Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a “way that demeans them.” The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

Obviously that judge doesnt understand what the word "demeans" means...................

Judicial tyranny raises it ugly head again. And I'm seeing a pattern in this thing about how it "demeans" homosexuals.

There's no Constitutional right to be free of having others "demean" you. But we have, again, a Federal judge imposing his personal philosophical opinion to override something enacted through the process of representative government.

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

This time a judge imposed his personal opinion under circumstances where the State Constitutional Amendment passed through a 74 to 26 percent vote of the People.

JohnStOnge wrote:Judicial tyranny raises it ugly head again. And I'm seeing a pattern in this thing about how it "demeans" homosexuals.

There's no Constitutional right to be free of having others "demean" you. But we have, again, a Federal judge imposing his personal philosophical opinion to override something enacted through the process of representative government.

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

This time a judge imposed his personal opinion under circumstances where the State Constitutional Amendment passed through a 74 to 26 percent vote of the People.

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously.

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously

You have got to be kidding. You are seriously comparing the difference between two male/female unions based on race to the difference between a male/female union and a male/male or male female union?

Really? I mean c'mon man. Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

I have to leave the computer now but I'm looking forward to your response. Good GRIEF I cannot BELIEVE the extent to which this attitude towards homosexuality thing calls to mind the Emperor's New Clothes parable.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously

You have got to be kidding. You are seriously comparing the difference between two male/female unions based on race to the difference between a male/female union and a male/male or male female union?

Really? I mean c'mon man. Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously

You have got to be kidding. You are seriously comparing the difference between two male/female unions based on race to the difference between a male/female union and a male/male or male female union?

Really? I mean c'mon man. Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

Those of us that have emotions realize that marriages/relationships aren't based entirely on sex/reproduction, and that it is in fact possible for a person to genuinely love another person of the same sex.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously

You have got to be kidding. You are seriously comparing the difference between two male/female unions based on race to the difference between a male/female union and a male/male or male female union?

Really? I mean c'mon man. Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

I have to leave the computer now but I'm looking forward to your response. Good GRIEF I cannot BELIEVE the extent to which this attitude towards homosexuality thing calls to mind the Emperor's New Clothes parable.

I think the same thing every time I read one of your posts on the subject.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

Seriously

You have got to be kidding. You are seriously comparing the difference between two male/female unions based on race to the difference between a male/female union and a male/male or male female union?

Really? I mean c'mon man. Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

I have to leave the computer now but I'm looking forward to your response. Good GRIEF I cannot BELIEVE the extent to which this attitude towards homosexuality thing calls to mind the Emperor's New Clothes parable.

Of course I understand the role of sex in biology. Can you please explain the role of marriage in biology to me? Do we need men and women to get married in order to continue the existence of the species?

No. Marriage is just a civil (or religious if you are into that sort of thing) announcement of your intention to stay with that person for the rest of your life.

Why is it bad, in your eyes, for two people of the same sex to make that announcement? Does it hurt something in society? If so, how? We don't require married people to have children. Two heterosexual people can be married and not procreate and you wouldn't be upset about it.

So, if two homosexual people get married and do not procreate what is the problem?

You are somehow equating marriage with sex and biology. They are not connected. Married people are not required to have sex with each other. . .

JohnStOnge wrote: Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

Do you think all sex not for the purposes of reproduction is unnatural?

dbackjon wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a “way that demeans them.” The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

The federales will have to be patient. Right now the burning legal question in Kentucky is whether after a divorce your wife is still your sister.

houndawg wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a “way that demeans them.” The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

The federales will have to be patient. Right now the burning legal question in Kentucky is whether after a divorce your wife is still your sister.

What's with the intolerance, Squaw Man?

JohnStOnge wrote:Judicial tyranny raises it ugly head again. And I'm seeing a pattern in this thing about how it "demeans" homosexuals.

There's no Constitutional right to be free of having others "demean" you. But we have, again, a Federal judge imposing his personal philosophical opinion to override something enacted through the process of representative government.

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

This time a judge imposed his personal opinion under circumstances where the State Constitutional Amendment passed through a 74 to 26 percent vote of the People.

Nope. The Constitution protects the minority in such things that happen between the ears. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to a gay wedding. Except, of course, when your gay kid gets hitched, John.

BlueHen86 wrote:
We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

I was not talking about the question of whether or not marriage is a biological function in the post to which you responded. Below is the exchange I was continuing.

I wrote:

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

The response was:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

And I asked if he was kidding in writing that they aren't different. For Pete's sake, they are different. And before anyone says it, it doesn't matter whether or not people in a heterosexual couple consciously want reproduction when they have sex. It doesn't matter if one or both of them isn't fertile. It doesn't matter if they choose to have anal and/or oral sex at times or even exclusively. The underlying instinct that is making them feel aroused in each others' presence is related to reproduction just like the response of having your mouth water and desire to eat something is related to the need to take in food so your body can utilize it.

Having a sex drive directed primarily or exclusively towards members of your own sex is like having a hunger drive directed towards eating sand. I'm not saying we should tell people they can't have homosexual relationships if that's what the choose to do. But this stuff of saying that a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex is just normal variation like having blue eyes as opposed to brown eyes or red hair as opposed to blonde hair is complete nonsense.

Nope. The Constitution protects the minority in such things that happen between the ears. Don't like gay marriage? Don't go to a gay wedding. Except, of course, when your gay kid gets hitched, John.

I can pretty much guarantee you that there is no Constitutional language such that people crafting it and ratifying it construed as meaning that States had to recognize homosexual unions as marriages.

Now, I will say that if the judge made his decision based on the Full Faith and Credit clause I can see that. In fact I posted long ago on this board or maybe the other one when States first started to offer homosexual marriage that the Full Faith and Credit clause appears to require that if a homosexual couple gets married in one State then move to another State the other State has to recognize it. That's what it literally appears to say.

But if he made his decision because he thinks homosexuals are "demeaned" because homosexual unions are treated differently than heterosexual unions are that is crap. He's injecting his personal philosophical opinions when he does that. If he's going to say the Full Faith and Credit clause requires it then he should just say that and otherwise shut up. There's no reason to engage in egalitarian pontification.

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

Do you think all sex not for the purposes of reproduction is unnatural?

No. In fact I'm surprised that nobody has ever brought up Bonobo behavior because sexual stimulation including same sex stimulation plays such a big role in their social behavior and they are considered the non human species most closely related to us. Or at least they are tied with chimpanzees.

But the end game is genetic recombination during reproduction. That is why sex and the distinctions between sexes evolved.

JohnStOnge wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

I was not talking about the question of whether or not marriage is a biological function in the post to which you responded. Below is the exchange I was continuing.

I wrote:

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

The response was:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

And I asked if he was kidding in writing that they aren't different. For Pete's sake, they are different. And before anyone says it, it doesn't matter whether or not people in a heterosexual couple consciously want reproduction when they have sex. It doesn't matter if one or both of them isn't fertile. It doesn't matter if they choose to have anal and/or oral sex at times or even exclusively. The underlying instinct that is making them feel aroused in each others' presence is related to reproduction just like the response of having your mouth water and desire to eat something is related to the need to take in food so your body can utilize it.

Having a sex drive directed primarily or exclusively towards members of your own sex is like having a hunger drive directed towards eating sand. I'm not saying we should tell people they can't have homosexual relationships if that's what the choose to do. But this stuff of saying that a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex is just normal variation like having blue eyes as opposed to brown eyes or red hair as opposed to blonde hair is complete nonsense.

Believe it or not, but marriage is more than just knockin boots.

John, let's approach this from another angle ...
You argue that a proprietor should be able to choose who he/she does business and it's fine if he/she doesn't want to do business with someone because of their race, religion, gender, etc. Why can't you apply that same argument to why an individual shouldn't be able to marry the person of their choosing and that that person's race, religion, gender, etc. should not be a factor in whether the government allows said marriage.

A marriage is simply a contractual relationship between two people that is recognized by the state. If you don't want gay people to get "married" than the state should get out of the marriage business and call them civil unions. Churches and other non-state entities can decide whether to recognize the civil union as a marriage if they choose.

89Hen's arguments about how far you could go with that approach are much more valid than yours. He has asked why doesn't this approach apply to polygamous relationships and it's a reasonable question.

JohnStOnge wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

I was not talking about the question of whether or not marriage is a biological function in the post to which you responded. Below is the exchange I was continuing.

I wrote:

It makes perfect sense to treat heterosexual unions differently than homosexual unions because the reality is that they ARE different.

The response was:

They aren't different. Unless you want to say that Flaggy's union is different (in the legal sense) than mine because his wife is of Asian heritage and mine is not.

And I asked if he was kidding in writing that they aren't different. For Pete's sake, they are different. And before anyone says it, it doesn't matter whether or not people in a heterosexual couple consciously want reproduction when they have sex. It doesn't matter if one or both of them isn't fertile. It doesn't matter if they choose to have anal and/or oral sex at times or even exclusively. The underlying instinct that is making them feel aroused in each others' presence is related to reproduction just like the response of having your mouth water and desire to eat something is related to the need to take in food so your body can utilize it.

Having a sex drive directed primarily or exclusively towards members of your own sex is like having a hunger drive directed towards eating sand. I'm not saying we should tell people they can't have homosexual relationships if that's what the choose to do. But this stuff of saying that a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex is just normal variation like having blue eyes as opposed to brown eyes or red hair as opposed to blonde hair is complete nonsense.

Horrible analogy. Eating sand will hurt you, eat nothing but sand and you will die.

Having a sex drive toward members of your same sex will prevent you from reproducing. So will abstinence.

UNI88 wrote:John, let's approach this from another angle ...
You argue that a proprietor should be able to choose who he/she does business and it's fine if he/she doesn't want to do business with someone because of their race, religion, gender, etc. Why can't you apply that same argument to why an individual shouldn't be able to marry the person of their choosing and that that person's race, religion, gender, etc. should not be a factor in whether the government allows said marriage.

A marriage is simply a contractual relationship between two people that is recognized by the state. If you don't want gay people to get "married" than the state should get out of the marriage business and call them civil unions. Churches and other non-state entities can decide whether to recognize the civil union as a marriage if they choose.

89Hen's arguments about how far you could go with that approach are much more valid than yours. He has asked why doesn't this approach apply to polygamous relationships and it's a reasonable question.

Bingo! And while we're at it are bonobos sexually monogamous? We're ancient humans? Isn't monogamy unnatural and egalitarian? I mean why shouldn't the dominant males get their just deserves?

Ibanez wrote:Believe it or not, but marriage is more than just knockin boots.

Then why don't people have a problem with a law that says you can't marry your sister?

89Hen wrote: Then why don't people have a problem with a law that says you can't marry your sister?

Because incestuous relationships (particularly brother - sister incest) cause all sorts of birth defects and genetic bottlenecking.

It's not the same thing.

What ever happened to the consent of the governed in this country? Day after day I see federalists overruling laws in states that were DULY voted on. What is the fucking point of voting if it's gonna be overturned? Can we see the Obama administration's wins then be overturned? Welcome to 1984 and all because some guy wants to dip his dick in the dookie...........

Liberal activist judges shouldn't overturn the vote of the people. Let the people of each state decide whether to keep marriage between a man and a woman or not.