World Events
Topic: Schwarzenegger To Oppose Same Sex Marriage Ban

#	Author	Message
91	BlueDevilSF Thu 4/17/2008 11:42a	>>Um, can't we make the slippery slope (if there is one) vanish by making the law clear? "marriage can be between 1 consenting unmarried adult HUMAN (for you bestiality weirdos) to 1 consenting unmarried adult human".<< SHHHHH! You're damaging the wingnuts' platform of reason! ;)
92	ecdc Thu 4/17/2008 12:21p	>>But you said it HAD happened in Massachusetts. Wrong again.<< Of course, none of us is really surprised. I knew from the moment I read it that woody had no evidence. I at least expected him to link to some bigoted commentary on gay marriage that put forth this possibility. He has a fine history of making absurdist claims (like Islam is more privileged that Christianity in America's college campuses) then when challenged on it, linking to stories that in no way actually support his statements. Truthiness, folks. It's all truthiness.
93	SingleParkPassholder Thu 4/17/2008 12:34p	"<I've said it countless times here.> And it's no more true now then it was any of the other times you said it." Do you even know what you're responding to anymore or are you just being contrary for the sake of it? You couldn't be more wrong here. The system of checks and balances will obviously come into play here. Any law or ballot measure passed will ultimately have to withstand judicial muster. That's the way our system works. Consequently, only cogent legal analysis need apply when it comes to this issue. Leave your pets, relatives and irrational fears at the door.
94	WritingDork Thu 4/17/2008 1:06p	"I think we need a constitutional amendment so that foreign-born citizens can run for president, but not about gay marriage," Wow... thats kinda frightening... well kinda... The person who can barely get elected to "Gov'ner"(you have to say it in his accent) wants to be president...
95	Dabob2 Thu 4/17/2008 1:36p	>>But you said it HAD happened in Massachusetts. Wrong again.<< <With gay marriage, it has happened as precedence as how polygamy could be argued.> By that line of reasoning, any law "could be" precedent of any other. Truthiness indeed. >>Also, someone has to challenge the law for the law to be changed via the courts. A polygamist would have to challenge his right to multiple spouses.<< <Haven't I been saying this?> But apparently not understanding how it works. Look up the concept of "standing" and how it would apply in this case. >>Given our history, his chances would not be good.<< <Given how gay marriages is argued in Mass, it is more likely there than not.> No. Again, you demonstrate you don't understand. The Mass. case was decided on equal protection of the law. Polygamy wouldn't fall under this, as polygamy is not intrinsic to any individual. >>I can say with certainly that it hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to, for the reasons I gave above.<< <Probability of it happening is less likely due to recent court rulings with the exception of Massachusetts, but it is still possible despite any arguments you're making.> You don't understand the law either. <Again you're ignoring my paragraph "It's innate to want to be with several women at the same time, but even if you disagree, the same standard that gays would want to be regarded should be respected unless you think it is different, then it is rather inconsistent."> I didn't ignore it, I responded to the first part by saying that desire to be WITH several women at the same time is not the same as wanting to be legally married to them at the same time. And I responded to the second part in #87 (4th and 5th paragraphs). >>It's trying to say that polygamy has anything to do with basic sexual orientation that is inconsistent.<< <And you think I'm narrowminded.> It's not narrowminded to say an apple is not an orange. Your sexual orientation is intrinsic. You're being straight is intrinsic to you. You didn't choose it, you didn't do anything to make it happen, it just IS. How many women you can legally marry is a social/legal arrangement and is not intrinsic to you. Get it now?
96	woody Thu 4/17/2008 1:38p	>>Of course, none of us is really surprised. I knew from the moment I read it that woody had no evidence. I at least expected him to link to some bigoted commentary on gay marriage that put forth this possibility.<< If you don't already know, I'm making an argument about the slippery slope. Funny how it gets lost when you're hung up about perceived "bigoted" comments. Nonetheless, the irony is the inconsistency in how polygamy is dismissed as a concern or described as not intrinsic. >>He has a fine history of making absurdist claims (like Islam is more privileged that Christianity in America's college campuses) then when challenged on it, linking to stories that in no way actually support his statements.<< I did provide links to this subject. You fail to acknowledge it and that is your mistake.
97	DAR Thu 4/17/2008 1:47p	I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've stood up in ten weddings since I was about 21. Six of those couples are no longer together. My dad has three brothers including himself, my parents are the only one's married. I've also had other relatives and friends who have either gotten divorced or a separated. If gay people want to marry they certainly can do no worse than us on the heterosexual side have done.
98	woody Thu 4/17/2008 1:50p	>>By that line of reasoning, any law "could be" precedent of any other.<< Gay marriage was decided in the courts in Canada and Mass, which are two completely different courts with the same result. >>Polygamy wouldn't fall under this, as polygamy is not intrinsic to any individual.<< I wouldn't rule it out with an innovative interpretation. Also, another standard could be used. The Supreme Court decided that gay relationships cannot be prosecuted under privacy laws, similar to abortion. It takes a step by step methodical approach. >>You don't understand the law either.<< Gosh, as if you do?
99	Dabob2 Thu 4/17/2008 2:01p	>>By that line of reasoning, any law "could be" precedent of any other.<< <Gay marriage was decided in the courts in Canada and Mass, which are two completely different courts with the same result.> But that shows only that two different courts can come to similar decisions on the SAME matter. Not on a different matter. >>Polygamy wouldn't fall under this, as polygamy is not intrinsic to any individual.<< <I wouldn't rule it out with an innovative interpretation.> You won't rule it out because it suits your little theory and your irrational fears. But both our long-term and short-term history show this as highly unlikely. There's never been a court decision in the US, as far as I know, in favor of polygamy. Where it was practiced it was either illegal or outside of US law. And more recently, I don't believe there is anything winding its way through the lower courts on the subject. Of course, there are many same-sex marriage cases there now. So either looking at long-term history or what's actually happening now reveals your fears to be unfounded. <Also, another standard could be used. The Supreme Court decided that gay relationships cannot be prosecuted under privacy laws, similar to abortion.> Not quite. It had nothing to do with gay relationships, but rather sex. It used to be illegal in Texas even for consenting adults to have sex if both were the same sex. No more. <It takes a step by step methodical approach.> The court actually went out of its way, if you read the decision, to say this had nothing to do with marriage. >>You don't understand the law either.<< <Gosh, as if you do?> Yes, actually I do. As does SPP, and I'm sure others here.
100	SoThisIsLove Thu 4/17/2008 2:06p	Just sneakin' in to say....

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-114

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney World discounts, Mickey's Christmas Party, Disneyland holiday changes, the Disney / Verizon announcement and Reader Mail plus the crew give their favorite Magic Kingdom attractions, Brent's Corner, Stump the Crew and everyone's favorite - the Captain's Challenge.

What's on
The Latest
Beauty and the Beast to be released in 3D in 2010
Disney's New Five-Picture Deal With IMAX to Begin With 'A Christmas Carol'
Buffalo International Film Festival presents a film benefit celebrating Mickey's 80th birthday December 13th
Disney's Hawai'i Project Begins with Ground Blessing
The Lion King to perform as part of 2008 Royal Variety Performance and BBC Radio 2's Friday Night is Music Night
Walt Disney Imagineering Earns Four Thea Awards
Travel Industry Honors Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Chairman Jay Rasulo
The Walt Disney Company Grants $1.5 Million to Reforest Fire-Ravaged Areas in Southern California
Disneyland Resort Horticulture Honored for Excellence in Landscaping
International Superstar Yanni Signs to Disney Pearl Series

Click here for The Latest