet to meet a Conservative who does not want every breathing Liberal dead, in jail, dead, out of America, and also: dead.

Michi,

That's precisely what I'm telling you. Check out the Log Cabin Republicans

Quick low down on what the Bible says about the whole thing.

1. Homosexuality is a sin.
2. *ALL* have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
3. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.

Therefore, my sins make me no better or worse than any homosexual. We are all children of God and God loves us all. If my sister were gay, I wouldn't condone her homosexuality, but I would still love her the same as would my parents. Everyone sins but God loves us anyway and wants us to love each other. Anyone who tells you different isn't a practicing Christian.

Also, I don't want Liberals dead. I just want them to admit that they hate America. A little honesty is all we want, that way we can refrain from electing you to office. Liberals make great music and art teachers. If we got rid of liberals we'd lose 99% of Hollywood and I'm a HUGE movie buff. Also, my dad is a raging Liberal and I'd hate to see him dead.


-Kiamat Dusk

Are you saying that Phelps is not a good Christian, then?

Also, do you believe that war has been declared in this country; that Liberals and Conservatives will NEVER again co-exist to the degree they have in the past in the US, that a line has been drawn, and that there is NO room for dissent?

Do you believe the conservative/liberal war in the US will end in blood?

I do.

And yes, I know you guys have more guns than we do. It's understood that non-conservatives are not welcome in the US anymore. But you guys haven't exactly given us many options as to where to go, so, I suppose the only answer to that question will come at the end of the barrel of a gun.

Of course though you guys believe that the Rapture is around the corner anyways, right?

I do question the whole concept of marriage; it still baffles me in many ways. It is not simple as it stands today, at least I do not find it to be.

After reading this entire thread, I still do not understand how gay marriage is anymore related to child marriage or animal marriage. I would imagine that gay marriage would be for consenting adult human beings. Same with heterosexual and multiethnic marriage, right? I guess not since so many people enjoy degrading gay people to the level of being children and not even human, but animals.

Animals cannot give their consent, they do not speak any human language naturally - without being coaxed and prodded on to do so. Even the most intelligent animals can only equate to the average IQ of a 5 year old, which would make them far too young under any circumstances to marry. Animals are not human beings.

Along this line of thought, what about marriage for the mentally retarded? Does this legally happen? If so I would imagine only because they are physically of age and because they are "a man and a woman", but how would they really be able to consent to this? This is far more complex than what I initially think.

Marriage can be gamed with polygamy; people would try and marry as many others as they could to rake in the benefits of multi-marriages. If there were no real benefits then I would be all for it. Then again there is a concept of a balance and equality among people, and some people having more mates than others wouldn't really be equal unless we all chose an equal amount of partners that were equally shared and agreed upon without force. Wow, complex and rather unrealistic huh? It's hard enough dealing with problems when you are married with one person; imagine what arguments and disagreements would come up with 2 or more partners! Scary! It would be easier to just say because a higher force said so.

Then there is relative marriage. Which have the possibility of procreating, but if they did their offspring would suffer as well as the human race's gene pool. Recessive traits are scientifically proven to be linked to the majority of handicaps, deformities, disease, etc. But this is touchy ground here. Who says married people have to physically give birth to children? Related adults could consent to partnership. However, it would be difficult to regulate them actually procreating. Which we avoid, because humans like to be crowded and it would be incredibly difficult to regulate. There is also the issue of raising your partner to age of consent, which ultimately could end up in a lifetime of brainwashing to be and ideal partner. Bad, I would not want to ever see this - human nature to take advantage of others has no bounds. But this can apply to anyone who has the ability to raise their partner from childhood, related blood or not. No parent should marry their "child", their raising would be tainted and questionable as to if it was truly fit. This one of all of these "wrong" marriages is the most complex..

To be honest, it does seem like the argument is only based on the majority religion and/or belief. Then again, I suppose Christians invented the concept of marriage right? Right? At least they will enforce it as if it were anyway. As far as I am concerned it should be a partnership of two or more consenting adult unrelated human beings who honestly love each other to the point of not wishing to be separated.

I'm saying that Phelps and his ilk who twist the scripture to their own ends are no better than the Islamofacists who do the same with the Koran. I'm saying that God is going to have a few words with Mr. Phelps when He sees him.

I believe that the right to dissent and the presence of a dissenting voice the hallmark of freedom in a country. I believe that there are plenty of places for Liberals in our country-just not government. However, if you feel compelled to leave the country and are looking for some alternatives there's always Canada. It's been a favorite vacation spot for American traitors for decades. But, since the Left is so married to Socialist/Communist idealogy, why not move to China, Vietnam, or North Korea?

-Kiamat Dusk
PS: I also believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military and I don't even own a gun.

*bangs his head against the desk.... I am NOT saying that gay marriage is RELATED to child or animal marriage!!!!! I'm saying that it is a slippery slope and the more you move the line, the closer you get to those things. I'm also saying that the same arguments that everyone claims are so valid for gay marriage can be applied to those other things so if we agree that they are valid for gays, how can we say they are not for the rest? The child marriage thing is valid because the only thing standing in the way is the age of consent law which varies from state to state. All it would take to remove that obstacle is one judge "protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority".

On the other hand, THANK YOU, for giving your definition of marriage.
-Kiamat Dusk
...hears an echo

Kiamat, I don't know you, but from other posts I have gotten the impression that you are the product of a mixed race marriage.

If this is true, you really owe it to yourself to study your own history.

The whole "Slippery Slope" argument is, in fact, exactly the one that was used in the forties, fifties, and sixties to bolster support against inter-racial marriage. It was said that, if people of different races were allowed to marry, then there was nothing to stop anyone from marrying anyone! People were going to start marrying their mothers, their daughters, their livestock, and small household appliances.

Then, as now, what people seemed to overlook is that marriage is a civil (not religious) contract between consenting adults. Different states also have laws about how closely related those adults can be.

Then, as now, the real problem wasn't marriage.

It was that the whole idea of seeing a man or woman of non-European descent as morally and legally equivalent to a person of European descent was anathema to many. (Sadly, it still is.) They simply couldn't stomach the thought; yet this decision shoved it into their faces in a way they couldn't ignore.

Loving vs Virginia, the decision that found anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, also struck down the "one drop" legal definition of "colored." Talk about making people angry! Ask your parents about it. I'm guessing they're old enough to remember, as I do.

All the same arguments were used, then as now.

Religious Conviction, (God put different races on different continents so they wouldn't mix, who are we to mix them?) Slippery slope, not fair to the children of such couples, providing insurance to such couples will cost too much, it makes a mockery of marriage, it will destroy the fabric of our society, and on and on. Then as now; exactly the same.

You ask where I draw the line? See the definition above. Consenting adults. Simple.

Then, as now, the real problem isn't marriage; it's the full legal and moral acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I can see that the concept makes you very uncomfortable, and I'm sincerely sorry for that.

But your right to be comfortable fails when it's opposed to the right of hundreds of thousands of children to be covered under the medical insurance of the people who are raising them, and who they regard as parents. It fails when it's opposed to the right of millions of men and women to legally provide for their families. It fails when compared to the right of good, upstanding, law abiding, tax paying citizens to be treated as full human beings.

One final note; I'm guessing that the real basis of your whole argument is your Christian faith. Do you know what Jesus himself actually said about same-gender couples? (And don't forget, in the place and time where he lived such relationships were common.) It's an open book question; feel free to get out your Bible, and read all the red text.

Robin (Sojourner) Wood

???

I've seen and heard about as least as many stupid and violent liberals. Surely they will protect you!!!!

Now -there's- a little bit of that hatred and vitriol I was lookin' for!

Communist. heh. No, see, I'm an audiophile and a semi-pro photographer. I couldn't have that kind of gear in a communist state. I just don't believe that the free market should be manipulated to further divide the haves and have-nots like the Republicans believe.

I mean, I believe I should *actually be able to get a job and eventually BECOME rich*, instead of having to already *be born rich* to reap the benefits of the free market. Part of that involves -not- scouring the world for opportunities to employ slave labor, and then turning around and telling American people, "Hey, now you have to compete with 12 year old Trang who makes 20 cents a week in Indonesia." while the CEO of the company that just outsourced your job buys himself a solid gold toilet seat.

What ever happened to "Buy American" ? Isn't that something that *you guys* were preaching back in the day? I vaguely remember these "MADE IN THE USA!" commercials... Somehow, now, though -- just the opposite of that is what's patriotic?

Bullshit.

I'm a conservative.

I'm also gay.

I'm also Christian. (Yes, this has occasionaly caused conflicts. No, that doesn't invalidate either one)

I don't mind liberals in any way, shape, or form. I disagree with their opinions, but that's a different story.

Some of my best friends are liberals. Some of them are conservative. Some profess to have no opinion whatsoever.

Among my conservative friends, their views run the gamut on homosexuality. Shock-of-shocks, the same is true of my liberal friends. In point of fact, the most homophobic 'friend' I have(had) is a very, very left-leaning liberal.

ANY of my friends, even the most conservative, religious types would condem that site.

Scathing and venemous? Hardly. You insinuated I, as a homosexual, was a child molestor. You got off light. I don't know what part of the country you are from but where I come from, you talk like that to someone's face and we're gonna fight.

I've never understood why Republicans think it is fine to hav a civilized and intellectual debate over whether or not homosexuals are chld molestors. That's like having a civilized and intellectual debate on whether or not your mother is a whore. You got the reaction you wanted and deserved.


Okay, you can remove the glass cock from your ass and shove this back up there in its place. Adult/Child marriage flourished under the breeders. What in the world makes you think that gay marriage opens the door for a completely different subject. That's just moronic.


Please show me an example linking the "assault" of gay marriage (could you be more fucking offensive?) and the "assault" to fuck children. (a long standing practice of breeders)


Well then deal with that issue! What does me having a legal relationship with another man (and all the rights that go along with that) have to do with you not being able to raise your children?


This is a lovely tactic of a fearmonger. We shouldn't take any steps because even one will lead us all the way to hell. Slippery slope indeed.

From a practical standpoint I don't like the idea of polygamy. Currently the legal rights associated with marriage are framed for 2 people. If someone came up with a decent argument for polygamy and how to handle it in our society I would listen. Many mormons fucked children. (see Breeders fucking Children above)


How dare you. You have the nervet o call me vile?!?!??! Shove that glass cock back up your ass.

The loving desire for 2 people to marry and share their life together is a mockery of nothing. You can't even conceive the relationship. As such you can only think that they do it because it is a mockery. You can't get your mind around the fact that these are real people in loving relationships. You dehumanize homosexuals so that your arguments have merit. Someone else dehumanized homosexuals as well. You sound a lot like him.


You think they should be fired because their decisions are not what *you* want? You just want to make a mockery of the American government. I for one love America and support our government. In this time of terror there is no place for people like you in this country. You either support your government or you don't. If you don't like it here, you should move on over to Afghanistan Mr. Taliban!


Again, the filibuster is a long standing tool of this great nation to balance the power. Republicans use it against Democrats and Democrats use it against Republicans. I am sorry that you hate America so much that you wish we had a different government. However, if you want to live in a theocracy, I suggest you move on over to Iran Mr, Taliban. If you don't love America, then leave! Me and the rest of the true Americans that love this country will help you pack.


Evidently you are.

Seconded! (Um...except for the gay/christian part....hehehe)

Robin, the distinguishing factor from the Christian conservative standpoint is, that homosexuality is a choice, whereas race is not.

I don't agree with that; and I'll say the same thing that's been said before: If homosexuality was a choice, why the hell would *anyone* choose it? Calling someone 'gay' *is* the "kitchen sink" insult in this country. Yeah. Sign *ME* up for another round of Matthew Shepard beatings.

That's the crux of it; Non-Christians believe that homosexuality *may actually be* inborn, whereas Christians believe it is a choice.

Because of that, the Right will never see the connection between homosexual marriage and interracial marriage.