no... he chooses when to reproduce. homosexuals can't reproduce. nature has told him "hey man, you have some fucking awesome genes and super sperm... so fire at will"

if your argument wasn't silly, every single adult would either be 100% abstinent or having a child every 9 months.

You can also go the route of...

"Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges. Legal egalitarianism admits no class structures entail separate legal practices."

Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.

Or maybe, just maybe, reproduction is not the only purpose for a couple getting together and having sex.

Should Utah be able to spend millions upon millions of dollars to impact what happens in California, if it is up to the individual states? I'm not sure where I personally fall on campaign finance, but it does seem unreasonable that Utah disseminated a lot of inaccurate fear-mongering advertisements to change the course of a California election.

It is the primary driving factor in sexuality period, you can't spin it any other way. The NEED to reproduce drives the DESIRE for sex as a species.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you another way maybe it will be a little more clear.

Your body gets hungry because you need food to survive. Food also tastes good, and can be pleasurable to eat. This all reinforces the NEED to eat, take in sustance. Your body does not get hungry because food tastes good. See the difference?

Sex feels good and is something you desire because that's how our species reproduces. So the _fundamental_ driving force behind sex is always reproduction. Now people have sex because it's fun, just as they eat because they're bored, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the whole process begins with reproduction.

In other words, if humans reproduced by peeing in to a pot of hot water, you most likely wouldn't have any desire for what we know as sex but you would sure be driven to pee in a pot of hot water.

No, unfortunately this statement is wrong.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


That does not say 'FREE FROM RELIGION' it says 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' this clause establishes that 'NO LAW PROHIBITING A RELIGION' can be imposed.

Religion was a HUGE part of the founding documents of the U.S. You can find the reference to such everywhere - including the writings of its authors. The authors were not interested in excluding Religion - they just did not want the GOV to be allowed to restrict it.


:

True! And I agree. But that is a separate issue all together. If you want campaign finance reform... by all means get it passed, you will have my vote.

But, that does not change the fact, that the funding practices are not currently against any rules, so therefor the election results are what they are. If we as a country continue down this path of using the COURT SYSTEM to overturn every thing the VOTER vote for just because one side didn't like the outcome, where does that leave us?

Basically, that is creating a society where JUDGES not THE PEOPLE (or their representatives) are making the laws. What happens down the road to the laws you hold dear when your opposition party gets into power and throws them all out via the court system?

do you even know WTF you are talking about?

"Cruel and Unusual Punishment" has to do with CRIMINAL cases. The government is not prosecuting gays.

Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'd be very, very, very surprised if AlienQ could pass a basic high school equivalency test. In fact I'd almost bet money he couldn't.

That's guy's basically retarded, just keep that in mind when you read his posts.

Yes and Freedom Of Religion also means atheists like me also also FREE to NOT believe in anything too. I think some people forget us non-beleivers have rights too.

You see that's why alot of judgeships are for life. So their choices arent weighted by having to get re elected. If you didnt have that you wouldnt of had alot of what happened during the civil rights movement it was judges that stood up to mob rule making sure blacks got the rights they were entitled too.

"what ive become,
a nonbeliever"

love 100 Demons

So has your cousin written back to you yet to tell you to (no offense) fuck off and die? Don't take it personally, but if morons like you are allowed to vote, where will it end? Soon PETA will insist upon a constitutional amendment declaring all native-born primates including chimpanzees in zoos/prisons be sent absentee ballots. Next thing you know the chickens will want a say in it.

Nothing personal, but it's a slippery slope.

do you know what a "Constitutional Republic" is? you seem to favor changing the U.S.A. into a mob rules raw democracy.... the constitution is there to protect the "individual" from the majority, that is what has made the country as great as it is

the founding fathers knew the difference, and they saw the wisdom of creating a constitutional republic
:2 cents:

what's shocking to me is how the line of reasoning of 'what would happen next?'

isn't that thinking about the problems of the world ass backwards? Lets make sure the beneficial and contributing members of society get walked on BEFORE the people that aren't.

How could gay marriage justify incest?

Hopefully so! It would be an amazing FU to world opinion about the 'realities' of the United States. Just as the election of Obama did

Sure thing.
so tomorrow if the people vote and decide that anyone affiliated with porn should be thrown in jail let it be so.

If the people vote that slavery really is good for the country, let it be so. We can get rid of all the illegals by simply buying slaves and having them do the jobs the illegals are doing.

Women voting? Clearly you have seen them drive so they can't be allowed to vote. If the majority rules, make it so.

Abortion? no. nadda. can't do it. Put it to a vote and if it passes outlaw it. Make it so that even if you are raped or a victim of incest you get to carry the child to term and give birth to it. Forget how you feel. You are a 15 year old girl who was just raped. This isn't a crime, think of it as a miracle baby and enjoy the process.

Interracial marriage? Now we can't go having white and black couples making a bunch of brown babies out there. A simple majority vote can put an end to this.

Do you get the point? Judges are there to sometimes step in and stop the mob from trampling on the minority.

The majority of people thought segregation was right too. :disgust

Should we then outlaw all food which lacks nutritive value? Should we tell restaurants who serve high calorie or high fat or high glycemic index food that they are not allowed to call what they sell food any more?

If we are going to go by the logic you put forth about reproduction, then, as a society, we should totally condone rape of any female old enough to get her period. I'm pretty sure we don't base modern society, in 2008, on what the primal urges of the majority are.

It might have been evolutionarily successful to whack opponents hard on the head with a cave rock, but, as a society, we don't let people do that any more. Even if the urge might persist.

well said....

yes, it is sad that so many people in the u.s.a. have no understanding of what the constitution was intended to achieve and how it made this country so great and yet they are so quick to argue their dumbass democracy mob rules theories :2 cents:

You and I were not talking about law, or regulation or society we're talking about the nature of sexuality. That's it. Nothing more.

Simply that homosexuality is unnatural, or at very least, it's nature's way of ending evolutionary dead ends.

The idea that all laws should or will change when different parties are voted into more of a majority is just plain wrong. One of the main functions of the judicial branch of government is to prevent this. American government is based on exactly these sorts of checks and balances. If laws changed like that, we would not have seen peaceful exchanges of power for the past 200+ years. People can use the expression "activist judge" until they are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that our forefathers set up the judicial branch of government to have solid checks and balance and to correctly interpret the meaning of what the legislative branch made law.

The Prop 8 vote was extremely close in California. Basically, half for and half against. A lot of people had inaccurate information when they went to the polls because another state meddled in our California election. If you are saying the states should decide, then I really don't think this was what California wanted.

Apart from everything else, a lot of people, due to the wording of Prop 8, did not understand that NO for for leaving our state constitution as is and YES was for changing our state constitution.

Prop 8 is purely a legal issue. Maybe you are talking about your feelings, but I'm just talking about law.

We are changing the California constitution based on a ludicrously expensive campaign waged by people from another state. Prop 8 was the second most expensive vote in the nation this year. Counting senate seats and all other propositions etc. Only the presidency cost more.

Nobody has to agree on biology theory in order to strike down a patently discriminatory law. The reason why being that we do not base modern law on evolutionary theory of the pre-civilization nature of man.

I would be damn near certain that the issue could be successfully argued at the supreme court level that this law would violate ones right to privacy. Like it or not who you marry is a private matter as long as everyone is of an age of being able to give consent to do so. The age of consent could be set or altered by the states but I do not see them being able to prevent much more than that. If you do not see how it falls under the right to privacy there is no way I will argue it.

that is a silly theory, because homosexuals are still fertile and just as easily able to have offspring, if nature wanted it to be a dead end they would be sterile, and there is no evidence that homosexuality is hereditary, so that a gay father or mother having a child means that the child is 90% likely to be straight

many homosexuals reproduce due to societal pressures and social mores and get in relationships with the opposite sex

Then why in the name of all that's good did you reply DIRECTLY to me, quoting me on a side track that had nothing to do with a Prop 8? Are you touched or just a little slow?

If your point is that your post was off-topic, then, uhm, okaaaaaaay.

I understood your point to be that biology argued in favor of banning gay marriage.

My point, in case you missed it, is that, in the United States of America and the State of California, in 2008, we do not make law based on theories of the primitive biology of man thousands of years ago.

Your statement would make a lot more sense if we were a democracy. We're a republic though, and the reason we are is to avoid exactly what you wrote above. A majority of the people discriminating against the minority.

Again with the democracy stuff. Seriously, this is Civics 101 here guys. We learn this in 7th grade.

Um are you agreeing or disagreeing with what he said?

That's not true at all.

Thomas Jefferson who was one of the most influential people behind our founding documents expressely stated the separation of church and state.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

James Madison wrote "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history".

The Treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was written by many of our founding fathers.

Religion had no impact in our founding documents. It was a very secular document. They did this to protect religion in fact. They knew that including religion in the government would restrict the religions of those who were not counted. That is why they made countless statements about the separation. Religion has no business inside our government.

And even if they had written in the documents that we should all believe in God and go by his rule, it wouldn't be relevant today. We're over 200 years removed from that time. Science has shown those religions to be fairy tales. The country would need to change and adapt to survive. Basing every decision off the documents of our founding fathers is suicide.

I'm disagreeing with his use of the word democracy. We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The whole concept of a republic is to avoid the pitfalls of majority rules. Our founding fathers hated the concept of a democracy.

OK. Just checking as what you said could be taken either way if someone did not know the answer about democracy and republic and rights of the individual over the majority.

That`s bullshit. Marriage existed before church or state was formed. Even most primitive tribes have their own marriage ceremonies. And it is always between guy and woman.

Another bullshit it`s your claims that banning gay marriage is a form of discrimination.
Homosexual guy can marry woman and lesbian woman can marry guy - they have equal rights as heterosexuals.

Well don't come in here with your FACTS and READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS! We don't need none of that.

Actually, sexual acts are used by many different animals, including some of our closest relatives, as bonding. Same sex individuals and opposite sex individuals who are not currently fertile will "have sex" or do things with the sex organs, none of which leads to reproduction. It's actually very interesting and ties into some other social structure issues which vary from species to species at times.

That shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge toward evolution and how it works.

are you fucking retarded? really? you think you are clever by directing attention away from real arguments will moronic, played out, 3rd grade semantics?

let me help you out in another way so that even you, a total fucking idiot can understand the idea that was being expressed that everyone but you understood. people vote in free elections and elect people who represent their values/political positions to represent them in our government. the government is a reflection of the will and values of the people. proposition 8 didn't get voted down by whaling captains in Norway or by the King of Eskimos... it got voted down by residents of California who chose to vote.

i'm not saying you can't suck a cock and push some little twinks shit in. please... i'm all for you exercising your right to do so. don't think i have any intention of telling you what cock to suck, where, how or why. do what you want. its the stupidity that i have a problem with.