Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

Feel free to provide the quotes to substantiate your claim.

I know I have done so.

 

I'm sorry Dix, that actualy came out the wrong way. I meant we don't need you here to argue you case....not that we don't need YOU here.


And also, discussing what you say between us lefties here IS a fine example of focusing on the topic.

 

????? Wow, did you miss the point by miles. Marriage inhibits procreation.

 

You are not discussing what I say

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing in your quotes contradicted a thing I and the same court stated, they only confirm it.

"Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation"

Im sure the meaning of "targets" will escape you as well. Their entire argument is based upon the claim that laws limiting marriage to men and women "target" homosexuals with the "purpose", the "intent" to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

 

jpevans.....this an example of a Dixon modus operandi that I call "turning the jacket inside out".

Dix will get obtuse and try and spin the tables on you because he doesn't have a reasonable answer that makes sense to humans

 

I would have thought my answer was obvious, NO. Now if you can, string together a few words to state why my answer isn't reasonable

 

Now we are speaking of Prop 8?

Prop 8 was of course intended to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

You don't have an argument. They've all been refuted on here and rejected by the courts m

 

Prop 8 specifically targeted homosexuals with the intent to disparage and up injure them.

 

I switched to YOUR quotes you referred to.

Nonsense. It intended to keep marriage as it had always been until the California courts created a right to gay marriage.
Had California courts created a right to plural marriage and the people respond with a constitutional amendment limiting marriages to just one per person, the fact that it was 99% Mormons rushing to get plural marriage doesn't create an intent to discriminate against Mormons. The Mormons desire for plural marriage doesn't magically create this right to plural marriages. An intent to limit marriages to just one per person, doesn't become an intent to "disparage and injure" Mormons just because it is Mormons who are challenging the prohibitions against plural marriage. Just as an intent to limit marriage to men and women, doesn't become an intent to exclude homosexuals, because it is homosexuals challenging the limitation.

 

The only thing that has "always been" about marriage is that is has been constantly changing. Each generation seems to practically redefine it, and it has meant (and still means) very different things across cultures. From the encouragement of incest, to polygamy, to having a purpose of alliance forming, to free-choice rather than arrangement, to love rather than necessity, to equality rather than male ownership of the wife...only a fool would say marriage has "always been" anything. Marriage did not originate in mid-20th century America.

 

Perfect arguement. That basically refutes the "discrimination" arguement.

 

No one here has refuted any such thing. Most of these recent court cases creating gay marriage usually don't even bother refuting it and instead simply reject it.
This is one problem I think in our judicial system in that appellate courts and supreme courts don't question the factual determinations made by the lower courts and instead only question the legal determinations.

 

Its a dangerous precedent that would give courts too much power. They can now award rights thru judicial decision to select groups, and if the legislature or people by referendum reverse that decision, the courts can then claim the legislation or amendment was intended to "disparage and injure" that select group they chose to award rights to.

 

Actually the Mormons thought they were saving gays. They figured if they prevented gays from being married in the eyes of God...maybe God wouldn't be so pissed at them on judgement day.......

At any rate, Prop 8, and all other gay marriage bans redefine marriage by creating exclusions for gays that didn't exist before.

 

The ban was of any marriage of the same sex and it had existed since California enacted it's first marriage laws in the 1800s. Read the text of prop 8. You wont even find a mention of sexual orientation.

 

Myself and about 6 others have routinely done so

It's an invalid argument, and the courts have specifically rejected them.

Meanwhile, the courts have routinely dismissed your arguments.

 

The courts are not awarding rights. The people already have them via the Us constitution. The bans violate the constitution.

This is basic 6th grade civics you are unable to grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

They were not excluded until the ban was in place.

 

I just said they rejected them. I also said they usually don't even bother refuting it. At most, pointing to an elderly couple allowed to marry and dismissing it on that basis alone.

 

Which refutes your argument, lol

 

Gay marriage was never legal throughout US history, until the 21st century.

 

When did marriage laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman first violate the Constitution? When they were enacted in the 17 and 1800s? When the first gays in 1970s got the idea they would like to marry?

 

Yes, but prop 8 never mentions sexual orientation.

 

It was never banned until the 1970s

 

It wasn't legal ANYWHERE in the US before the 21st century