Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12544 Followers
Financial Highway
1566 Followers
Financial Highway
1566 Followers
The Amplifier
7744 Followers
The Amplifier
7744 Followers
George Clymer
794 Followers
George Clymer
794 Followers
anomaly100Aug 8, 2010Submitter
Somebody catch me....I'm gonna faint. <bam!> Thanks a lot you guys!
mapekzAug 8, 2010
TRUST FALL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvU8pGtGayo
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
I'm sorry I hurt you.
spycatcherAug 8, 2010
The people voted, if the vote is not allowed to stand, what good is a vote?
Think about it people!!
hydesAug 8, 2010
basic rights cannot be put to a vote
bille3Aug 8, 2010
If it was already a "basic right" there would be no need for an initiative on the ballot.
This is a very divisive and emotional bill, a perfect tool to minimize the authority of the vote by the people. It has much less to do with marriage than it is about taking control from the people.
How ever it is accomplished the end result is more power over the people and less power over government by the people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mweatherAug 8, 2010
"If it was already a "basic right" there would be no need for an initiative on the ballot."
Huh? It was legal. The fact it was a right was the whole reason for the initiative. The initiative banned it in violation of both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The state can't give certain rights to straight couples, but not gays without a compelling state interest. The state has no compelling interest in banning gay marriage, thus the state cannot ban gay marriage, no matter how many times the people vote.
An amendment to a state Constitution doesn't override the 14th Amendment. You'll have to amend the US Constitution if you want to ban gay marriage.
This is not a direct democracy, and thank god. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
xtc46Aug 8, 2010
@hydes
I am a support of allowing GLBTQ the same marriage benefits as anyone else, but it is not a right. It is a benefit provided by the government tot hose who join together in a religious ceremony. Basically, the gov. is discriminating based on sexual preference if they dont provide those benefits to everyone.
Giving equal access to everyone is my second choice for a resolution. My first choice is to remove the benefits all together. The government has no business dealing withing anything religious.
siskorabanAug 9, 2010
Let's put black people back in chains while we're at it. As long as the majority wants it, it must be okay!
jaytee44Aug 9, 2010
Is it possible that the hopelessly-left views of diggers will ever acknowledge that Obama was a bad choice?
archangelzltAug 9, 2010
Is it possible a DiggPatriot will ever make any sense?
testiculeseAug 9, 2010
Any Democrat or Republican is a bad choice. We know this.
So what does that have to do with this thread?
uncajoeAug 8, 2010
Faux News Fauxed up and asked a question without baiting the response.
O'Really responded: Dammit, we need to reword the question. :-(
funkywitdasystmAug 8, 2010
"Yes - Prop 8 Violates the Constitution and Dogs Should Be Forced To Make Out With Cats"
----| 7%
"No - The gayz should burn in hell and the US is the greatest nation in history! Guns!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 93%
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
No.
O'Reilly responded: "Dammit, give me the falafel-thing."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/oreilly-hit-sex-harass-suit?page=15
marx2kAug 8, 2010
When is this from? There's no mention of a date on this article. I hate that.
ddrskataAug 8, 2010
@marx2k: I think I was in high school when that story broke, so 2006 at the latest. That's where all of the falafel and loofah-related nicknames for Billo came from.
seltaeb4Aug 10, 2010
Here's the full link and background, not just the link to the incriminating falfeltry.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/funny/oreilly-hit-sex-harass-suit
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
No O'Reilly responded: "f**k IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
feelfree86Aug 9, 2010
doesn't being "right wing" mean less government involvement? So would a right-winged person oppose the fact that the government is banning gay marraige? I'm not trying to make a point here...I'm just curious if anyone can answer?
toddfsuAug 9, 2010
The "Right wing" is supposed to be against federal involvement, not state involvement, hence their support for "Prob 8" & Arizona's anti-immigration law. I agree with this point, as long as the state laws don't violate federal law, or person's rights. Progressive states should start allowing gay rights, marijuana use, etc... let the South and Utah do what they want. They'll come around.
SquareBottleAug 11, 2010
The reason the right wing is associated with the support of Prop 8 is because conservatives see homosexual marriage as an attack on their traditions, religious beliefs, and social order. The progressives have a problem with is because they believe that it's unfair for one group to impose it's traditions, religious beliefs, or ideas of what "social order" should mean on another group. Progressives have historically been the ones to push for civil rights (hence the name, and also hence why conservatives insist on calling them "liberals" instead).
feelfree86Aug 11, 2010
thanks for the explanation. It sounds like a valid point, however it seems contradictory in theory.
bmatherlyjrAug 8, 2010
Apparently Faux Snooze thinks that "States Rights" is a passing fad. Contrary to popular belief (and what most people were taught in indoctrination class) the Federal government doesn't have to overturn everything. If California wants to allow gay people to marry,unionize, etc then let them. I find it completely ironic that those who keep repeating that "This is a free country" mantra, are the same ones that play clergy and sentence others to eternal damnation at first given opportunity, or is it
just me?
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Don't get excited. 123% disagreed.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
Yeah, people should really number check those once in awhile. I remember going to the site on two separate occasions during the elections and saw that 114 percent of the country was against Obama. Fox online polls have as much factual content as Glenn Becks show.
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
That's what happens when you go to court to win the legal right to lie.
diggimatorAug 8, 2010
The conservatives who voted in favor did so only because they didn't want to get shot in the face by Dick Cheney and terminated by Schwarzenegger at the same time.
By the way, nice touch there, Fox News: giving only a short explanation for agreeing with the judge and a long explanation for being against it. Stay f**king classy.
therednewtAug 8, 2010
Psst...Schwarzenegger is against Prop 8 and praised the judge's ruling. Notice that the state of California refused to defend the law themselves.
But, yeah, Republicans need to realize that liberty and freedom doesn't only apply to people that think the same way they do. Gay marriage does not have any effect on them.
diggimatorAug 8, 2010
I would assume Cheney would be against Prop 8 too. By "voted in favor" I meant to say "voted in the online poll in favor of gay marriage." Sorry I was inarticulate.
daimposterAug 9, 2010
Scwharzenegger is for gay marriage and Cheney probably secretly is. When his daughter came out as a lesbian, he became very mum about the subject. He's like many repblicans....they are against many things until it affects them personally. It might surprise many that Bush is for proper immigration reform but then if you look closely, you will see that Bush has Mexican family members.
I do agree on your general argument though and the point you make about how Fox News phrased the poll.
funkywitdasystmAug 8, 2010
it's because all the GOPers are too focused on kicking out the brown people to hate on the gay people. they wanna make it an 'us' vs 'them' fight, cuz you can't see gay (well, usually), but you can see if someone's brown.
if you're confused as to why the gays are favored over the brown: gays can (and usually do) vote; illegal immigrants can't.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Came here to say this myself. They don't hate the gays b/c illegals are destroying America now. Don't worry, they'll go back to gay-baiting once they need to rile up their Christian supporters w/ the morality debate.
kaelyiestaAug 8, 2010
I think you are wrong. Both are small minorities and insignificant parties to cater to. What IS influential is the rest of us voters and how we feel about mexicans and gays. More people are fearful of mexicans in both parties as an economic issue, so the GOP is going to pick what its voters(and some democrat leaning) voters are less favorable towards.
The minorities don't matter to politicians, how the majority feels about the minorities does.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
I think you make some valid points, but I'm pretty much convinced that the only thing politicians care about is preserving their own power and relevance. They only give a damn what we think so far as it can be focused to help them accomplish their own agenda- and I believe that to be true of GOP and Dems (although there are a few good ones on both sides, too).
Queers are an easy minority to pick on because we are often excluded from the political power structure and are often viewed as a degenerate pejorative not taken seriously-- how could you take the stereotype of effeminate, wiry men dressed in chaps, body paint, and feather boas seriously? I'm bi, and I have trouble wrapping my head around that sometimes...it's almost like the brightest flamers are trying be a parody of themselves. Anyway, I digress. What is changing are 1) our economic status- lending to increased political power- and 2) our social acceptance- making it more difficult to pick on the small, "abnormal" kid without a negative reaction from everyone else.
So, yes, gays are less feared- to use your words, although, I would argue we're viewed as less destructive/intrusive to America- but that hasn't stopped the GOP from using us in the past as a means to a political end in election years. That doesn't work anymore though because most Americans personally know some LGBT person(s), and we can't be demonized as political terrorists. I also think we're at a point now where the American public is tired of the neocon finger-pointing and a more libertarian feeling is taking over-- still fairly conservative, but more laissez faire and less moral subjugation.
This leaves the GOP in a tough spot because they function in an "us" vs. "them" mentality like FunkyWitDaSysTm says. They have to stand against something to know what they're for: welfare, terrorism, budget cuts (especially military), gays, gun control, minorities...basically, anything "un-American." So, they're trying to keep quiet on the economy because it all self-destructed under their noses and their President, terrorism is worn out, and gays and morality are out of vogue, they're following the new populist sentiment (as you said): the rational argument- government spending and taxation in a recession w/ high unemployment and record debt- and the emotional issue- illegals and the AZ immigration law.
However, as I said at the beginning, it's not because they care what the majority wants, it's because they want to maintain the power they have and regain what they lost. They have no interest in following the will of the people beyond maintaining the image of a popular mandate. Just check in on the gay rights debate for proof: serving in the military, marriage, adoption, minority/hate crime protections. Most Americans would agree that we should be afforded these rights, but they have no interest in supporting it because gays almost absolutely vote Democrat and that strikes at the one thing they want: control.
therednewtAug 8, 2010
The majority does not fear Latinos. Illegal immigration is something everyone wants to solve though.
The GOP will win no favor by opposing gay rights though, except from a group they should want no favor with. I may not be gay, but I'll fight like hell for gay rights because I see how my gay friends are treated. Anyone that isn't angered by mistreatment of minorities isn't deserving of this great nation.
daimposterAug 9, 2010
@therednewt: a country as a whole, you have valid arguements. BUT, a large % of congress represent a small district such as house member or a senator to a very conservative/red state. Most republicans do win favor by opposing gay rights because if the support gay rights, they won't win the senate for that rural red state or even make beyond the primaries.
There are at least 20 states that are 90%+ going to vote a republican to the senate. In those states, you have to be against gay marriage if you want to win. A significant amount of house members come from districts in the south or from rural areas throughout the country where the majority have conservative views.
Until those southern states or rural america changes their views, congress will be filled with anti gay marriage senators and representatives and we will not see gay marriage legalized nationally unless the supreme court holds it unconstitutional to deny gays the right the civil marriages.
gstlouisAug 8, 2010
ALL of the GOPers? Get your facts straight. I, like many of my friends, am a conservative, and we were all adamantly opposed to Prop 8 from they day it was introduced. While my personal views don't coincide with homosexuality, I would never think to tell someone what they can or can't do with their life, let alone make a law regulating such a thing.
I'm not racist, some of my best friends are non-Caucasian. I would never dream of treating anyone who is homosexual or a different color with any less respect than any other deserving human being. How I treat others is mandated by how they treat me. If you give respect, you get respect.
While there are a large number of conservative extremists who never cease to shut their mouths, there are still quite a few of us out there who are rational. The same blanket statements you're making are the very ones that have been setting back the republican party for the last decade.
funkywitdasystmAug 8, 2010
you are what is called an "exception"
gstlouisAug 10, 2010
@FunkyWitDaSysTm
Really? Because by the sounds of your post, there were no exceptions.
wildAug 8, 2010
The GOP knows you only use one wedge issue per election narrative, that way you aren't wedging against yourself.
soc7Aug 8, 2010
I'm not really interested in Fox polls of Fox viewers. That's like idiocy squared.
caramba421Aug 8, 2010
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
nationalistAug 8, 2010
not broken...stopped
smotpokerAug 8, 2010
God help me, i'm about to engage in the 'broken clock' debate yet again.....
Depending on the type of clock and how it's broken, it can be right as very much less than once per day or more than twice a day. If you consider digital clocks with borked circuitry they can be right many times per day or never. If their display is broken somehow they would be right only once per day (if you consider 'blank' to mean 'nothing' which is what '0' represents they would always be right at precisely midnight).
If a given clock is slowed or sped up to varying degrees they can be right once per day or less, and if they are accelerated, once per day or more, depending on degree of acceleration/deceleration.
However, nationalist is correct about stopped analog time pieces, which is what the saying is supposedly based upon :P.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novadeezAug 8, 2010
Christ smotpoker, way to write half a page about a f**king analogy. The sheer fact that you have to have "the broken-clock debate yet again" tells me you're taking it way too seriously and that you're also way missing the point.
graphictruthAug 8, 2010
I thought it was fun.
Mind you, I also answer rhetorical questions. With Great And Terrible Seriousness.
smotpokerAug 8, 2010
@Nova
The fact one is willing to elaborate on the literal implications of a given adage does not mean they didn't comprehend it. Given that you do not realize or choose to ignore the possibility seems to indicate it is more likely that *you* are missing the point of my comment rather than my having missed the point of caramba's.
First, let me point out that I would not have said anything if nationalist hadn't improperly corrected the saying. However, having done so, I felt more compelled than usual to elaborate on it's inaccuracies.
Second, one's desire to actually think about what is being said or done does not mean they are taking them "way too seriously". In fact, I strongly suspect that one's desire to gloss over everything they see, only know/learn them superficially and actually seem to take offense at those who don't implies that they are not taking things seriously enough. Not everything in life is a joke and there is nothing wrong with exercising your critical thinking skills by analyzing what is said/done and what it could actually mean.
Finally, you seem to assume adding more details to something intrinsically detracts from it's intent/meaning, however that is not always the case. In many cases reflecting upon the details can be used to add additional layers of nuance/meaning to the adage to make it more accurately reflect multiple aspects that which it was originally intended for. Granted that this is not always the case but sometimes it is and this could be considered one of them, IMO.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inactiveuserAug 8, 2010
Rabbits have cute fluffy tails
brucealmightyAug 8, 2010
"idiocy squared" - nice turn of phrase! And highly accurate too.
davidnivenAug 8, 2010
Probably just a liberal hacker using a script to vote YES a whole lot of times. This kind of stuff has been done before.
anomaly100Aug 8, 2010Submitter
My day wouldn't be complete until you showed up on one of my submissions. Thanks for dropping by you big bundle of optimism you!
smacksawAug 8, 2010
True, you would know. The Digg Patriots Legion Of Doom are your kinda people and it surely takes one to know one.
Serious question though, maybe you've answered it, but seeing as you came out against manipulation, what do you think about the D.P.L.O.D.? I'm curious of ANY of the far-right diggers see something wrong with this whole thing.
smotpokerAug 8, 2010
As much as I hate it, I'm obliged to digg you up this time (though I have to admit, determining whether it was more likely that you were right about something or Fox News viewers suddenly turned over a new leaf was quite the conundrum).
soleanthiaAug 8, 2010
I wonder if votes were made from the liberal end on this poll.
m1ntb3rrycrunch Aug 8, 2010
Are you saying that support for equality, civil liberties, and the Constitution is "liberal"?
mrcacaAug 8, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
douglasqAug 8, 2010
I feel like having sex with DavidNiven out of spite.
anomaly100Aug 8, 2010Submitter
Hehe! Angry sex?
blacklabelsarAug 8, 2010
would all the gay men please meet with DavidNiven in the shower in 10 minutes?
Thanks!
testiculeseAug 9, 2010
Rofl.
gianpoAug 8, 2010
Actually I can put the lie to your statement just read the comments on the fox site. Are you saying this same hacker created a script to write thousands of comments backing up the votes.
bobojonesAug 8, 2010
> Probably just a liberal hacker using a script to vote YES a whole lot of times. This kind of stuff has been done before.
Probably just another ignorant remark from Davey. This kind of stuff has been done before.
orlandogeekAug 8, 2010
Typical DavidNiven, leaving comments absent any connection to reality. Maybe one day he'll surprise us and say something intelligent?
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
He's just trying to distract his own workings with DP by projecting their system gaming and putting it on "liberals".
It's like a child trying to pass the blame of the broken window on the cat.
dimensioAug 8, 2010
Given that you are a known liar, DavidNiven, your claims are not credible.
davidnivenAug 8, 2010
Get a new comeback, dude. You've been using that one for months now.
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
Nice to acknowledge that you're a liar from avoiding the claim entirely.
And here I thought you may actually 'refutiate' it.
dimensioAug 8, 2010
"Get a new comeback, dude. You've been using that one for months now."
That you have been established as a liar for a duration of time does not alter the fact that you lack credibility as a result of that establishment.
shifty2Aug 8, 2010
@DavidNiven
If I want my own comeback, I'll wipe it from your mother's chin.
boigboigAug 11, 2010
I know people say DavidNiven is a liar .... but how come I never see any examples?
I pay very little attentions to politics. Maybe that's the area where the examples are?
Or, maybe this whole 'liar' thing is politics itself. You know ..... when you repeat a lie often enough, even with zero evidence, people start to consider it as truth?
graphictruthAug 8, 2010
sigh. why don't you ever show up at graphictruth.com, dear? I need a good persistant troll.
Will you be my Phaedrus, David dear?
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
I have got to sit down some week and read Plato.
Dugg for the new word for my thinking.
breadfredAug 8, 2010
Ah David, I am grateful for your insight. I'd be interested to know you sources for your undoubtedly correct accusations. Go on, flesh it out a bit. Give us the names of the people rigging the system from the liberal side.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Buried you for the use of the word "liberal," f**k YOU.
rumbeefAug 8, 2010
That's OUR word! aahhh /s?
suricouAug 8, 2010
With the comments? No.
It's quite plausable that the poll was mentioned on one or more very popular liberal websites. When that happens, the flood of visitors can easily upset the fairness of a poll. This is why you should never believe web-polls.
davidnivenAug 8, 2010
Well, if there was 100,000 comments supporting the YES vote, then I'd agree with you.
But, a 1,000 comments supporting a 100,000+ YES votes? Flood of liberal visitors with script monkeys working in the background.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
testiculeseAug 9, 2010
Hardly, Niven.
Is there a comment for every single No vote?
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Whatever you have to tell yourself, troll.
tiduAug 8, 2010
Um, FOX News polls get spammed all the time. It is probably what happened in this case. For entertainment I read the comments on FOX News stories, and 99% of them are viciously anti-gay.
anawnymooseAug 8, 2010
I told you that your thinking was outdated. Even your conservative buddies are wising up.
malexAug 8, 2010
One of my favorite Facebook lesbians posted that this poll was online, and that people should voice their opinions. So I did.
Probably as simple as that. No need for conspiracy theories about "liberal hackers" and their "scripts." Just people who don't normally watch FOX News participating in a poll, which isn't cheating in any way.
blacklabelsarAug 8, 2010
I can't wait until the Facebook Lesbians go on tour!
suricouAug 9, 2010
Never trust an online poll, for exactly this reason. A single link posted somewhere popular will change the outcome completly.
The FRC once did a poll, linking to it in their own emailing list... and then FotF tried to claim it represented the views of the entire US population.
heliumflashAug 8, 2010
Are we really taking an online poll seriously?
eh123Aug 8, 2010
Here's how Digg works: you take a poll seriously if it supports your position.
ahhhclemAug 8, 2010
I don't agree with that but I think it is funny.
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
I do agree with that. Spot on
mapekzAug 8, 2010
Here's how the entire world works*
Fixed.
graphictruthAug 8, 2010
<chuckle> It's not really whether you agree or not. It's who *disagrees* that makes it fun.
Apparently Free Republic isn't obeying the summons this time.
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
The light of honesty has struck DP, which the freepers are a part of. They're still trying to bandage their wounds and figure out how a new attack plan.
inactiveuserAug 8, 2010
Sitting in this fence is hurting.
swickenAug 8, 2010
I don't think that's the case here.
I think people are more digging/commenting this as they're amazed that fox viewers actually voted this way, not because they feel it means anything.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skyscapeAug 8, 2010
diggers do. The rest of America, no.
valynAug 8, 2010
My thought too. As much as I would like to believe it, its online and therefore useless.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Nope.
stoanhartAug 8, 2010
LoL at answer 3: "I'm not sure, but shouldn't the voters' views count for something"
Either it's unconstitutional, or it's not. There should be no such thing as "Hey, it might be unconstitutional, but what the hell, we'll do it anyways."
motty32Aug 8, 2010
the poll was hit hard by readers of pharyngula, at the very least
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/oops_1.php
fibonacci121Aug 8, 2010
Yes indeed. That's actually how I found it too.
m1ntb3rrycrunch Aug 8, 2010
I had a discussion about this yesterday with my uncle. The best reason he could come up with as to why gay people should not marry is "it's gross" and "it's just not right". He couldn't articulate beyond that. I doubt anyone can, except for some religious dogma that some people spout, which is irrelevant in our non-theocratic nation.
seriouzbidnezzAug 8, 2010
That was basically the defense of keeping prop 8 if you read the summaries. It's gross and against the bible.
seltaeb4Aug 8, 2010
Well, that settles that then.
Let's dump Creationism now. It's long overdue.
durruticolumnAug 8, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mollificentAug 9, 2010
Haha, I was gonna post that same clip. Win.
This clip makes me laugh like a deranged hyena. I love Louis CK.
mixmastakoozAug 8, 2010
By that same token, I guess sex in retirement homes should be banned...
jigorokanoAug 8, 2010
And fat people.
graphictruthAug 8, 2010
Fat camp, or just sex in fat camp?
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Tell your uncle that he's just managed to make fat people unable to marry either. Maybe that'll penetrate.
greevarAug 8, 2010
No, it won't. He's a homophobe and therefore very much against anything penetrating him.
skyscapeAug 8, 2010
It is gross. But beside that point, it is also a perversion of the lowest order. When you make gay sex legal, then the next thing we ought to make legal is sex between humans and animals, and then you start entertaining the question of sex between kids and adults. You tell me where the moral doctrine ends since you're such an open minded thinker. What arguments are going to bring against those future activists when they will tell you that they are born to have sex with animals or children? Of course you will fire away at them by saying it is disgusting, immoral, and plain wrong, to which they will say "Say's who?".
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xixphzAug 8, 2010
Can an animal or child legaly give informed consent to get married/have sex?
dimensioAug 8, 2010
You are appealing to the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. I am curious; is your position so devoid of merit that you must rely upon fallacious argumentation as a means of justifying it, or are you merely so irrational that you are incapable of recognizing that your unjustified comparisons do not constitute a valid argument?
mithrasinvictusAug 8, 2010
consenting adults
kotiyaAug 8, 2010
I hate you. For the love of the gene pool amputate your reproductive organs and stop contaminating society in general.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Oh, skyscape. Didn't you know that "box-turtle panic" is old and busted?
For f**k's sake, come up with something interesting, okay? Not this same old bulls**t that's completely blown away with informed consent.
keithlmAug 8, 2010
Don't you understand that the slippery slope started by allowing heterosexuals to marry in the first place? Once that was allowed, well then gay people, then the animals, then kids, it all starts with the straight people, it's all their fault.
graphictruthAug 8, 2010
FYI: the "courtship" ideal of the extreme right wing removes "consent" from the female ***entirely***.
No male may even speak to a daughter - of any age - until the *father* consents.
So, really, give that theocratic, reconstruciionist ideal - there's no difference between a female of any species or age getting married to any male (or whatever else), so long as daddy says it's ok.
I basic assume your view is "no gentlemen, no jews, no liberals and no girls (Unless you share with daddy.)
There, a nice flaming ad-hominim to keep the straw man warm as he slides down the slippery slope to hell. :>
leftamiAug 8, 2010
By that argument you can't have sex as it will possibly lead to gays hooking up, maybe even animals will have sex amongst themselves which let me tell you is like totally disgusting.
FOX center right???
redline582Aug 8, 2010
First off gay sex is not illegal. Second off a new line has not been defined. As long as it is between two consenting adults then there is no problem so your argument of pushing the boundaries has been invalidated. The same should be said for marriage, as long as it is between two consenting adults then it is completely legal. I think if one of my friends had sex with a morbidly obese 90 year old woman that it is disgusting but I'm not going to prevent them from getting married if they want to. Stop letting your personal preference interfere with other people's happiness.
hexrrAug 8, 2010
I am not sure how people can somehow justify comparing gay marriage with pedophilia/bestiality/etc. Are you seriously implying that children/animals/etc are capable of consenting to sex, and can sign a marriage contract? Because there's no way anyone but rapists and other sex offenders can believe that.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Thats some liberal tolerance Kotiya. Typical liberal behavior. Look at this person get dug up. More proof that it is the left that is filled with hate an intolerance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
So skyscape directly equates homosexuals to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals, and it's Kotiya that's hateful and intolerant?
Mote, beam, eye, etc.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Look at Kotiya's comment.It starts out by saying "I hate you". That right there says it all. I didn't see anything in skyscapes comment that says he hated anyone or wanted anyone to disembowel themselves. Just because he doesn't agree homosexuality doesn't make him hateful. That is something you libs just can't grasp. You libs are always projecting your hatred on someone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Skyscrape called homosexuals pedophiles. He's saying that 5% of the human race are loathsome sexual predators based on their sexual orientation.
You think that's okay, do you? Of course you do. People who try that hackneyed "libs" slur are dumb enough to think what skyscrape is calling homosexuals is okay.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Way to spin things Dip.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
The fact that you don't find skyscrape's direct comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia hateful tells me all I need to know about you.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Skyscapes comment was an opinion, his not mine. Kotiyas comment on the other hand was despicable and hateful. The fact that you defend comments such as Kotiyas says volumes about you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
So telling someone like skyscrape, who calls homosexuals "perversions of the lowest order", that they shouldn't pollute the gene pool any further is worse than calling an entire population pedophiles, is it?
You're rapidly sinking to skyscrape's level.
By the way, NOW is when you get to show me where I've defended Kotiya's comment.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Show me where I defended Skyscapes.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Show me where I said you were defending him, but first you can show me where I defended Kotiya.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
In you first comment you come off with "and it's Kotiya thats hateful and intolerant". Mote beam eye ect.
Sure sounds like you were defending Kotiya to me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
All right, you can't show me either of those things.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Like I said ,way to spin things Dip.
bawbzillaAug 8, 2010
Don't worry dipsomaniac, lynn frequently writes checks his ass can't cash. When it comes to proving his point he runs away or insults you, so at that point just assume you won and politely tell him thank you and go on along your way :)
daimposterAug 9, 2010
so gay sex would lead human-animal sex? I guess with that sort of thinking, working backwards, interracial sex leads to gay sex? Then sex between jews and christians would lead to interracial sex? So that means sex between a white christian male and a white christian woman would lead to jew-christian sex?
Ok, lets make sex between white christian couples illegal since it ultimately leads to the bestiality.
kotiyaAug 14, 2010
@Lynn
I'm not liberal, I'm not conservative, they are both way too extreme and childish and not getting anything the f**k done except for further screwing over the people they are governing. Besides gay marriage and abortion the two parties are almost identical now, anyway, they just word ideas differently.
I hate ignorant f**ktards that are brainwashed by their archaic dying religions to be stupid hate-filled animals. They are dumbing down society and inhibiting the progress of mankind in its most crucial era. It has nothing to do with political affiliation, there is an abundance of selfish idiots on both sides. Most of them just happen to be ignorant hicks that make me feel dirty for agreeing with some Republican ideas.
There are way too many f**king people around right now, we are wasteful with our resources, and it's only the stupid people who are popping out babies every f**king year and that pisses me the f**k off because I have the audacity to want to wait until I can afford to have my own kid and not leech off of the government, and by the time I am ready to reproduce there won't be any food or water left. So yeah stupid f**king ignorant people need to at the very least NOT reproduce, or read a f**king book that has some intellectual basis. They don't usually give two s**ts about their accidental spawn anyway.
And have a f**king sense of humor. That is really the only thing I hate about right-wingers, they are so f**king fire and brimstone serious. No wonder Cheney had like 20 f**king heart attacks.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
scottpigeon - I'll say I'm against gay marriage. My reasoning is based biblicly, but also in Darwins theory of evolution. The whole purpose of a species is to continue the species... something homosexuality cannot do (and therefore is either a random mutation of genes that can occur to "anyone" during development or else the trait would have died out by lack of dissemination through the gene pool, barring it being recessive).
That said, I'm all for allowing them to marry and do what they want to do. I'll keep my religion out of the government and you keep the government out of my religion.. deal? Just because a person has an aversion to something doesn't mean it should be illegal. We don't have that right to say how other people should live their lives. Besides, there isn't any legal or scientific evidence that gay marriage is harmful to the species or society as a whole.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jigorokanoAug 8, 2010
Populations have to propagate, not individuals. A gay person shares the vast majority of their DNA with their relatives. If they can contribute to the survival of their family, then that alone can select for a homosexual trait.
kbadkAug 8, 2010
@scythefwd
"and therefore is either a random mutation of genes that can occur to "anyone" during development or else the trait would have died out by lack of dissemination through the gene pool, barring it being recessive"
Why does this justify being against gay marriage? If homosexuality is a random mutation, letting them marry has no impact on human evolution.
More importantly, you should be careful when dealing with "Darwinian Morality" because it can easily lead you down the path to eugenics/creating a master race.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
kbadk - I don't believe there can be a master race... for the exact reason of darwin. All races are the same genetic structure for the most part. Some traits are passed in certain "races", but that is it. The only way a master race could be determined is if the other races died off... survival of the fittest. The post you replied to is poorly worded, my position is stated a little bit clearer down below. My opposition is personal and based on my religion, and therefore should have no bearing on law. I wouldn't have voted for prop 8. I'll be the first to admit it. I can be personally against something and still support laws that allow others to do that exact same thing... I just won't do it myself.
JigoroKano - that would fall in line with my recessive trait comment. A recessive trait can be carried in a family, a genetic mutation cannot (though the predisposition to a mutation seems to run in families). If it is a random genetic mutation, there is no stopping it and there isn't any reason to discriminate against it. If it is a recessive gene, then there is no reason to discriminate against it any more than there is for blonde hair or blue eyes (both recessive).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whaaamoAug 8, 2010
gays no matter what can't reproduce. them having the right to marry doesn't change that. thus, there is no reason to ban gays from marriage.
also, population has been growing exponentially for decades. it really wouldn't hurt for there to be more gay people in the world...
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
whaamo - sure they can. There isn't a physical reason why they can't. Pretty sure gays are reproducing. Being gay doesn't make you sterile. You just prefer a mate that cannot get pregnant by you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diptheriaAug 8, 2010
@scythfwd - let me explain why we tend to think you are an asshat (despite having articulated you opinion fairly well).
You have said that you think homosexual couples should have the right to marry, but then also state that you are unwilling to offer them that right by voting against it (or equally as bad - declining to vote against it). Thats a major assh**e thing to do.
You would be applauded for saying that you are personally morally against it, but believe that your moral opinion does not belong in the law (well, you actually do SAY that), but then taking the opportunity to actively (or even passively) deny the rule of law because of your moralistic opinions is just such a douche bag thing to do (which you say you would).
So in conclusion - f**k off.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
diptheria - Go back and read again. I said I wouldn't vote for a ban on gay marriage. Repeat, I do not think a ban on homosexual marriage is good. I think they should be able to marry. You do realize that prop 8 was a ban on homosexual marriage, not a vote on legalizing it. If it came up, I would vote to legalize gay marriage.
So in conclusion - you read my post and completely misinterpreted it. So, I'll go f**k off, but you can get your ass into some reading comprehension classes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
diptheria - I can be personally against something and still support laws that allow others to do that exact same thing... I just won't do it myself.
Is that the statement you were talking about?
Let me rephrase it for you
I don't have to like an activity in order to vote for it to be legal. Just because I think an activity should be legal doesn't mean I will participate in that activity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dimensioAug 8, 2010
"My reasoning is based biblicly"
Legislation may not be based upon specific mythological claims.
" The whole purpose of a species is to continue the species."
Please justify this assertion of "purpose".
swickenAug 8, 2010
This will be the first time I've argued on the side of a religious person on digg.
@Dimensio
He said that he doesn't support legislation based upon his personal beliefs. So I don't get what your point is.
Also, the purpose of a species is continuation of itself if you believe in what darwin said.
Most of you guys seem to be misinterpreting what the guy is saying. Stop it, you're making us look bad.
Also, scythe, you can't believe in the bible and believe in the evolution of humans as well. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Unless 'created in his image' meant single celled organisms.
blindbyronAug 8, 2010
Agree with swicken.
scythefwd is being a lot more open and informed than many "liberals" here. Even though he doesn't like gays he wont vote yes on Prop 8 because of the principle and consequences of doing so. He's doing the hard thing - saying no with his brain when his heart says yes.
Kudos to you scythefwd.
harry19023Aug 8, 2010
guys this is embarrassing. sxythefwd is being very clear in that he is personally against gay marriage, but doesn't want the government to impose his religious beliefs on others. He is one of the good guys!
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
swiiken - I beleive in micro evolution, the changing within a species to better suit the environment. The enviroment changes, and all animals adapt to it.
I don't beleive that we all are decended from the same single cell organism.
There isn't any direct link going all the way back, so both will never be fully proven. Creationism can't be proven, macro evolution can't either. I see the similarities in dna structure as a sign of a common designer. Kinda like how houses in a hoa will all look similar because they were all designed and built by the same builder.
Oh, now you have proof of the rational christian, even if I am abit quirky. The way I see it, the bible and science can get along.. one details how things work, the other is giving credit. I've never seen in the bible where someone actually explained how xxx happens... they just say God allows it to happen. Science is just our way of learning how He allows it to happen. The fun part is figuring out how both fit together.
Harry, blind, and swick... Thanks for actually reading what is written instead of what you assume is written based on preconcieved notions of what the other side believes. Wish more people were like that on both sides of the isles in DC as well as in every day life. People like you are getting rarer. Now everyting is black and white, absolutely wright or wrong. It drives me nuts.
jigorokanoAug 8, 2010
Your view of evolution remains incorrect.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
scottpigeon - I'll say I'm personally against homosexuality. Oddly enough, I can separate the person from the act. People are more than just what sexual orientation they have. My reasoning is based biblicly, but also in Darwins theory of evolution. The whole purpose of a species is to continue the species... something homosexuality cannot do (and therefore is either a random mutation of genes that can occur to "anyone" during development or else the trait would have died out by lack of dissemination through the gene pool, barring it being recessive).
That said, I'm all for allowing them to marry and do what they want to do. Who am I to say they can't? Am I to judge homosexual people (not my place according to my religion) without them actually committing a crime? Yeah, I see it as a sin, but everybody does that, sins not see it as a sin, so what makes that one any different from the rest? That's a religious thing... crime is a government thing and we have no place to judge if there isn't a crime committed. I'm against victimless crimes being crimes. I'll keep my religion out of the government and you keep the government out of my religion.. deal? Just because a person has an aversion to something doesn't mean it should be illegal. We don't have that right to say how other people should live their lives to the extent that it doesn't effect others. Besides, there isn't any scientific evidence that gay marriage is harmful to the species or society as a whole.
Time ran out while I was attempting to clarify my post... This is what I meant... the other post is a very poor representation of my stance on this issue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dysfunctionAug 8, 2010
Well, that's fair enough, except the total misunderstanding of evolution. You're entitled to your beliefs, and you are to be applauded for recognizing that not everyone is required to abide by them in a free, secular nation. But yeah, the stuff about evolution is just dead wrong, and even if homosexuality were disfavored by natural selection, why should that have any bearing at all on your moral judgment of it?
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
dysfunction - My personal opinion is that anything that doesn't continue the species is bad for the species. I don't hold humans any higher than other animals in that regard. I didn't say it had a bearing on my moral judgment. My morals are dictated by my religion (and the way I was raised). I bet for the most part our morals align.. I just learned them from religion, you probably learned them from your family... it's just a matter of environment. I see it as against nature because it doesn't promote the species. I see it as a moral issue because of my religion. I have two reasons for being against homosexuality but not all of them are moral. Like I said, I don't have a problem with people who are homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexuality itself. It's a very fine line... but there is a distinction to me.
I don't have to like that you are a (insert sports team) fan, but that doesn't mean I have to dislike you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
batcommanderAug 8, 2010
I hope I pressed the right reply button.
scythefwd, If you believe anything that doesn't continue the species is bad and shouldn't be tolerated, doesn't that mean we should get rid of heterosexual sex too? Unless you're trying to get a girl pregnant of course. The same thing goes for whatever people do for fun too: Golf, Kool-Aid and Spider-man aren't doing their part in enriching the geneology either.
Yes, I had to spellcheck geneology.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
batcommander - where did I say it shouldn't be tolerated. I said I was against it, but my personal bias should have no bearing on the law. I also said if it doesn't affect society negatively, then there isn't any reason to bar it from existence.
Nature is less tolerant than society. Hell, nature is down right cruel. Society has reached a point where it can countermand nature to an extent and allow things to happen that would spell death in nature. If something goes directly against nature, then I'm not going to support it.
golf is exercise and therefore allows you a longer lifespan which means you have more of a chance of passing you're genes on. Sex, in everything but dolphins and humans, is an attempt to pass on genes. The more times you have it, the better chances you have of kids. Humans still try to have as much sex as possible, but we as a society have advanced to the point where we can have it for fun. It is still a natural instinct (the urge to have sex) that allows for the continuance of the species. Kool-aid - food. It isn't good for you, but again it is the expression of a basic instinct (to eat). Spiderman, while not necessary for the continuance of the species, does no harm to it either and therefore should be allowed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
batcommanderAug 8, 2010
Wikipedia has an article on homosexuality in animals here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
It's not common, but it's clearly natural.
I appreciate that you made an argument against my examples, but my point was that humans got along with none of those things for a very long time; they are unnecessary. However, you found value in all those pointless things I listed, but you can't think of a redeeming factor in homosexual relationships? You found a positive for Kool-Aid - Literally sugar and food dye - but two guys loving each other has nothing going for it?
I can't change your religious points of view and I don't want to, but I do think your reasoning for not liking gays outside of that religious aspect should be reconsidered.
seriouzbidnezzAug 8, 2010
Sounds like you're judging already. In any case, as a communal and social species, homosexuality is certainly not against Darwin's Theory.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
batcommander - Homosexual behavior in animals isn't about attraction, it's about dominance. Humping in dogs is about establishing a pecking order, not sexual preference. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
batcommander - the wiki article presents a valid arguement. Still falls under the mutation comment I made earlier though (and they even induced a "mutation" by suppressing chemicals in order to affect a change in the mouse).
seriouzbidnezz - Just because the species can survive a percentage of activity that doesn't support it doesn't mean that activity is supportive of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
batcommanderAug 8, 2010
In the article, directly after it says homosexuality in giraffes is linked to dominance, there's a rebuttal to this argument about penguins that choose only one life partner, and that gay penguins will turn down a female partner if the opportunity presents its self. The article also says that there are individual sheep, horses, cats, dogs, and rams that will only mate with a same sex partner. Dominance can definitely play a part, but that's not always the case.
You're very right that it's probably a mutation, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Evolution has taught us that everything we have was a mutation at some point: eyes, ears, hands, hunger, thumbs, self-preservation instincts... everything. All these things were strange and different when they first popped up, and they were all just dna accidents. We should learn to accept them all.
testiculeseAug 9, 2010
"Homosexual behavior in animals isn't about attraction, it's about dominance. Humping in dogs is about establishing a pecking order, not sexual preference."
What you say about dogs is correct, but you're blending the two, which is incorrect.
salculdAug 8, 2010
The only non-religious argument I have ever heard is that it's a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy or otherwise allowing marriage between people and animals, or people and extremely young children, or people and... I don't know, tables I guess. That sort of thing.
(Ass-covering disclaimer: Not that I agree with that standpoint. I just report them, I don't make them up.)
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
I've heard those arguments before, and they're pretty easily debunked. Marriages between a person and an animal, a young child, or... a table, are not between two /consenting/ adults. None of them can sign a contract and/or fully understand the implications marriage. It's really simple. As for polygamy, that's a completely cultural aversion.
amaoicanAug 8, 2010
I'll tell you why we shouldn't let homosexuals get married: Because the word "marriage" refers to a relationship between a man and a woman - it always has. I am all for creating a separate and equivalent concept for when two men decide to enter into a legal arrangement to incorporate assets and all that jazz, and I believe it should be given the same legal recognition in every respect as a marriage. But why does it need to use the same god damn word?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whatever01Aug 8, 2010
Because separate but equal is never equal. The creation of a second class of citizens is anathema to freedom.
akairennAug 8, 2010
"I am all for creating a separate and equivalent"
Indoor plumbing and public transportation have always been for white folks. But I'm all for creating separate but equal services for the negro. Perhaps toilets specifically for the colored, and why, nobody likes sitting in the back of the bus - those seats are open anyway.
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
"because we've ALWAYS done it this way" is a lousy basis for law, frankly.
Separate but equal has been tried (and failed) in the US before. There is *NO* basis, at all, outside of a religious one to object to the word.
Here's the punchline, gang- religious institutions do not own the concept of marriage. It goes back farther than that, and if we *really* want to be technical isn't about religion at all, but about asset management.
amaoicanAug 8, 2010
I don't think you guys are understanding me. I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a linguistic argument, which is why I said this new concept/word would be given the same legal meaning as "marriage". There would be "Unions" (which is the generalization of marriage which applies regardless of the genders of the participants) as one big umbrella underneath which would be "marriage" (between a man and a woman) and "whatever else" (between people of the same gender).
Legally, we would recognize Unions, not marriages, and so each kind of Union would necessarily be equivalent. Not equal - equivalent.
So basically it would be like if the constitution had said all adult white men have this and that freedom, and then women and other races wanted to be recognized as being white men too. Well, no, you're not. We don't need to change English to make you free - we need to change the law. And we need to find/create a broader term under which we can all get under. How about, American citizen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
"I'll tell you why we shouldn't let homosexuals get married: Because the word "marriage" refers to a relationship between a man and a woman - it always has. "
In your mind
dimensioAug 8, 2010
"Because the word "marriage" refers to a relationship between a man and a woman - it always has. "
In some cultures, "marriage" references a relationship between a man and multiple women. For what reason should this definition not be used as a basis for law?
" I am all for creating a separate and equivalent concept for when two men decide to enter into a legal arrangement to incorporate assets and all that jazz, and I believe it should be given the same legal recognition in every respect as a marriage."
"Separate but equal" is Unconstitutional.
amaoicanAug 8, 2010
All right, then I guess women are men too, right? I mean, we are all people, so men are women and women are men. And people are dogs and vice versa since we're all really just animals. And we're all just s**t since s**t and animals are really just matter.
Oh, and btw, just saying that homosexuals can get married doesn't mean the homosexual marriages will be treated equivalently to the traditional marriages. Turning slaves into free men didn't end discrimination against slaves, did it?
I'm calling for equality (make a same sex union equivalent to a mixed sex union), and all y'all seem to want is to CALL it the same thing (let's use the same term for same sex unions as for mixed sex unions).
testiculeseAug 9, 2010
"Legally, we would recognize Unions, not marriages, and so each kind of Union would necessarily be equivalent. Not equal - equivalent."
To this, I agree. The law should not be recognizing marriages at all. All religious people can get married in a church, then go to the courthouse and get a legal union application.
Personally, I don't think the government should be in it at all. There should be no special dispensation just because two people are holding hands.
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
"It's gross and unnatural according to the bible"
People shouldn't use the bible as a reference for nature considering it is chock full of talking snakes and boats full of animals not fighting and eating each other
anotheredheringAug 8, 2010
but its got zombies in it!
kisonAug 8, 2010
Most people I've met who try to justify disallowing gay marriage use religion as their argument. "God made us so man and woman would marry." or something along those lines.
tdogg241Aug 8, 2010
I had a similar argument with my cousin the day of the decision. It took her a while, but she eventually resorted to the "it's immoral" argument and lost any footing she might have had in the discussion.
smotpokerAug 8, 2010
I believe it is roughly 1000% more likely that some person or group discovered the poll and decided to skew it as much as possible using proxies, cookie deletion, spreading the link to gay-friendly sites/forums, etc.
Fox News caters to and is primarily supported by the lowest common denominator of American who has little respect for any form of constitutionality unless it is being applied to protect their own rights/beliefs. There is no way that a majority of them would admit gay marriage is constitutional even if they *all* believed it.
anomaly100Aug 8, 2010Submitter
I thought the same thing at first, then I remembered a submission here of mine recently about same sex being deemed as unconstitutional in a particular state. A couple of Conservatives (that actually wouldn't spit on me if i was on fire) dugg it because state's rights are what they are really after.
txaggie08Aug 8, 2010
Your first paragraph is correct.
As for the second, GDIF.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
God damn it's Friday?
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Grand daughters I f**ked?
seriouzbidnezzAug 8, 2010
You're probably right. If they did a rotary phone poll than the results would be different
shark72Aug 8, 2010
As it happened, I ran across that poll shortly after it was posted, and the results were exactly what you'd expect for a Fox News poll. I picked "yes, it's unconstitutional" and was in the small minority.
It's fun to game polls, but let's not read into this any semblance of critical thinking on behalf of the regular Fox readers; they remain the crowd that continue to bellow "respect the constitution!" while taking every opportunity to demonstrate that they would not recognize the constitution if it broke into their mobile home and did the chicken dance on their NASCAR plate collection.
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
OMG IM ROFLCOPTERING
dugg for NASCAR plate collection
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
I would digg this up twice if I would. Well done.
txaggie08Aug 9, 2010
Yes sir, well done. You are quiet witty and sophisticated. Back slaps all around. I like the part where you insinuate anyone who watches Fox News is a red neck and then that anyone who watches NASCAR is mentally deficient. Texas is pretty much a backwards redneck infested hellhole ( I can only assume this, because Fox News is popular here). Somehow though, we have managed to outperform the rest of the nation economically. Actually we're the world's 11th largest economy. Digg has become an echo chamber of liberal idiocy. Liberalism != Intelligence nor does being conservative=idiocy. Don't take my word for it, look at liberal government in action in California vs conservative government in Texas. Who were the idiots again?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
smacksawAug 8, 2010
Can we already get past this? Separation of church and state is a good idea. Let's get government out of the marriage business altogether and into the legal partnership business. What we don't want is what the Anglicans are facing, which is that government and the church are too intertwined and government will tell the church to grant gay marriages. I don't want religious wackos controlling government to do their bidding, but I don't want government telling churches what to do. As soon as you have that, it's further on down the slippery slope to theocracy. It goes both ways.
The only thing government should have to do with it is to ensure that domestic partnerships are between consenting adults and that if you are getting married in a church, you need a valid partnership so you don't end up with forced marriages or marriages to multiple children. FLDS have ruined that for everyone.
For me, this is one of those things where we need to fight hard and take a stand for separation of church and state. There is an swell of theocratic fascists in the US who are working hard to rewrite history and distort separation of church and state. It isn't good enough to defeat prop 8. We need to pass propositions that define partnerships as a civil matter which cannot be infringed upon by religious people, and religion a private matter that cannot be infringed upon by government, save an exceptional circumstance. This s**t will never go away until we codify these rights and responsibilities.
northmassAug 8, 2010
IMO it is constitutional at the Federal level through the 10th amendment but unconstitutional at the state level. Of course I also believe a state has the right to revoke the marriage rights of straight people, through the 10th amendment, and that the state has the right to legalize polygamy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
orlandogeekAug 8, 2010
The law would violate the Equal Protection Clause regardless of if it were a Federal or State law. As would be revoking only the marriage rights of straight couples. The only way it would be legal in either context would be if *all* persons are allowed or disallowed the right to marry.
gerz1219Aug 8, 2010
The Tenth Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
When the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868, it trumped the state's right to limit marriage to any specific class of citizens, because states no longer had the right to apply laws unequally. Many forms of unconstitutional discrimination lasted as long as they did only because of judicial bigotry. Bans on interracial marriage were never constitutional and neither are bans on gay marriage.
With respect to your second sentence, the states have no right to revoke the marriage rights of straight citizens, because this a commonly accepted natural right -- the liberty to marry. No government may legitimately abridge this right. Polygamy is a much thornier issue, because while it has substantial precedent in other cultures, it also has a tendency to create surplus male populations (the top 25% of men, with four wives each, can claim 100% of the female population, leaving 75% of men without any wives), which creates social instability. Therefore, I would argue that the threat to society posed by polygamy -- the guarantee that a substantial number of men would be unable to pursue happiness through marriage and family -- invalidates the right of the polygamist to have several wives.
However, gay marriage poses no such threat to society, because it doesn't affect straight marriage in any way. The only people interested in gay marriage are already gay, and that is a biological fact which isn't changed by the government's recognition of their marriage.
teebirdAug 8, 2010
We can always depend on NorthMass for twisted logic and utterly bizarre misreadings of the Constitution.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
As much as I can appreciate the irony, the truth is online polls, whether there from fox news or not, are complete BS.
gorftronAug 8, 2010
Dugg for being so true.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
They're*
I've seriously seen 6 different users mess up "there/they're/their" in the last week.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
Considering there are hundreds of thousands of users on digg, they're not doing too bad in their own right. 6 people in a week, out of how many posts??? Either you aren't paying attention or you need to get over the fact that people have problems with homophones.
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
Yeah! Stop being such a homophone. Gay people deserve rights too!
ophelloAug 8, 2010
I judge you when you use poor grammar.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
What's a homophone waltaaron? =))
It's fun to play grammar troll isn't it ftc08, ophello? :D
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
As much as I can appreciate the irony, the truth is online polls whether there from fox news or not are complete BS.
gorftronAug 8, 2010
Don't push it, buddy.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
How awesome is it that your posts are identical but one was dugg up an aggregate of 24 times while the other was buried 12 times?
whatever01Aug 8, 2010
Because people don't like repetition? Okay, there's a comma difference, but it really doesn't change the post.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
That doesn't make it any less amusing to me.
paranor01Aug 8, 2010
"small things amuse small minds" ?
themachine1Aug 8, 2010
I voted in that poll days ago when a Digger mentioned we could skew it.
kotiyaAug 8, 2010
Sweet I had no idea Digg could be so real-world effective. My life suddenly has meaning and purpose and s**t. Rockin.
mattnfAug 8, 2010
Except Digg was only 1 site of many who votespammed the poll. 4chan, Pharyngula, Reddit and others all did the same thing
kotiyaAug 8, 2010
That also makes me happy. Influence and the like.
wkrausmannAug 11, 2010
Stuffing the ballot box.
alabamasucksAug 8, 2010
Typo, Fox meant to say 17% ;)
diptheriaAug 8, 2010
1.7%
alabamasucksAug 8, 2010
.17%
freezo1994Aug 8, 2010
.017%
greevarAug 8, 2010
0%
fdsa1342Aug 8, 2010
-0.17€
matt174eAug 8, 2010
-8999%
wkrausmannAug 11, 2010
-0%
angelbunnyAug 8, 2010
Vote No if you want the poll to be heard on fox news/fox radio. Vote Yes if you want the poll to disappear from fox's database shortly.
jewbacca117Aug 8, 2010
and here we have another fox poll hijacked by 4chan...
vonsamaAug 8, 2010
I wouldn't count on that. I would hope that is the case but I'm not betting on it.
bfunk88Aug 8, 2010
i know for a fact that 4chan was working on it a few nights ago before the poll closed. i know because i participated.
jewbacca117Aug 8, 2010
as did i. im surprised progressive nation fell for it. fox news is still the septic tank of propaganda we know and love
vonsamaAug 8, 2010
My faith in humanity has been restored then... well, close enough.
paduraAug 8, 2010
It is the case, I have seen it. reddit and 4chan...
malexAug 8, 2010
What, because Channers are such supporters of gay equality?
ykballAug 8, 2010
uh, if you saw awesomejustin's comment in http://digg.com/world_news/Breaking_Prop_8_Ruled_Unconstitutional which said "I think it would be hilarious if Digg managed to flip this pole in support of the judges ruling:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-g ..." then you would know why 71% of the people who took the poll think prop 8 is unconstitutional.
trentdeuxAug 8, 2010
Wait aren't you supposed to say "faux" news to be properly cool? And then explain how it is pronounced to be even cooler? And then add some off topic bash on Sarah Palin to really take the cake???Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Aug 8, 2010
its Fux News, because thats what they do.
your pathetic attempt at some sort of dig at liberals is pathetic tho.
i guess it's hard to come up with the clever talking points and jabs without someone spoon feeding them to you
trentdeuxAug 8, 2010
Hey pal I come up with all my own talking points, thank you.
"Fux" news? What does that even mean???
nationalistAug 8, 2010
dugg for fux news
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
Sound it out.
trentdeuxAug 8, 2010
you guys are going right back to grade school on this one aren't you
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
TrentDeux - You didn't like a comment so you claimed to have no idea what it meant isn't grade school in your opinion? I actually watch fox news and still thought it was funny.
particleman420Aug 8, 2010
"Sound it out."
Faux is pronounced "Foe"
altho it's still an accurate name.
particleman420Aug 8, 2010
i would have taken the opportunity i gave you to put the blame for you sorry little comments on someone else!
waltaaronAug 8, 2010
DONT F**K WITH PALIN SHE IS A MOMMA GRIZZLEY BEAR AND HER PUSSY IS SOO TIGHT SHE RETARD-IFIED HER BABY WHEN SHE S**T IT OUT
digg2point0Aug 8, 2010
Since when is Fox News "center-right"?
rhawk187Aug 8, 2010
They said the viewers, not the pundits. It's the highest rated cable news channel, if all the viewers were far right, then that would make it seem like the only ones who choose to be politically literate were hard-line conservatives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maxell101Aug 8, 2010
There is only one word to describe your comment...Doh!
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Watching Fox News does in no way equate to being politically literate.
tiduAug 8, 2010
Highest rated means that they angered and frightened enough old white people to keep them coming back for more.
hydesAug 8, 2010
and are causing enough laughter from the left to keep them entertained
particleman420Aug 8, 2010
they're "center-right" just like they're a "majority"
maxell101Aug 8, 2010
...and like they're ratings make them an accurate reporting "news" station.
oarfanAug 8, 2010
the Christian majority!
melikbilgeAug 8, 2010
When they can say they're "fair and balanced" and have people actually believe that, I think they can call themselves anything.
theskunkmonkeyAug 8, 2010
If you have to call yourself "Fair & Balanced", chances are, you're neither.
davidtcAug 8, 2010
Thinking that poll is real is like believe theonion news story. Progressivenation.us, you fail.
particleman420Aug 8, 2010
its a fox poll
so Fox Failed. big surprise there
ultar6Aug 9, 2010
You are correct sir. Fox News as a source of news is pretty much equivalent to The Onion.
ghostalkerAug 8, 2010
Be advised, there's a 71% probability of error.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
It's Fox. I'm looking at a 115% probability.
nepidaeAug 8, 2010
Then why didn't they vote against it?
(I think it is unconstitutional too)
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Mormons. Utah. Church Of Latter-Day Scumbags.
nepidaeAug 9, 2010
Utah residents cannot vote in cali elections, so why did the californians stay at home? If they actually gave a s**t about this like they should you would think they would vote. Hell I'm pretty sure legally you are allowed to leave work to vote and not be counted as absent.
jdenzerAug 8, 2010
Is it possible that the younger Fox Viewers share the same belief as younger liberals when it comes to same sex marriage? And the older generation is just a dying breed? I am guessing this will not be an issue in 20years when the Pat Buchanans of the country are no longer in charge.
indigo2Aug 8, 2010
No.
notthatnoiseAug 8, 2010
trust me, the younger ones are worse.
scabnabbitAug 8, 2010
Even certain relations that are hard core conservative mentioned a sermon about how it's important to accept everyone (Including gays).
:O
I was f**king shocked.
At that point I didn't know if there had been a fundamental shift or an attempt to meet my progressive view halfway.
I guess I finally got my answer.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Look, they're either civil rights or they're not. There's no such thing as "gay civil rights". They're talking about civil rights that are being denied to homosexuals.
Being gay should not be what decides what rights you have protected. There's a better case for your religion being that deciding factor.
cartman86Aug 8, 2010
Hardly scientific. A variety of reasons other than well "reason" are possible.
cartman86Aug 8, 2010
Yep vote me down. The site was invaded by 4chan and Pharyngula exactly what I was expecting.
illestlyricsAug 8, 2010
If Fox News says it then you know its as good as gold which ironically fox news hosts love to shell even though a lot of the companies aren't legit.
stark222000Aug 8, 2010
I'm just going to assume they thought Prop 8 means for gay marriage
kotiyaAug 8, 2010
I wonder how many Californians thought that too >< I mean come the f**k on, people, being able to love and live your life with someone is one of the most essential needs and it's cruel to try and deny someone that.
And if the bible humpers hate the gays so much, let them marry. They are having sex anyway and isn't doing it out of wedlock so much worse than if they were married? That's in the bible too right? Same page as stoning people alive for wearing a cotton blend T-shirt or boiling goat meat in milk or what ever?
jabbrwockeyAug 8, 2010
I've always thought it would be easier to have civil unions represent the same creation of a financial unit as marriage.
But both sides think this is unacceptable.
kotiyaAug 9, 2010
@ JabbrWockey:
It does seem like the most simple solution, but it is not without its faults.
For one, there is the matter of the separation of church and state. One religion or one group of very similar religions should NOT be allowed to dictate the policy that effects the rest of the country. They say it's against THEIR Bible, that's THEIR problem.
Second, it's about equal rights, kind of like when interracial marriage was illegal. Maybe they get the same benefits with a civil union, but it's not called marriage. It doesn't have to be done in a church or by a Christian minister, but it's ffs supposed to be one of the happiest celebrations in a person's life. Let them f**king call it marriage and get their wedding. It's a word and a ritual, it's not going to destroy the entire Christian religion or cause the apocalypse or anything.
piieerrrreeAug 8, 2010
>This is not a scientific poll.
Not much is scientific at Fox News.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Oh, I don't know about that. The talking heads seem to have gotten the art of trolling down to a science.
kralAug 8, 2010
BREAKING NEWS: 71% of automated voting programs think prop 8 is unconstitutional! Coming up at 11, web polling shows RON PAUL will win the presidency in 2012, and the next American Idol you've voted for will be Moot!
lukas88Aug 8, 2010
Right now, someone is getting fired at fox.
psychonaut77Aug 8, 2010
Fox? CENTER-right? Who are you kidding? They're the biggest cheerleaders for the Tea party. The only way they could be spouting more rhetoric for the tea party would be to snag Lou Dobbs to rant about illegal immigration every weeknight.
diptheriaAug 8, 2010
Cheerleaders? I think you mean organizers.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
And by organizers you mean owners.
realcoolguy9022Aug 8, 2010
I tend to agree here, if anything FOX has shifted further right in recent years. The conclusion I have come up with to describe the 'fair' and balanced slogan is that when compared to MSNBC they tend to balance each other out. At least in terms of political spectrum.
Then again of course I agree with just about everything fox says, but I remember my liberal days when I hated fox just like the rest of Digg, so I know where you're coming from. (I really hated them too! LOL)
As for cheering on the Tea Party, yeah, all of us Fox viewers really do enjoy that. All non Fox viewers probably hate it. However I will concede there is nothing left about Fox, and to say they are middle-right is a stretch. They are to the right, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
dauntless1Aug 8, 2010
And they'll be "balanced" just as soon as the others start blatantly making up stories out of wholecloth like FOX does. Sorry, anyone can like any news station they want, but I happen to understand that "lean" and "lies" are two different things.
keraneuologyAug 8, 2010
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/50067634-81/wives-family-sister-kody.html.csp
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
D'you know, you sure are pushing polygamy lately.
Did you make a mistake? Maybe marry someone after forgetting you were already married?
keraneuologyAug 8, 2010
You misinterpret me entirely. I neither advocate nor condemn polygamy - I *DO* condemn hypocrisy and find "persons A and B, being consenting adults may do X and Y because civil rights demands that they be allowed to but persons C D and E, being consenting adults may not do X and Y because other people do bad things" is entirely so.
I will make my position perfectly clear. Again.
IF marriage is nothing more than contract law THEN there is no legitimate or compelling interest of any state or local government to impose undue restrictions on the entering into said contract by CONSENTING ADULTS.
If you simply say "all consenting adults may enter into the marriage of their choice" then you're good. If you say "these consenting adults can do it but these consenting adults cannot" then I have a problem.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kbadkAug 8, 2010
I'm not completely sure of all the arguments against polygamy, but there are a couple social harms to it.
The first that comes to mind is that most traditional polygamy is sexist. One man, many women. This leads to the problem of most women getting married to a select class of men and leaving the rest in Limbo. Bad situation.
Just because its a contract doesn't mean we should allow marriage without looking at bad consequences. Just like incest is bad because we don't want genetically deficient offspring and it isn't fair for these kids.
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
Okay then.
Are you seriously saying that contracts between three parties aren't fundamentally different than contracts between two parties?
And furthermore, why should the government feel obligated in any way to be a mediator in 3-or-more way contracts?
dysfunctionAug 8, 2010
Well, in fundamentalist Mormon polygamist marriages, the wives are often (how often I have no idea) treated as property and subservient to the men, and (as we saw with the FLDS church) are often (again, no idea how often) married underage. However, I doubt men raised in that sort of culture would treat their wives better if they were only allowed to have one, and none of this means we shouldn't allow polyamorous marriages when so many consist simply of loving equals who happen to number more than two. It will be impossible to stop all the abusers whether polygamy is legal or illegal, so we just need to do the best we can, making sure women have access to domestic abuse services and making sure young girls are not being forced into marriages. Key words- consenting adults.
s73v3rAug 8, 2010
@Dipsomaniac: Because that's one of the primary roles of government, is to be the mediator in contracts like that. As far as multiple parties goes, imagine a situation where a group of 5 people are all poly-married to each other. One of them falls deathly ill, or is in a car accident. The decision needs to be made on whether or not to pull the plug, or what treatment to give. Typically, the partner makes this decision. Who would make this decision in a poly marriage?
Its not an unsolvable problem, however it is an example of one of the points where there are unknowns with poly marriage. Once we can figure out an answer, and find a way to stop fundamentalist cults from abusing polygamous marriage, then it should be no problem to have it legal.
keraneuologyAug 8, 2010
@kbadk - are you saying that if 3 women marry Bill Gates they are worse off than if 1 marries Bill Gates and the other two marry a wife beater or have six kids out of wedlock?
@Dipsomniac - that's like asking if a contract between a cell phone company is different than a contract to purchase a house. All contracts are different - the point is that the government should NOT be a moderator unless explicitly requested to do so (legal action in the courts) and should let people form whatever contracts they wish.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Whoa. How inbred is the 2nd from the right?
slocal805Aug 8, 2010
Is Fox News actually attempting to change their biased conservative image, or did they just F&%* up another news story?
superkendallAug 8, 2010
Most conservatives have always been open minded about gay rights. That's why painting the Tea Party as anti gay rights, or racist is so wrong - they simply care about fiscal responsibility.
And really, what has the left done for gay people really in decades now? They use and abuse you. They take your vote for granted and leave you hanging on things like don't ask don't tell. Obama has publicly stated he doesn't think gay marriage should be legalized. So at least vote for the people are care about cutting government spending back.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
heliumflashAug 8, 2010
"Most conservatives have always been open minded about gay rights"
Not when it comes to marriage.
basalcellbosskAug 8, 2010
"Most conservatives have always been open minded about gay rights."
This is a straight up lie.
If the poster really believes this, he is simply delusional.
s73v3rAug 8, 2010
No, he just means "true" conservatives. You know, like "true" Scotsmen.
kbadkAug 8, 2010
what about those racist comments directed toward pro-healthcare congressmen? are they about "fiscal responsibility" too?
dysfunctionAug 8, 2010
Yeah, there've been a few, like Barry Goldwater, and recently, Ted Olson (who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore, and argued for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger), but conservatives as a group have been almost unanimously opposed to gay civil rights at every turn since the movement was even on the horizon. Of course, mainstream liberals were hardly any better until two or three decades ago. Until the Stonewall riots, even well after, it wasn't really acceptable for anyone on either side of the spectrum to support gay rights.
super6Aug 8, 2010
Marriage, the religious institution, is something that is unconstitutional for any state to grant. Thus straight and gay marriages by the state should be banned. Instead states should only give our civil unions and they should give them to any 2 consenting adults that want them, regardless of gender. Then everyone can go have their religion of choice do the "marriage" and no one can bitch. Problem solved.
whatever01Aug 8, 2010
Marriage can be religious or civil, or both. Unfortunately for your idea, the word "marriage" is enshrined in many documents, regulations and protocols, in government and civil institutions, so converting to a "civil union" only mode would be difficult.
markle2kAug 8, 2010
The reality is that for most of human history, marriage was a civil institution for most of the population. The more influence one had on society, the greater the likelyhood the church sanctified the union, but it was not necessary.
I'm all for the Solomonic option. Tell the religibots that "they can have their marriage word, fine. But if you want the civil benefits, you'll have to double up on the civil union." Unfortunately it's just as practical as halving a baby.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
The whole point of a constitution is that it protects the minority from the oppression of the majority. This is just stupid.
We don't care what the majority thinks is constitutional. Constitutional interpretation is a complex legal skill, not a f**king popularity contest.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
The real problem is that the majority doesn't even know what "constitutional" means. Most conservative Americans (and a large number of liberals, though not nearly as many) don't even know what part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, nor do they know the meaning of "enumerated powers" or even what the intent behind "freedom of speech" was.
I've had an idea that I keep mailing to all the congressmen I can, to propose a bill that requires voters to take a small exam prior to casting their vote. The exam would consist of questions regarding the Constitution, the people being voted for, and the bills being voted on. If they fail, they cannot vote. This would A) force people to actually learn objective facts about what they're voting on before they vote, eliminating the "blind vote" that so many people are guilty of, and B) result in a much better government and nation overall, because people would be less likely to vote for something that really isn't in their best interest, regardless of what their preferred media source tells them about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whatever01Aug 8, 2010
As heartwarming a thought as it is, there's a few problems - who writes the test, who administers it? Let's face it, there have been efforts to prevent citizens from voting in the past, with the explicit purpose of disenfranchising certain classes of people, and it really hasn't worked out well. Preventing people from voting in any form of democracy is extremely powerful, and power corrupts.
But you're right, there should be a lot more effort on the part of our society at educating ourselves and each other as to what is in the constitution, what isn't, and more.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Who writes it? A panel of scholars from top universities, chosen by registered party affiliation (so an equal amount of independents, democrats, and republicans, on a panel of maybe 30-40 people). By scholars I mean respected leaders in the field of political science and American history.
Who administers it? It would just be a precursor to the actual vote, if you're on a voting machine. If you aren't a computerized voting machine, then you would have to answer the questions on your own under the eye of the same people that watch voters already, and turn it in with your vote. If you fail the test (I dunno, I think getting under 90% would be unacceptable) your vote would simply be ignored and you would be mailed a letter informing you of that fact and the questions you got wrong, so you know who to blame for your misleading information.
I am aware of the literacy tests designed to keep blacks from voting, but this is not a literacy test so much as an awareness test, and it would help to curtail the massive amounts of misinformation coming from the media outlets like Fox, because if they give voters the wrong information or half-truths, the people that watch them won't be counted in the vote, so their ideology would fail consistently.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
f**k the VOTERS having to take the test. I want to see *elected officials* take the test before they can take office!
Voters have an excuse. The legislators DO NOT. I want to see these people pass a damned civics test so we can see how horrifying the situation really is.
diptheriaAug 8, 2010
@torisutan - You gotta be pretty dim to not be able to see how your proposal would disenfranchise specific segments of the population - particularly the poor. Poverty and education are tied together. Please, think a little, maybe even research a little before running your mouth. You think you are so cleaver cause you read a poll about how dumb Americans are about their constitution...guess what, reading a poll didn't make you smart.
Follow below to see how Blacks and Hispanics would be unequally disenfranchised by your asinine idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_and_race
and
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-poverty/statistics-on-poverty-and-education/#1
After that, if you have any credibility, I would suggest posting a retraction to your comments, admitting your naivety and perhaps saving some face.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Hey dumbass, even poor people watch the news and vote. Their education has nothing to do with their ability to seek out information about the topics they're voting on. This wouldn't disenfranchise anyone except those who are too stupid to fact-check the things they hear (which is not related to education, by the way. Even the most well educated person on Earth can be an idiot when it comes to fact-checking).
This has NOTHING to do with poverty, since every person in America can access the information on elections and bills for free, because it's a law that they must be able to.
Save your horses**t commentary for someone who isn't more intelligent than you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
touristan, I know where you're going with this. I agree in the sense that I also wish that voters were better informed on their choices beyond what they see from campaign-time commercials and their favorite 'news' station.
However, I don't think putting up a barrier to voting is the way to go. It's been done before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
dipsomaniacAug 8, 2010
There are literally millions of voting-age Americans who can't read. How do you suggest *they* take the test?
Or is this solved with "They're just lazy, don't let 'em vote"?
Testing for votes is a dumb idea, for all the reasons others have already put forward.
markle2kAug 8, 2010
Congratulations! You've just reinvented Jim Crow.
There's more than a little irony in that.
anotheredheringAug 8, 2010
the constitution may be that simple in your world (its called a self serving delusion) but it does do more than just protect the minority.
azwethinkweizmAug 8, 2010
The Constitution wasn't written to protect the minority, it was to protect the majority. Do you really think the Bill of Rights was written to only protect a minority as opposed to EVERYONE?
You aren't a law scholar, don't act like it kid.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Wrong, The constitution was written to protect the individual. When you protect the individual you protect everyone. Protect the majority and the minority is left out.
azwethinkweizmAug 9, 2010
Wrong. We the People ARE the majority, what are you trying to suggest here?
bawbzillaAug 9, 2010
The constitution sure was written to protect everyone, lynn! Including women and blacks mirite :'D
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
- Constitutions around the world provide rights.
- Those rights can only be changed or diminished through manner and form requirements.
- The majority does not need the rights protected for them, since they are the majority and can legislate what they want. The constitution exists to protect the rights for the minority by protecting them from an oppressive majority.
I'm not a law scholar but I am a law student. This is basic stuff.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
For once we are in agreement bawlzilla.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Unfortunately that didn't apply to women and blacks at the time the constitution was written Bawbzilla but that has been changed to include them.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
If you get a LICENSE to marry it is a PRIVILEGE:
Blacks Law 7th Ed.:
LICENSE:
license, n. 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: It says REVOCABLE, as in it can be taken away at any time. Does that sound like a right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGE:
privilege. 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal != lawful. Legal has to do with contract law between private parties, while lawful has to do with public law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since state sponsored marriages through licensing is a PRIVILEGE, and not a right, the ones giving the privilege can make any rules they want regarding it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
And your point is??? The state controls marriage as far as tax benefits and other rights are concerned. If people want to get married without the state they can, but they won't receive tax benefits nor will they be considered legal family by the government unless they apply for and receive a marriage license.
Gays should have the right to get a marriage license because the state is not supposed to discriminate. The only people who believe it should are the same people who think we should be a theocracy.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@torisutan:
Capitalization is for emphasis purposes only!
Calm down! You are coming off a bit strong. I did not give my opinion on whether homosexuals should have the privilege to marry, nor whether heterosexuals shouldnt have the privilege to marry. I was simply stating facts.
"And your point is??? The state controls marriage as far as tax benefits and other rights are concerned."
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Tax benefits are not rights, they are privileges.]
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state is actually the THIRD PARTY to a marriage license. Can you believe that? They actually claim to have an interest in the res, (which they have said is the marriage contract).
State licensed marriage is a privilege not a right.
A privilege is a benefit.
Take for example the status of a church who can APPLY for a 501c3 tax exemption, but there are qualifications it has to meet to get it.
There are churchs who dont operate under tax exempt status. They would qualify but they dont see the morality in it. Because you cant serve two masters at the same time. It just doesnt work.
Others actually dont qualify. So it is the same thing. How can the government say one church is ok and another doesnt qualify? Simple. Because it is a PRIVILEGE that they created!
"If people want to get married without the state they can, but they won't receive tax benefits nor will they be considered legal family by the government unless they apply for and receive a marriage license."
Exactly! I also must applaud you for using the term legal in the right context, (most dont).
"Gays should have the right to get a marriage license because the state is not supposed to discriminate."
Gays should have the right to automatically be given a license, (Which is a privilege to do something that otherwise would be illegal), to marry because the state, ( a contracting party, that gives privileges, which is a SPECIAL legal right, but not an actual right), is not supposed to discriminate.
Case Citation needed. Since a marriage license is a privilege gifted by the creator of the benefit, you are telling me they dont have the right to make qualifications?
If so, we have a WAY bigger problem on our hands than just state sponsored marriage licenses.
What should really be talked about is why the state thinks you have to get a license to marry! So they believe marriage is illegal without their permission!
Though, I suspect, as you were saying, it has to do with tax benefits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
No no no, don't worry I wasn't attacking you, I was agreeing with you!
I was wondering what your point was though... lol
diptheriaAug 8, 2010
@torisutan - didn't expect to be replying to you so soon...but for f**ks sake, grow a pair. Ever heard the Shakespeare quote "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"? Well, you just fell for it, and are even subsequently using the same misguided quotation as fact because you believed something someone posted as gospel...shame on you.
Black's is a great resource, but hardly definitive in the reference posted here, especially when looking a specific matters...but look at the products own description (Amazon.com) "Completely revised in 1999, the Seventh Edition of Black's Law Dictionary is the premier legal reference resource. This edition contains over 24,000 definitions, 4,500 of which are completely new to the Seventh Edition." Over 10 years ago, the current age of this edition, they added 4,500 new terms - the 6th edition was published only 8 years prior, how much has changed do you think in jurisprudence in a decade?...Add on to that the the issue of marriage being a right has already become decided law by The United States Supreme Court, and you can see how going after unrelated, simplistic definitions (in this case simply the word 'licence') to decide complex legal and social views is actually used as a distraction and dirty trick - one which you fell for...(still feeling smart after having read a poll about American's not knowing the constitution as well as you?)
Still don't get it? Voting is a right. That right can also be suspended. Education is a right - doesn't stop you from being kicked out of school. Marriage is a right - but like the issues before it, there are still legal requirements to be eligible (just not discriminatory of a class of individual requirements). Please don't be so easily fooled by fallacious, diversionary, sophomoric arguments.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@diptheria:
Please tell me how I manipulated the situation.
If you look at the earlier definitions of Blacks Law you will see they are far more exact in what they are saying with their definitions. I only used the 7th edition, (quite a watered down version, if I do say so myself), because I didnt want anyone to use the excuse that-was-sooo-long-ago-it-doesnt-count.
Marriage IS A RIGHT.
Whether a LICENSED marriage can be considered a right is what is under debate.
If you have to submit an application for registration and marriage license how can it be considered a right?
If you have to apply for it how is it a right?
Common law marriage is recorded with the state, now that is a right. They dont ask permission, they state we are married and we are letting you know.
faderprimeAug 8, 2010
except when giving out a privilege it has to be equally. for instance, if a state gives out educations they cannot exclude a particular class of people.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Well actually, education is a right, not a privilege. I think that was determined way back when, and I'm not sure if Brown v Board of Education had anything to do with it, but I do know that it is considered a right...
I do know what you mean though, and I agree: a privilege must not be given out in a discriminatory fashion. If the requirements are unbiased and non-discriminatory, then it's okay to deny some people certain privileges (i.e. if someone wishes to marry but is underage, they do not get the privilege)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@Faderprime:
If you could give me a Case Citation I would be happy to look at it.
"except when giving out a privilege it has to be equally."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
faderprimeAug 8, 2010
A recent case would be Bush v. Gore. While not education it was voting. Court held that if a state is going to grant something (in this case voting) it has to be equal.
rugrat54Aug 9, 2010
@Faderprime:
"Court held that if a state is going to grant something (in this case voting) it has to be equal."
I read it, but I dont understand what it has to do with what you are saying. If you could post the parts that you believe would help me understand it I would be grateful.
I think it has to do with the procedure of counting the votes? They said they had to read the uncounted votes in the same manner throughout florida for it to be fair. Which is quite suspicious, because it would only be fair against those that also werent counted, but if you compare them to the ones that were counted it is not equal. But it does go with my theory that if it is a privilege, as I believe both of us are saying, they can take the privilege away at any time.
But, think about these other issues that are not equal: affirmative action, college grants, medicare, medicaid, disability, ect. How could you explain them?
If, as I believe you are saying, states have to be equal when giving out a benefit then all of the issues raised above are unlawful. Some deal with race, others the amount of money and support you have, how disabled are you, ect...
How have these programs be able to operate as long as they have?
faderprimeAug 9, 2010
What it means is that while voting isn't a constitutional right, if a state is going to grant it, they have to grant it equally. So the extension of the argument would be if state's are going to grant the right to marriage, it has to be equally. This was first shown when states tried to limit it to same race (Loving v. Virginia) and possibly now with the Prop 8 case.
rugrat54Aug 9, 2010
If you could read my comment again and answer my questions I would gratefully appreciate it. =)
faderprimeAug 10, 2010
I did answer your questions. If you are looking to be spoon-fed information or have the subject matter dumbed down, you are out of luck.
rugrat54Aug 10, 2010
@Faderprime"
"I did answer your questions. If you are looking to be spoon-fed information or have the subject matter dumbed down, you are out of luck."
I already told you I dont understand the correlation is and asked for you to point out the relevant comments of the case for me...
You have not answered these questions::
"I think it has to do with the procedure of counting the votes?"
"But, think about these other issues that are not equal: affirmative action, college grants, medicare, medicaid, disability, ect. How could you explain them?
If, as I believe you are saying, states have to be equal when giving out a benefit then all of the issues raised above are unlawful. Some deal with race, others the amount of money and support you have, how disabled are you, ect...
How have these programs be able to operate as long as they have?"
faderprimeAug 10, 2010
affirmative action and state actors does not happen due to a number of cases striking them down. medicare and medicaid is available to anyone if and when they reach the point where they need the program. Same with social security.
You are confusing government programs with an ability to do something. The case listed is about the ability to vote and have your vote counted. If the procedure to count votes is to not count certain votes, its unequal. If the procedure is to deny people the right to marry due to a trait (race, sexual orientation) its not equal.
rugrat54Aug 10, 2010
@Faderprime:
"affirmative action and state actors does not happen due to a number of cases striking them down."
Not sure what you mean by the "state actors" part, but affirmative action happens and then is later turned over by the court.
"medicare and medicaid is available to anyone if and when they reach the point where they need the program. Same with social security. "
So you are agreeing it is not fairly distributed?
"You are confusing government programs with an ability to do something. "
I was going to say the same about you. You see, going way back to my first comment I proved that the privilege of obtaining a license to get married IS a government program, going so far as the government claiming to be the third party to your marriage!
You have the right and the ability to get married and record it with the state. You really dont even have to do that, for the simple fact that it's non of their damn business! Unless you want TAX PRIVILEGES, ect....
"The case listed is about the ability to vote and have your vote counted.
We both agree that voting is a privilege. Right?
"If the procedure to count votes is to not count certain votes, its unequal."
Is not that what they did? They didnt include the votes that werent punched through all the way? Yet they did include the votes that were punched through all of the way.[You see, this is why I have asked you to post the relevant comments of the opinion of the court so I can better understand what you are referring to.]
"If the procedure is to deny people the right to marry due to a trait (race, sexual orientation) its not equal."
We've been through this: when you get a license to marry you are ASKING PERMISSION; now if it is a right why would you need to ask their permission?
So as I pointed out before medicare, medicaid, SS, college grants, affirmative action, ( though it has been struck down through the courts, for some reason it still happens...), all discriminate against certain classes of people.
If it is illegal to be unequal then how have these programs been able to operate?
whatever01Aug 8, 2010
Nice try, but marriage has been defined as a right by the supreme court (in a unanimous decision, in fact), your opinion not withstanding.
Prop 8 was found unconstitutional on two grounds, citing the equal protection clause as well as equal rights.
When you are a private organization you have a great deal of flexibility as to who gets what privileges. The government, does not have such flexibility.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@whatever01:
"Nice try, but marriage has been defined as a right by the supreme court (in a unanimous decision, in fact), your opinion not withstanding."
Pass it my way and I'll look at it.
(Though if they did declare it a right can you tell me why the states require a license to get married?
And why homosexuals would want to plea for permission to get married if it is already a right?)
Common law marriage is still an option and it is definitely a right, I wonder if that is what they were referring to.
The difference, you see, between the two, is that licensed marriages get privileges, unlicensed marriages dont get the privileges, such as tax benefits like torisutan was saying.
"Prop 8 was found unconstitutional on two grounds, citing the equal protection clause as well as equal rights."
I havent read the ruling, but if you have a link to it I am quite interested. Do you know whether the "equal rights" part was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
"When you are a private organization you have a great deal of flexibility as to who gets what privileges. The government, does not have such flexibility."
If that is true then why do you have to qualify for certain privileges? Medicare, medicaid, disability, college grants, ect.... They all discriminate.
If we are all equal then everyone should get the same. If one person gets 5,000 to go to college then EVERYONE should get it, whether a person is rich or poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@marx2k:
Why do you think you have to apply for a license, (A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful), to get married? (Im not trying to be smart here, I really would like to know your opinion)
Dont you think that would be unlawful, as well?
If marriage is a right then how can they make you get permission before it is legally recognized?
frogman302Aug 8, 2010
I've been trying to get this through to people and they just bury me for it.
They don't understand what the difference between a right and a privilege is.
Nor do they understand the difference between positive and negative rights.
They just spout off the party line and vote anything else down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
s73v3rAug 8, 2010
Marriage has been determined to be a fundamental right, according to the SCOTUS. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, lists being able to marry the person you love as a right as well. So I'm pretty sure we're on the correct side of what is and isn't a right.
marx2kAug 8, 2010
Loving v. Virginia - Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.
frogman302Aug 8, 2010
The two replies are irrelevant to what I posted.
I never questioned whether it's a civil right or not.
What I said was, that many people on here don't understand the differences between the various ideas of rights and privileges, and their knee jerk response is to vote people down.
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
Marriage is a right. The privilege of getting a license to marry is NOT a right.
stillhateyouAug 8, 2010
I don't think we should be throwing generalizations about conservatives on this one. I have a good many conservative friends, all of whom think Prop 8 is a load of horse s**t. Further, one of the lawyers arguing to overturn Prop 8 was arguing for Bush in Bush v Gore. Conservatives may stand against gay marriage more than society on a whole, but it seems to me that they're fractured on this.
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
This has been my experience was well. Even people far more likely to vote conservatively on other issues, think prop 8 is a load of horses**t.
orlandogeekAug 8, 2010
There's a difference between a true Conservative and a Neo-Con aka borderline Theocrat
csfflameAug 8, 2010
here's the poll to make it higher:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/
guitarchitectAug 8, 2010
actually don't - the less it is tampered with, the less likely everyone will be to discount it. if anyone can say "so and so spammed the poll" it'll instantly invalidate it.
diggydougieAug 8, 2010
Just get the government out on marriage altogether.
Gay or straight.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Um, without the government involved there wouldn't be nearly as much marriage, the divorce rate would be ridiculous, and gays still wouldn't be able to marry.
The government provides married couples with tax breaks and other rights that encourage family building. Churches tend to say "get married, pop out babies as much as possible, and never divorce or you'll go to hell", which is a far cry from what America stands for. If you take away the government aspect, then people will be reluctant to get married because there will be absolutely no benefit in it, other than having to spend your life with the same person every day. They will get divorced because there will be no reason to stay together if they don't 100% love each other.
Keeping the government out of things isn't always the answer. Humans are stupid, and they need leadership. They instinctively seek out leadership, in fact. So if you take away the government which the people of America control through votes, then people will turn to the church, which is about as dumb as turning to your local ice-cream shop for tips on how to lose weight, because the church just wants you to marry, and doesn't really care if you love the other person fully because the point of marriage for them is to pop out babies that they can turn into churchgoers.
jefftsAug 8, 2010
If I'm not mistaken, marriage is, technically, a religious tenant. In most cases, a marriage is, and has been, established in a house of worship. Given that, do you want separation of church and state or not? Or is that rule only applicable when convenient for your ideology?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Marriage is not a religious thing. It's been around for centuries, and is really a method of societal control designed to ensure procreation without violation of personal rights. Basically it was invented to stop the constant rape of women and give weak guys a chance to have kids.
In the modern sense, marriage is simply a union of two people who live together to make life easier (everything is easier when you have a partner or a group), and who love each-other. The church wants to claim that it has a patent on marriage, yet this is not the case. If that were true, then Muslims could not be married. Jews couldn't marry. Atheists, Agnostics, and Buddhists couldn't marry. The fact is that marriage a cross-cultural, genetic and ancient tenet that does not follow the rules of any one group of people. To say that it is religious is disingenuous, as many groups throughout history marry for non-religious reasons.
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
@JeffTS
You are mistaken. Marriage predates organized religion. Religious institutions jumped on that bandwagon after the fact, and it is far more about asset management.
bronxelfAug 8, 2010
I personally have no issue with there being far, far less marriage, or in fact with the divorce rate skyrocketing. I don't think either of these are the issue.
What I have an issue with is the fact that we aren't treating everyone with the same due process, rights and respect. I am not in any way pro marriage. I AM, however, for everyone's right to f**k up their own life to be the same as everyone else's.
jefftsAug 8, 2010
I stand corrected. I had always assumed that marriage had it's roots in religion (including ancient religions) and, just as each religion has its own beliefs, each had its own forms and rituals for marriage.
For the record, I'm not against gay marriage. I am not necessarily agreeable to it either but, given my belief in personal freedom and freedom of choice, to each his (or her) own.
scythefwdAug 8, 2010
I've said the same thing to my wife... she doesn't get it. It would completely f**k my taxes... but at least it would be fair for every body. If we're going to give perks to a group of people, then at least make it possible for everyone to have a chance at qualifying for the perks.
azwethinkweizmAug 8, 2010
Hell no! Without the government being involved then there are ZERO benefits to getting married minus the people who are extremely religious and want the ceremony done so they can f**k and still go to heaven.
lifewellwastedAug 8, 2010
4chan spammed the poll
thesonofdarwinAug 8, 2010
As opposed to conservative bloggers and forums? So?
markle2kAug 8, 2010
It was botted on both sides. 4chan and pharyngula simply have better wget scripts than redstate and freerepublic
torisutanAug 8, 2010
Fox News usually gets whacked out poll results because only conservatards actually go to its site and participate in the polls (with a small number of liberals and intellectuals going there to balance it out). Also, it deliberately creates misleading questions and answers to skew the results more to the right. One example is the poll a few months ago about the Healthcare overhaul.
The question was: "How do you feel about Obamacare's effect on the lives of ordinary taxpayers?" (or something similar, but they definitely used the term Obamacare)
So already you see bias in the form of calling it Obamacare, which preys on the irrational fears many Republitards have about our black president. Then they provided the available answers, which were even more disturbing.
1. It's terrible, anti-American forcing taxpayers to buy health insurance they don't need and ruining our healthcare system.
2. It needs some bi-partisan changes to ensure everyday Americans are represented.
3. It's not what this nation needs right now.
4. I don't mind Obamacare.
I s**t you not, these are Fox News polls and answers, albeit paraphrased because my memory isn't 100% accurate. But go to their site and view their polls and you'll see what I mean. When Fox goes on air and says 65% of America is opposed to Obamacare, they're getting that number from their viewer-ship, which is already a minority in this nation (there are far more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, and Independents tend to vote Democrat), and all it serves to do is vindicate what these imbeciles believe by telling them that they're the majority view, when in fact they are anything but. If they would perhaps stop listening to the incessant ranting from the right about the so-called "liberal" media maybe they could see that most Americans do support healthcare reform in the form of a public option because it works great in the other nations where it occurs.
Side note: It always amuses me that they can call non-conservative media outlets the "mainstream media" yet still claim that they outnumber liberals and that they represent the majority of hard-working Americans. You know, it wouldn't be the "mainstream" media if the "mainstream" wasn't liberal.
kotiyaAug 8, 2010
It is probably much more likely that 4chan striked again, and good job on that one... that is actually a funny prank.
Hopefully most people won't think about that, and being spineless sheep they will think it's cool to like gays now.
thuktunAug 11, 2010
It was, at least in part, readers of PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog, who regularly crash polls, partly to demonstrate the pointlessness of online polls, but partly also for entertainment.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/oops_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/foxnews_and_an_already_corrupt.php
gsm54321Aug 8, 2010
I think the right is going to f**k itself by bringing prop 8 to the supreme court.
Right now, it just takes down a state law, gay marriage wouldn't be available to every state, if the supreme court strikes it down (based on gay being a born trait which the research supports) then BOOM gay marriage would be in every state, and a gay could plan a wedding for Georgia with no problem.
The right should just let this one be, by pushing it they are going to get the opposite. (though there is an idea that that's what they would want, nothing would "motivate the base" like that)
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@gsm54321:
"(based on gay being a born trait which the research supports)"
Could you pass on a link to this research? Thanks! =)
gsm54321Aug 8, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/ozhpz2
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@gsm54321:
I was under the impression you were more versed with this topic and had a link or more information ready to give out to support your comment, or at the least make it more educational than posting a citation-less claim and then linking to a little insulting google site which has many unverified scientific claims. My bad....
marx2kAug 8, 2010
rugrat, how old were you when you decided to be straight?
rugrat54Aug 8, 2010
@marx2k:
Why do you think I am against homosexuals?
gsm54321 said research proves homosexuality is a born trait. So because I am interested in the research it makes me, what, homophobic?
It seems like you make presumptions based on little evidence. Maybe you are homosexual and because of the bias against you, you come off strong right off the bat, but you need to learn not everyone who is requesting information is automatically against you.
I read somewhere that people believe it is a hormone deficiency?, ( not really sure if the phrase is actually correct), others believe it is because of family issues, so I was genuinely interested in the research he brought up. I am one of those people who like to find the truth in any issue before I make an opinion on the matter.
So if you have information I could look at I would, again, be grateful.
As far as your question goes, I hope you wont mind me not wanting to post the info on the web.
gsm54321Aug 9, 2010
I don't care, and I don't think you were ever interested in the information and are just trolling like conservatives seem to do as of late. If you were interested in the information, maybe you'd take the half second it takes to google "sexual orientation, and read a few of the posts.
Now do you actually have anything constructive to add or are you going to just be a conservative troll?
rugrat54Aug 9, 2010
@gsm54321:
You're a fool trying to make enemies.... (and no, I dont consider you my enemy, but I think you consider me an enemy)
Just admit it. You dont know what you are talking about and YOU were just trolling. Otherwise you would have posted the link to the supposed research you were supposedly citing.
marx2kAug 11, 2010
rugrat, you absolutely missed my point. The reason I was asking you at what age you decided to become straight was to solidify the notion in your mind that deciding between being gay/straight is not a conscious choice you make at any point in your life. You're born with it.
rugrat54Aug 11, 2010
@marx2k:
"rugrat, you absolutely missed my point. The reason I was asking you at what age you decided to become straight was to solidify the notion in your mind that deciding between being gay/straight is not a conscious choice you make at any point in your life. You're born with it."
It is a flawed assessment though. If I had a hormonal/chemical imbalance since I was born then how do I know if it is a natural feeling or not? And I know a friend who is homosexual and he had an abusive father, his mother ended up divorcing him early on, (before he was 2, I believe), with his mother retaining custody and he has never had a good relationship with his father.
Which is why I was asking for more information...
Have you looked into the information or have you just supplemented you mind with the predetermined outcome you prefer?
tironiusAug 8, 2010
There's no guarantee the Supreme Court will hear the case.
jimv1983Aug 8, 2010
I would like a link to research too. I'm curious what causes people to be gay.
Is it a choice?
Is it caused by the way a child is raised and what their home environment is like growing up?
Is it genetic?
Are people born gay?
I don't claim to know either way although I'm pretty sure it isn't a choice.
gsm54321Aug 8, 2010
http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001335
bigviAug 8, 2010
Some SpinZone Patriots vote bombed foxnews!
faskippyAug 8, 2010
I have no business sticking my nose in the bedrooms of others in my free Country.
tironiusAug 8, 2010
I agree, I really do. It's when they are leather-clad, bare-assed and in-your-face that makes me loathe to help them.
Get government out of the marriage business all together.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
badjohnyAug 8, 2010
There are just as many straight bare-assed, leather-clad, and in your face people out there. if not more. Turn on the TV at any time of the day and its hard to find a woman that isn't 1/2 naked selling you something. Turn on MTV and its hard to find people that are not 1/2 naked shoving it in your face.
faskippyAug 8, 2010
ANYONE in my face pisses me off. Tramps, Vamps, Ghetto Thugs, Preachers, you name it. Making same sex marriage illegal has NEVER and will never alter the number of same sex couples. Marriage ceremonies are a rite, that the government has claimed dominance and control of for itself. I say it has no more authority or right to be commander over this than I do to tell my neighbors that they must grow pink roses instead of red.
tk0680Aug 8, 2010
Out of curiosity, what about incest?
azwethinkweizmAug 8, 2010
Yet you have no problem with incestual families being arrested? Some freedom lover you are.
/serious
//not supporting incest
faskippyAug 8, 2010
Leave it to some nitpicking nitwits to twist the entire conversation to incest. No one said anything about crime or incest. This thread is about prop 8. Remember?
And as a matter of fact, do you actually believe that if someone is depraved enough to commit willful incest, that making it illegal is going to stop them? Yeah. That really helped with drugs, too.
What's your next stupid question about? Sex with pigs?
tk0680Aug 8, 2010
"I have no business sticking my nose in the bedrooms of others in my free Country."
Incest in one's own bedroom would fall under this statement - that's all my point was.
shiftypowersAug 8, 2010
29% still confused on the process of polling