PDA

View Full Version : Prop 8 legal theory as applied to gun control


Scarecrow Repair
02-08-2012, 12:35 PM
As I understand it, one of arguments in the 9th circuit opinion against prop 8 is that gay marriage had been legal, and prop 8 took away an existing right, which is always more iffy than granting a new right.

Could this argument be used against gun control in general, not just the California AWB, roster, etc, but also the 1986, 1968, and 1934 acts, and others?

CCWFacts
02-08-2012, 1:10 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.

Bhobbs
02-08-2012, 1:13 PM
Gay marriage fits into what the judges approve of. I highly doubt owning EBRs or MGs is.

InGrAM
02-08-2012, 1:16 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.

Lol, sums it up nicely. Well, in the eyes of 2 out of the 3 judges.

Bruce
02-08-2012, 1:20 PM
As I understand it, one of arguments in the 9th circuit opinion against prop 8 is that gay marriage had been legal, and prop 8 took away an existing right, which is always more iffy than granting a new right.

Could this argument be used against gun control in general, not just the California AWB, roster, etc, but also the 1986, 1968, and 1934 acts, and others?

No, because the liberals that make up the Ninth Circus don't like guns because guns are icky. :puke:

QQQ
02-08-2012, 1:24 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/014/308/FFW5L3G4TUSCARJD5RVXJWBXFWPQABSA.jpeg

OleCuss
02-08-2012, 1:59 PM
I really don't see how the Prop 8 ruling really applies to RKBA cases. This was a pretty narrow ruling by a three-judge panel.

Personally, I don't think that ruling will actually stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. I think that their argument (as I understand it) that a right was granted and it could not be removed by a constitutional amendment is on very shaky grounds given the legislative and initiative history of significance.

I think the panel would have still given a 2-1 decision if the author had written a ruling that marriage discrimination based on homosexuality is just flat out unconstitutional. I also think the ruling would not have been as iffy on durability.

But as it is I think I see a panel which mostly ducked the question while killing Prop 8 anyway. The reason may have been conflict of interest related (or maybe not).

In any case, I think it is a stretch to seriously believe this will aid our RKBA. I think the ruling will be considered too narrow and may be overturned as well.

But IANAL so I could be way off base.

OleCuss
02-08-2012, 2:01 PM
No, because the liberals that make up the Ninth Circus don't like guns because they're icky. :puke:

I'm just trying to make sure I understand:

The liberals that make up the Ninth Circus are icky?

sholling
02-08-2012, 2:40 PM
I've been following the law professors' discussion on Volokh and one view seems to be that Prop 8 was passed by the voters as a symbolic slap-down of the activist Judges in the California courts that legalized gay marriage. It seems quite possible to me that one of the reasons that the 9th Circus tossed Prop-8 was to put the voters back in "their place". Now frankly I couldn't care less if someone marries a man, a woman, or a herd of goats but the courts have become way too accustomed to subjecting us to heavy handed black robed dictatorship and imposing their political views and preferences on the rest of us. In this case liberal judges favor gay marriage and gun control so to answer the question - no the courts' Prop-8 slap-down of democracy will not help us. In fact it just affirms that the courts pay little attention to the constitution.

http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/what-is-a-rational-basis-for-symbolic-laws/
Having read Judge Reinhardt’s opinion in Perry v. Brown, it seems to me that the weight of the analysis hinges on an interesting question: What counts as a rational basis to enact a symbolic law? Reinhardt’s basic reasoning is that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it was merely symbolic. The ballot initiative didn’t do anything substantive: It amended the California Constitution to say that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” but it left in place domestic partnerships with most or all the rights of marriage.

According to Reinhardt’s opinion, this dooms Prop 8. The rational basis test requires some theoretical reason to think that the Amendment might improve society in some way. The gist of Reinhardt’s opinion is that a symbolic law like Prop 8 can’t improve society because it doesn’t make any actual difference. As a result, even if there are lots of rational reasons to ban same-sex marriage generally, it is irrational to forbid only the symbolism of the word “marriage.” Finding no rational utilitarian reason to forbid the word “marriage,” Reinhardt concludes that the law fails the rational basis test and must have been passed to express animus towards or disapproval of homosexuality.

lawaia
02-08-2012, 3:32 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.

LMFAO!

And maybe crying a little at the same time, since it seems to be true.

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 3:39 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.

Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies. Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL; and therefore goes against our NATURE as human beings. On another note, it is NOT NATURAL to rape and murder either; thus is why it's ILLEGAL. Since homosexuality is NOT NATURAL to us humans; it should be outlawed. Personally, I believe that it started out as a simple mental disorder; one that could be treated. NOW it has turned into some strange way to be DIFFERENT, and since being different is now the coolest thing to do, we see rapid growth in the homosexual population. Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a simple disorder that has turned into an EPIDEMIC that is spreading throughout our nation/planet and it is our RESPONSIBILITY to help these people understand it for what it is--UNNATURAL and detrimental to the survival of our SPECIES.

NOTE: I do NOT have anything against homosexuals; I simply believe that they need help.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 3:52 PM
Since homosexuality is NOT NATURAL to us humans; it should be outlawed.

This, my friends, is example #1 of why when gun owners speak of freedom and liberty, folks who are fence sitters view us as hyprocrites & turn away from us and keep voting for people with the opposite view on guns.

They would rather vote for a police state for gun owners than a police state for gay people.

QQQ
02-08-2012, 3:55 PM
This, my friends, is example #1 of why when gun owners speak of freedom and liberty, folks who are fence sitters view us as hyprocrites & turn away from us and keep voting for people with the opposite view on guns.

They would rather vote for a police state for gun owners than a police state for gay people.Yo Gray,
I've been thinking about your statement from another thread where you indicated that the government has no business asking a couple what their sex is when they're applying for a marriage license.

After some reflection, I agree. The only thing still holding me back at this point from switching sides is the lack of a guarantee that private individuals and organizations won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Any thoughts?

bwiese
02-08-2012, 3:58 PM
NOTE: I do NOT have anything against homosexuals; I simply believe that they need help.

Jeezus.

You could go join Michelle Bachman's 'security' guy and go hunt gays in Kenya.

Thanks for showing you're a statist antifreedom religionist.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 4:04 PM
Jeezus.

You could go join Michelle Bachman's 'security' guy and go hunt gays in Kenya.

Thanks for showing you're a statist antifreedom religionist.

And a gun owner who cries regularly about their freedoms and liberties not being respected by the state of California....

bwiese
02-08-2012, 4:06 PM
Yo Gray,
I've been thinking about your statement from another thread where you indicated that the government has no business asking a couple what their sex is when they're applying for a marriage license.

After some reflection, I agree. The only thing still holding me back at this point from switching sides is the lack of a guarantee that private individuals and organizations won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Any thoughts?


Churches etc can't be forced to admit/ etc folks with 'other views'.
Even parochial schools have certain freedoms (as long as no gov't money taken).

Nobody will can nor will make a church marry a couple the church doesn't like. Someone will
try but that won't go anywhere.

Fair housing laws already require landlords to rent nondiscriminatorily.

[Things get more tangential when it becomes something like a large institution like a hospital, esp when the hospital accepts gov't money for services.]

Ubermcoupe
02-08-2012, 4:06 PM
IMO: Civil rights are Civil rights, whether thatís rights for same sex couples, rights for minorities and women, or our 2A rights.
Getting the courts (and public) to see it that way is a whole Ďnother story.

And comments like this only help to divide fellow civil rights activists and the 2A community.

NOTE: I do NOT have anything against homosexuals; I simply believe that they need help.

Thatís rather hypocritical donít you think. :shrug:

I respect your opinion, although I donít agree with it.

IrishPirate
02-08-2012, 4:11 PM
Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies. Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL; and therefore goes against our NATURE as human beings. On another note, it is NOT NATURAL to rape and murder either; thus is why it's ILLEGAL. Since homosexuality is NOT NATURAL to us humans; it should be outlawed. Personally, I believe that it started out as a simple mental disorder; one that could be treated. NOW it has turned into some strange way to be DIFFERENT, and since being different is now the coolest thing to do, we see rapid growth in the homosexual population. Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a simple disorder that has turned into an EPIDEMIC that is spreading throughout our nation/planet and it is our RESPONSIBILITY to help these people understand it for what it is--UNNATURAL and detrimental to the survival of our SPECIES.

NOTE: I do NOT have anything against homosexuals; I simply believe that they need help.

you think homosexuality is something you can "catch"? like the flu??? really???
:rofl2:

wow, the ignorance is just too funny!!

and by the way, rape and murder ARE natural things. They've been happening since BEFORE recorded history. They happen in the animal kingdom. They are a part of humanity just like our beating hearts. You might not like rape and murder (who does) but the fact is, it's part of our natural existence.

And humans are not the only species to exhibit homosexual behavior, so that busts that theory of "not natural" too.

You claim you have nothing against homosexuals yet you clearly do not understand anything about them. You want to equate homosexuality to a disease because you think it's spreading. What you fail to realize is that the rate of homosexuals isn't increasing, just the openness of being homosexual. In decades past, homosexuals were afraid of "coming out" because of ignorant a-holes that wanted to hurt them. Now, the world is more accepting of a person's sexuality so it is not a big deal to be openly gay. Just because more people admit they are gay doesn't mean the rate of gay people is going up.

look at teen drinking statistics.....are more teens drinking, or are more teens just admitting it??

someone else being gay DOES NOT HARM YOU IN ANY WAY so butt out of their lives unless you want to invite scrutiny into your bedroom too!!!!!

If we're going to ban any type of marriage it should be against ugly people. We need the population of hotties to increase and as long as these fuglies keep reproducing then the chances of my genes being mixed with them will increase and that means a lower chance for the success of my family.

JOIN THE GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE AGAINST UGLY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 4:13 PM
Yo Gray,
I've been thinking about your statement from another thread where you indicated that the government has no business asking a couple what their sex is when they're applying for a marriage license.

After some reflection, I agree. The only thing still holding me back at this point from switching sides is the lack of a guarantee that private individuals and organizations won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Any thoughts?

Let me respond to this later. Bill has the right idea but I need to expand upon it more.

IrishPirate
02-08-2012, 4:16 PM
Churches etc can't be forced to admit/ etc folks with 'other views'.

Nobody will can nor will make a church marry a couple the church doesn't like. Someone will
try but that won't go anywhere.


my wife and i got denied by 3 churches before one said yes. One for having lived together, one for having pre-marital sex, and one because we drink alcohol. If they can refuse for those reasons, no one will have to worry about gay marriage being forced on a church.

tonelar
02-08-2012, 4:20 PM
...
If we're going to ban any type of marriage it should be against ugly people. We need the population of hotties to increase and as long as these fuglies keep reproducing then the chances of my genes being mixed with them will increase and that means a lower chance for the success of my family.

JOIN THE GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE AGAINST UGLY MARRIAGE!!!!!!!

^This 100%

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 4:20 PM
Btw, folks, Perry helps Nordyke.

Curley Red
02-08-2012, 4:27 PM
Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL; and therefore goes against our NATURE as human beings.

Says who? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. It is nothing new and it hasn't affected the balance of nature.


Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies.

Does that mean since my wife and I are not and will not be having babies there is something wrong with us?

You live a very close minded life.

press1280
02-08-2012, 4:41 PM
I think SCOTUS had screwed up when they said marriage was a fundamental right a few decades. The whole institution is a religious one, not a governmental one. The particulars that come with marriage (like tax treatment) are a different matter though.

I didn't want to get too far off the topic here. It would seem if the 9th is willing to overturn something recently voted on by the people of CA, then overturning of the good cause requirement for CCWs shouldn't be too difficult. But of course, the recent trend we've seen in the district courts is to declare public carry not in any way, shape, or form remotely connected to the 2A. I would believe these same judges would continue to try to hold this (irrational) line of thinking.

civilsnake
02-08-2012, 4:50 PM
I respect your opinion, although I donít agree with it.

LOL, you respect that???

mag360
02-08-2012, 5:04 PM
Yo Gray,
I've been thinking about your statement from another thread where you indicated that the government has no business asking a couple what their sex is when they're applying for a marriage license.

After some reflection, I agree. The only thing still holding me back at this point from switching sides is the lack of a guarantee that private individuals and organizations won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Any thoughts?

why would individuals or private organizations have a need to recognize whether someone is married or not? they are an individual or a private organization, they can think whatever they want to.

The gay marriage ruling, as the judges applied it, says that there is no reason not to allow these people of the same sex to affix the title "marriage" to their relationship. Nothing beneficial comes from not allowing them to do that. The courthouse that recognizes this marriage should not have the ability to decide who can/can't get married. It is a marriage in the eyes of the government only.

If the catholics/jews/whatever false god you worship does/doesnt want to call it a marriage, or a an individual person doesn't want to call it a marriage, thats cool, but it is a marriage in the eyes of the government.

Keeping them from affixing that title "marriage" will not prevent single sex child-raising, it will not prevent single sex relationships, etc.

OleCuss
02-08-2012, 5:05 PM
Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Can we get off the merits of marriage for all?

The case is of interest here only insofar as it affects the RKBA.

Gray tweaked my interest with his mention of Perry and Nordyke and I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say. Will this mean submitting an additional authority in the Nordyke case?

morrcarr67
02-08-2012, 5:05 PM
I had a thought; I know that's what get's me in trouble most of the time.

I thought I heard that one of the stances taken was that the masses (read people that voted) couldn't take away something from the minority (read people that want gay marriage).

If the court used this as part of their reasoning for ruling the way they did couldn't we (minority gun owners) use this same fight against the masses that have taken away our so much of our RKBA?

a1c
02-08-2012, 5:27 PM
Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies. Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL; and therefore goes against our NATURE as human beings. On another note, it is NOT NATURAL to rape and murder either; thus is why it's ILLEGAL. Since homosexuality is NOT NATURAL to us humans; it should be outlawed. Personally, I believe that it started out as a simple mental disorder; one that could be treated. NOW it has turned into some strange way to be DIFFERENT, and since being different is now the coolest thing to do, we see rapid growth in the homosexual population. Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a simple disorder that has turned into an EPIDEMIC that is spreading throughout our nation/planet and it is our RESPONSIBILITY to help these people understand it for what it is--UNNATURAL and detrimental to the survival of our SPECIES.

NOTE: I do NOT have anything against homosexuals; I simply believe that they need help.

I'm a straight man married to a woman and we don't feel the urge to have babies and probably won't. We're not the only ones. There goes your theory.

Oh, and we're not religious. We had a secular marriage. See, it's not just a religious institution, no matter what some think.

But that's not the topic of this thread. We're talking about how the recent ruling could apply to 2A rights.

While in other rulings I could see it - equal protection and so on - this one doesn't really address it using that angle.

Bruce
02-08-2012, 5:34 PM
I'm just trying to make sure I understand:

The liberals that make up the Ninth Circus are icky?

No, because the liberals that make up the Ninth Circus don't like guns because guns are icky.

As my god daughter once said," Happy now?"

Bruce
02-08-2012, 5:36 PM
Jeezus.

You could go join Michelle Bachman's 'security' guy and go hunt gays in Kenya.

Thanks for showing you're a statist antifreedom religionist.

So you're good with any kind of freedom as long as it's not religious freedom?

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 5:38 PM
EDIT: You guys are right, this isn't a thread about homosexuality. Sorry.

RobG
02-08-2012, 5:50 PM
Oh, for Pete's Sake!

Can we get off the merits of marriage for all?

The case is of interest here only insofar as it affects the RKBA.

Gray tweaked my interest with his mention of Perry and Nordyke and I'll be interested in hearing what he has to say. Will this mean submitting an additional authority in the Nordyke case?

Exactly. I believe the "soapbox" is in the "Off Topic" section.

scarville
02-08-2012, 5:57 PM
Gay people pay taxes, don't they? Their money certainly isn't treated as "separate but equal" is it? If their money is thrown into a pool that is used to pay for government services then, by golly, they deserve equal access with other taxpayers. If the State of California wants to deny gay people a marriage license then it can stop taxing them for all the programs that go to married people only.

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 6:03 PM
Funny thing is...I don't recall any election in California where 60% or even 51% of the people voted that they wanted a ban on assault weapons, a long gun registry, a ban on importing handgun ammunition, a ban on open carry, or any of the other idiotic things the state has tried to do to gun owners in the last ten or twenty years. Whether they would or not is beside the point; the point is that nobody asked them. Evidently our state government believes that such important questions cannot be decided by ordinary citizens.

The people DID vote - twice - for recognition of marriage as solely between a man and a woman. In my opinion, that should have been the end of the discussion. (It's also been rejected at the ballot box in 22 other states.) And yet now we're saddled with a federal court ruling that in effect says that the will of the people does not count. This is problematic, even if you think that two men or two women getting married is a beautiful thing.

The fact that the gay marriage people went over our heads and got some judge to impose this on us by judicial fiat is inexcusable. In my world, the ballot box is FINAL. Legal challenges to the law should be settled before elections, not after.

a1c
02-08-2012, 6:07 PM
So you're good with any kind of freedom as long as it's not religious freedom?

You already have religious freedom.

vincewarde
02-08-2012, 6:15 PM
This, my friends, is example #1 of why when gun owners speak of freedom and liberty, folks who are fence sitters view us as hyprocrites & turn away from us and keep voting for people with the opposite view on guns.

They would rather vote for a police state for gun owners than a police state for gay people.

Freedom is the freedom to disagree.

How ironic it is that at the same time the 9th circuit is endorsing Gay Marriage, the Obama administration is violating the directly expressed 1st Amendment rights of the Catholic Church.

Let me say this: If the expressly secured rights of the 1st and 2nd Amendments can be trampled - the rights that gays have won and may win in the future are even less secure. Folks, it's time to wake up and join together to fight for the rights of those who are like you and those who are not. Study history. Hitler played the gays against the conservative Christians - and the ones he did not kill ended up in the same camps. We need to learn from that.

I think someone once aid that we must all hang together or we will all hang separately. He was right.

a1c
02-08-2012, 6:15 PM
The fact that the gay marriage people went over our heads and got some judge to impose this on us by judicial fiat is inexcusable. In my world, the ballot box is FINAL. Legal challenges to the law should be settled before elections, not after.

That checks and balances thing sucks, huh?

Just remember your words next time you disagree with a measure that passed.

Or when the "judicial fiat" actually rules in your favor when it comes to 2A rights.

BTW, you talking about "the gay marriage people" (I guess I'm one of them) sounds so much like the Brady talking about us "gun nuts."

bruss01
02-08-2012, 6:29 PM
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

The purpose of the judicial branch is to protect the minority when the majority is clearly wrong... which is exactly what happened in this case.

I have a right to marry a woman, and for better or worse I exercised that right. But just because I got married doesn't mean that anyone else has to. See, you can have a right and exercise it or not. You NEVER have a right to PROHIBIT someone from exercising THEIR rights. And that's exactly what Prop 8 did. It attempted to "bully" a certain segment of the population by virtue of sheer numbers of wrong-headed folk trying to limit someone else's rights.

That's exactly the situation we as California gun owners face.

You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, don't have one!

But don't turn around and tell other people they can't do that because somehow you don't think it's "right".

I'm very interested in hearing what parts of this ruling may impact or influence future or current 2A court cases.

Ubermcoupe
02-08-2012, 6:34 PM
LOL, you respect that???

Yea, I do. Itís his opinion.
I may think its freaking nuts, but I am not one to censor his opinion because I believe differently.

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 6:59 PM
Call me what you want; the fact is, your labels mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the facts. The facts are, homosexuality is unnatural; it goes agaist our nature--that, my confused friends, you cannot deny. Be homosexual all you want, justify it all you want the same. To be honest, I won't lose any sleep over it; like I said before, I have nothing against homosexuals, lol.

It's not about "rights", it's about right and not so right. If you think it makes any sense whatsoever having a sexual relationship, I take that back, an EXCLUSIVE sexual relationship, such as one sealed by wedding vows, with a person of the same sex, then you my friends are confused. For someone to mess around and experiment, that's one thing. But to dedicate your life to having sex with the same gender is to render your life meaningless. Again, it's in our basic human instincts to procreate in order to ensure the survival of our species. The PURPOSE of the sex act is to make babies, think about it....you'll get it, and if you don't--I'm sorry for you.

As far for all of the labels and negative comments, I appreciate them; I just wish you could put more thought into your responses rather than trying to make me look ignorant. In fact, I have a beautiful wife with a beautiful daughter, and another on the way! I must've done something right. You speak of freedom and rights, and call me a hypocrit, look at it this way, where would we be if we all ran around sleeping with the same sex? We wouldn't exist. So, that being said, I think it's time you critics reevaluate your position on homosexual marriage--or not, your choice ;)

Again, just to clarify, I don't have anything against homosexuals on a personal level; in fact, I've held several relationships with people that claim to be homosexual. Good people, might I add. I just think that people really need to look into this topic with a skeptic's eye and analyze it. I have no religious, political, or any other biased basis for my opinions on homosexuality; it simply seems unnatural to me and contrary to our exsistence--contrary to our future.

bandook
02-08-2012, 7:02 PM
As I understand it, one of arguments in the 9th circuit opinion against prop 8 is that gay marriage had been legal, and prop 8 took away an existing right, which is always more iffy than granting a new right.

Could this argument be used against gun control in general, not just the California AWB, roster, etc, but also the 1986, 1968, and 1934 acts, and others?

Probably won't get too much traction.

The big difference is that in those cases the state always shows up to defend them. Also, they can claim that it helps law and order and claim the possibility of tangible harm to society if those laws are tossed.

With Prop 8, there was no tangible benefit to society by excluding gays from getting a marriage license, so IMO this was a relatively simple decision. (the complexity was that there was a ballot initiative to deny the marriage license, but misguided 'feel-good' of the masses does not outweigh the doctrine of equal protection.)

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 7:08 PM
Jeezus.

You could go join Michelle Bachman's 'security' guy and go hunt gays in Kenya.

Thanks for showing you're a statist antifreedom religionist.

For the record, I don't go to church; in fact, I have no religious preference (at least that's what it says on my dog tags). Just wanted to clear that up. Sorry if that puts a wrench into your plan to label me as ignorant. I'm actually far from it. I gave the last decade of my life, the best one might I add, to protecting your "rights and freedoms"; so don't waste your time trying to make people believe that I'm a "statist antifreedom religionist".

Good day.

a1c
02-08-2012, 7:13 PM
Call me what you want; the fact is, your labels mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the facts. The facts are, homosexuality is unnatural; it goes agaist our nature--that, my confused friends, you cannot deny.

Nature has a sense of humor then. Homosexuality among pretty much all species is widely documented, from birds to large mammals and more.

Be homosexual all you want, justify it all you want the same. To be honest, I won't lose any sleep over it; like I said before, I have nothing against homosexuals, lol.

It's not about "rights", it's about right and not so right. If you think it makes any sense whatsoever having a sexual relationship, I take that back, an EXCLUSIVE sexual relationship, such as one sealed by wedding vows, with a person of the same sex, then you my friends are confused. For someone to mess around and experiment, that's one thing. But to dedicate your life to having sex with the same gender is to render your life meaningless. Again, it's in our basic human instincts to procreate in order to ensure the survival of our species. The PURPOSE of the sex act is to make babies, think about it....you'll get it, and if you don't--I'm sorry for you.

So you only have sex to make babies?

I don't. But don't feel sorry for me.

As far for all of the labels and negative comments, I appreciate them; I just wish you could put more thought into your responses rather than trying to make me look ignorant. In fact, I have a beautiful wife with a beautiful daughter, and another on the way! I must've done something right. You speak of freedom and rights, and call me a hypocrit, look at it this way, where would we be if we all ran around sleeping with the same sex? We wouldn't exist. So, that being said, I think it's time you critics reevaluate your position on homosexual marriage--or not, your choice ;)

Look at me, childless sinner. I guess I don't get life.

You don't like antis trying to take away your right to keep and bear arms. Please don't vote in such a way that would take away other rights from other people. Especially since it TAKES NOTHING FROM YOU if they have the same rights as you.

mag360
02-08-2012, 7:17 PM
For the record, I don't go to church; in fact, I have no religious preference (at least that's what it says on my dog tags). Just wanted to clear that up. Sorry if that puts a wrench into your plan to label me as ignorant. I'm actually far from it. I gave the last decade of my life, the best one might I add, to protecting your "rights and freedoms"; so don't waste your time trying to make people believe that I'm a "statist antifreedom religionist".

Good day.

if you want to deny equal treatment of a group of people simply because you don't like/agree/think is icky, then what are you? a selective bigot?

bandook
02-08-2012, 7:26 PM
...look at it this way, where would we be if we all ran around sleeping with the same sex? We wouldn't exist. So, that being said, I think it's time you critics reevaluate your position on homosexual marriage--or not, your choice ;)

Nobody's asking you to end your marriage and marry a dude. (Unless that's what you really want to do - in which case that's fine too - is that the real issue - it provides another 'option'?)

Let me see if I can put forth an argument in homophobic speak - if you think homosexuality is a failing, isn't it better to let them get married to each other than them getting married to 'Normal' people and spreading the 'defect'?

I don't see how Prop 8 being struck down impacts my (or any 'traditional') marriage in any way. So while I'm not of the homosexual persuasion, I don't see any benefits to denying marriage to those who are so inclined. (By choice or otherwise, it doesn't really matter, does it.)

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 7:37 PM
Nature has a sense of humor then. Homosexuality among pretty much all species is widely documented, from birds to large mammals and more.



So you only have sex to make babies?

I don't. But don't feel sorry for me.



Look at me, childless sinner. I guess I don't get life.

You don't like antis trying to take away your right to keep and bear arms. Please don't vote in such a way that would take away other rights from other people. Especially since it TAKES NOTHING FROM YOU if they have the same rights as you.


First of all, I have never voted for prop 8, just to clear that up.

As far as homosexuality being well documented, or whatever, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Where would those animals be today if they dedicated their lifes to the same sex, they'd be on extinctanimals.com.

Please, don't be angry and critical with me for simply stating facts and my opinion. It doesn't make any sense when people try and protest in public, make commercials, change policies, influence our youth, hell literally get in my face about their homosexual way of life, and when I simply state some irrefutable facts about nature I get my head bit off.

I enjoy our freedom, and I do believe that everyone has a right to do whatever they want (unless it interferes with other's way of life that is), and I'm NOT saying that homosexuals are BAD people. I'm simply saying that if you look at the facts I'm sure you'll find that it is contrary to the survival of the human species.

If people can stop looking at prop 8, and associated legislation, as "discrimination" and perhaps take a step down and look at the facts, perhaps they'll see it in a different light.

You tell me that if we don't let homosexuals get married, the next step is losing our constitutional gun rights, and that almost strikes me as valid. However, there's just one problem with that; homosexuality isn't in the constitution, and guns are. If you understand a little bit about law, which you sound like you could, you should know that it's all a word battle. Law makers have spent their careers tweeking the words that are already printed on the constitution, for something that's not even specified in the constitution (US constitution), I fear that is an uphill battle. They can not take away our right to keep and bear arms. They can, however, take that right away from people whom have proven to be irresponsible and a potential danger to themselves and/or others.

a1c
02-08-2012, 7:42 PM
You tell me that if we don't let homosexuals get married, the next step is losing our constitutional gun rights, and that almost strikes me as valid. However, there's just one problem with that; homosexuality isn't in the constitution, and guns are. If you understand a little bit about law, which you sound like you could, you should know that it's all a word battle. Law makers have spent their careers tweeking the words that are already printed on the constitution, for something that's not even specified in the constitution (US constitution), I fear that is an uphill battle. They can not take away our right to keep and bear arms. They can, however, take that right away from people whom have proven to be irresponsible and a potential danger to themselves and/or others.

Read the Ninth Amendment sometime.

CHS
02-08-2012, 7:45 PM
Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies. Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL; and therefore goes against our NATURE as human beings. On another note, it is NOT NATURAL to rape and murder either; thus is why it's ILLEGAL. Since homosexuality is NOT NATURAL to us humans; it should be outlawed. Personally, I believe that it started out as a simple mental disorder; one that could be treated.

Really?

How do you explain the NATURAL occurrence of homosexuality in almost all species of animal at a rate of about 10% (also in line with human homosexuality)?

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 7:54 PM
Read the Ninth Amendment sometime.

The ninth ammendment does not say anything about homosexuality, sir. Read my last post and you'll see what I'm getting at. That was a fast reply, so I assume that you didn't read it entirely. I know it's lengthy, and I apologize for that. I just want to give the critics of heterosexuality a chance to look at homosexuality under a different light.

It's not about discrimination, at least it's not with me--not at ALL. It's simply about our nature. I said in a previous post, "having an EXCLUSIVE homosexual relationship is contrary to our nature". I know people experiment, and that is what it is. It's just when people go about getting married when a flag is raised, IMO.

Can ANYONE tell me that it is NATURAL to strictly be a homosexual for life? If so, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. What makes homosexuality a legitimate human bond that should be honored by the nation as such? To me, sanctioning homosexual marriage is like saying we can legally marry our guns. We can't make children with them, but we love them SOO much.

a1c
02-08-2012, 7:57 PM
The ninth ammendment does not say anything about homosexuality, sir. Read my last post and you'll see what I'm getting at. That was a fast reply, so I assume that you didn't read it entirely. I know it's lengthy, and I apologize for that. I just want to give the critics of heterosexuality a chance to look at homosexuality under a different light.

It's not about discrimination, at least it's not with me--not at ALL. It's simply about our nature. I said in a previous post, "having an EXCLUSIVE homosexual relationship is contrary to our nature". I know people experiment, and that is what it is. It's just when people go about getting married when a flag is raised, IMO.

Can ANYONE tell me that it is NATURAL to strictly be a homosexual for life? If so, I'd be very interested in your thoughts. What makes homosexuality a legitimate human bond that should be honored by the nation as such? To me, sanctioning homosexual marriage is like saying we can legally marry our guns. We can't make children with them, but we love them SOO much.

Obviously you don't understand the spirit of the Ninth Amendment.

This is getting waaaaay off-topic.

If you really want to understand more on the subject, you need to meet more gay people. They won't bite.

CHS
02-08-2012, 7:59 PM
The ninth ammendment does not say anything about homosexuality

You need to read the ninth amendment again. Clearly you have no idea what it's actually saying.


To me, sanctioning homosexual marriage is like saying we can legally marry our guns. We can't make children with them, but we love them SOO much.

WTF? Your firearm can't consent to marriage. A child can't consent to marriage. A horse can't consent to marriage.

Two grown adults of any sex are in fact able to consent to marriage.

And if marriage is only about children, then are you going to take away my right to marriage too? I'm a straight male in a straight relationship married to my straight wife, and we will never, ever, under any circumstances have children.

thepunisher
02-08-2012, 8:02 PM
When can I marry my badass rifle is all I'm asking.

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 8:05 PM
Really?

How do you explain the NATURAL occurrence of homosexuality in almost all species of animal at a rate of about 10% (also in line with human homosexuality)?

Apparently there's some confusion by what I mean by NATURAL. That being said, here are a few definitions of the word, NATURE:

(1)based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

(2)occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature :not marvelous or supernatural

....and the natural course of our existence is to procreate. Homosexuality does exist, there's no doubt about that (we've seen the two dogs Bruno and Spike go at it); the question here is, is it natural. Personally, I do not see it as having any natural attributes because it isn't "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature".

Like I said, please don't try and make me out to be the "bad guy" just because I ask people to see things from my eyes; especially after all of the pressure on me to see things from a homosexual's prospective. THAT, my friends, is the definition of hypocrytical.

torquefliteterror
02-08-2012, 8:12 PM
Really?

How do you explain the NATURAL occurrence of homosexuality in almost all species of animal at a rate of about 10% (also in line with human homosexuality)?

Nothing against gays , but just because it occurs in nature does not mean it is right to build a social construct around it. murder and rape does occur in nature as it has been docmented in primates. Saw a video in my anthropology class. watched lower order apes give their behinds to the alpha. also saw a video on chimpanzees i think it was and they hunted down monkeys just to kill them. they didnt even eat them. they would gather up in mobs and chase the monkey then kill it and leave it. it was kinda funny to see the progressive anthropologists all confused as to how their precious non human creatures could be so brutal.

I think homosexuality is nothing more than a deviation from what is suppossed to be, not good or bad. kind of like when children are born with birth defects , some deviations are less severe.
I have a friend who was born with no arms or legs. he lives his life in a motorized wheel chair. he is an example of a severe case of deviation.

the correct naturel model is a creature that has all its limbs and reproduces. no politics there. I am not religious nor do I believe in god. I do believe we are nothing more than biomass and our only purpose (by natures standards) is to reproduce. everything else we do is just personal choices created by us to pass the time.

so How do i explain it? the way i just did. it is nothing more then an error in nature. neither good nor bad.

thepunisher
02-08-2012, 8:15 PM
Apparently there's some confusion by what I mean by NATURAL. That being said, here are a few definitions of the word, NATURE:

(1)based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

(2)occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature :not marvelous or supernatural

....and the natural course of our existence is to procreate. Homosexuality does exist, there's no doubt about that (we've seen the two dogs Bruno and Spike go at it); the question here is, is it natural. Personally, I do not see it as having any natural attributes because it isn't "occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature".

Like I said, please don't try and make me out to be the "bad guy" just because I ask people to see things from my eyes; especially after all of the pressure on me to see things from a homosexual's prospective. THAT, my friends, is the definition of hypocrytical.

Ghost-it seems that most people's mind is made up and they will just shout you down or call you a name if you think differently. I really do not support it, but I do not wish to make someone a second class citizen even if my personal beliefs are different. Maybe someday will we understand each other better when we can listen and not talk over each other.

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 8:16 PM
You need to read the ninth amendment again. Clearly you have no idea what it's actually saying.

I know exactly what it's saying, and it doesn't refer to homosexuality; it refers to the government infringing on civil rights. This is why I elaborated on the word game that is legislation. If there are no words, there is no legislation.


WTF? Your firearm can't consent to marriage. A child can't consent to marriage. A horse can't consent to marriage.

I'm not the one comparing my acts to that of animals; that would be you and the other guy. You both used animals as a justification for homosexuality, so I was just going along with that. Let's keep this topic aimed at our species, if that's ok.


And if marriage is only about children, then are you going to take away my right to marriage too? I'm a straight male in a straight relationship married to my straight wife, and we will never, ever, under any circumstances have children.

Yet another misconception, but a good point. Please allow me to clear this up. I do NOT believe that marriage is all about children. To MARRY, is to essentially dedicate your life to that person (in theory); and if that person is of the same sex, does it not seem unnatural that they will not be able to conceive children?I believe that it is NATURAL to procreate, naturally. I'm happy for you and your family, and I'm happy for any homosexual person that finds happiness; I'm simply stating that to dedicate your life to someone of the same sex is contrary to the natural occurence of our existence.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 8:17 PM
Ahh screw it, this thread was over at "Prop 8..."


When can I marry my badass rifle is all I'm asking.

Right?!? If this becomes law I'm moving to Utah cause there is NO way I can be married to only ONE firearm!

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 8:23 PM
Ghost-it seems that most people's mind is made up and they will just shout you down or call you a name if you think differently. I really do not support it, but I do not wish to make someone a second class citizen even if my personal beliefs are different. Maybe someday will we understand each other better when we can listen and not talk over each other.

The most well-thought, legitimate response I've heard on this topic yet. I wish these guys could see that it's not about discrimination, at least not with me. I do have my opinion, and that opinion is purely based on nature. Religion, nor any other form of influence affect my words. I guess I should just sit back and keep my "opinion" to myself while the whole world around me goes into self-destruct mode. I'm forced to hear their opinion every where I turn, but god forbid I have one of my own.

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 8:26 PM
Ahh screw it, this thread was over at "Prop 8..."




Right?!? If this becomes law I'm moving to Utah cause there is NO way I can be married to only ONE firearm!


LOL, I'm a one pistol man (but noone said anything about an assault rifle, or an AR pistol, or a shotgun, or a bolt action)!

spiderpigs
02-08-2012, 8:31 PM
marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two people, what is all this talk about babies?

a1c
02-08-2012, 8:33 PM
To me the question of homosexuality sometimes meet than of firearms in the sense that just like a lot of people are instinctively against the concept of firearms (or at least their private ownership) or even downright fear it, a lot of people who consider homosexuality "unnatural" often barely know any gay people outside of a formal context. They might have (and they often do, even if they don't know it) a gay co-worker or shop at a store held by a gay person, but their interactions are superficial and they never really get to know a gay person, and realize that they're just as normal as they are. They just like people from the same sex. Period.

Nature does weird stuff. Don't tell me about homosexuality being unnatural. Nature produces hermaphrodites. Nature produces individuals with XY chromosomes but female genitalia (or vice-versa). So are those people defective? Is that why they shouldn't have the same rights? What is this, eugenics?

C'mon. We all deserve the same fundamental rights. Marry whom you love. Shoot the guns you love. Now if only we could get rid of that roster. It's our Prop 8 to us California gun owners. But at least there are workarounds. :D

GHOST-FOX-1
02-08-2012, 8:45 PM
Nothing against gays , but just because it occurs in nature does not mean it is right to build a social construct around it. murder and rape does occur in nature as it has been docmented in primates.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Just because something occurs, doesn't make it right (or wrong). Gays aren't bad people, not at all. And I DO believe that it can be treated, but that's just me. Although your explaination does sound more appropriate.

Saw a video in my anthropology class. watched lower order apes give their behinds to the alpha.

L-M-A-O I just got a picture in my mind, sry...

also saw a video on chimpanzees i think it was and they hunted down monkeys just to kill them. they didnt even eat them. they would gather up in mobs and chase the monkey then kill it and leave it.

Exactly! As I said in an earlier post, murder and rape occurs, but it isn't part of the natural order that we have to thank for our existence. That is why we outlaw these acts, because they are contrary to our nature.

I think homosexuality is nothing more than a deviation from what is suppossed to be, not good or bad. kind of like when children are born with birth defects , some deviations are less severe.
I have a friend who was born with no arms or legs. he lives his life in a motorized wheel chair. he is an example of a severe case of deviation.

Deviation, yes, exactly. You have an invaluable opinion on this matter; what I couldn't find the words to say, you have. I just would like to believe that it can be treated, although your explaination (and your examples) provide a good deal of weight. I'm sorry for your friend, and I'm sure he's happy to have you as a friend.

the correct naturel model is a creature that has all its limbs and reproduces. no politics there. I am not religious nor do I believe in god. I do believe we are nothing more than biomass and our only purpose (by natures standards) is to reproduce. everything else we do is just personal choices created by us to pass the time.

Exactly! It's not about biased influence, it's not about discrimination, it's not about taking away our gun rights, and it's not about apes submitting their behind's to the alpha; it's about FACTS! The facts are, it is not natural to have sex with someone that is of the same gender. It simply serves no natural purpose.

jwkincal
02-08-2012, 8:48 PM
The facts are, it is not natural to have sex with someone that is of the same gender. It simply serves no natural purpose.

You might invite your new friend with the anthro class to check out some videos about bonobos.

torquefliteterror
02-08-2012, 8:48 PM
Nature does weird stuff. Don't tell me about homosexuality being unnatural. Nature produces hermaphrodites. Nature produces individuals with XY chromosomes but female genitalia (or vice-versa). So are those people defective? Is that why they shouldn't have the same rights? What is this, eugenics?



Defective is a harsh term , they are different though. deviation does not mean defective. eugenics is a progressive construct as I recall. I think margat sanger was a proponent of that process.

torquefliteterror
02-08-2012, 8:50 PM
You might invite your new friend with the anthro class to check out some videos about bonobos.

every leftist and progressive love them bonobos.

a1c
02-08-2012, 8:54 PM
Defective is a harsh term , they are different though. deviation does not mean defective. eugenics is a progressive construct as I recall. I think margat sanger was a proponent of that process.

I don't care if it's progressive or not in origin. That's completely off topic: it's wrong.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 9:00 PM
LOL, I'm a one pistol man (but noone said anything about an assault rifle, or an AR pistol, or a shotgun, or a bolt action)!

There's ALWAYS a loop hole! :p

I'm really surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

Scarecrow Repair
02-08-2012, 9:01 PM
Humans have a NATURAL instinct to procreate; we are supposed to mate and make babies. Homosexuality is NOT NATURAL

You are most likely wrong (and please stop shouting). Biologists and whatever kinds of scientists do these things have played around with several models of population and breeding patterns, and found that homosexuality evolves as a natural event. I do not recall all the reasons, but the studies I have read all seems at the very least plausible, and since homosexuality actually evolved on its own in these long-running models rather than being a given in the models, they seem to me likely to be realistic.

You only have your gut instinct. Now if you can show some scientific studies to back up your gut instinct, I am sure everyone who has responded to your nasty SHOUTING hijacking of my serious question would appreciate it.

IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE WE AWAIT ghost-fox-1's SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, CAN WE PLEASE DROP THE SUBJECT AND GET BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION?

five.five-six
02-08-2012, 9:01 PM
Gay marriage and abortion are constitutional rights, applicable at state and federal levels. The right to keep and bear arms is not in the constitution.

wrong wrong WRONG!

gay marriage has been an accepted tradition throughout history and universally practiced in all nations across the globe, having weapons is a relatively new invention vigorously promoted by wild eyed radical activists

torquefliteterror
02-08-2012, 9:09 PM
I don't care if it's progressive or not in origin. That's completely off topic: it's wrong.

sorry , there is a whole lot of off topic on this thread. I never said eugenics was right or alluded that it should be practiced. you brought it up. I feel it is like when people call out bigot or racist. you were using it to paint me or the other guy as some kind of inhuman social engineer.

I was just answering chs question posted to the other guy. I'll butt out of this thread and stick to guns.
sorry for the free thought.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 9:11 PM
wrong wrong WRONG!

gay marriage has been an accepted tradition throughout history and universally practiced in all nations across the globe, having weapons is a relatively new invention vigorously promoted by wild eyed radical activists

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9lctPBerjotOBfrICLJFmJgoMw33W1 87NuDkXbnTLPJqHgVMA

San FranPsycho
02-08-2012, 9:16 PM
There is no way Proposition 8 would of held up against the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, and any educated person has known this since it was passed. Marriage is a binding legal contract between two people that gives you certain economic benefits.

Prop 8 was passed through a campaign of lies and deceit funded heavily by the Mormon Church with millions of dollars coming funneled in from Utah, wasting ALL of our time.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 9:37 PM
Yo Gray,
I've been thinking about your statement from another thread where you indicated that the government has no business asking a couple what their sex is when they're applying for a marriage license.

After some reflection, I agree. The only thing still holding me back at this point from switching sides is the lack of a guarantee that private individuals and organizations won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Any thoughts?

Here's the issue with the "won't be forced to recognize gay marriages if it is contrary to their principles. Let's deal with the first issue here.

1) The marriage license itself is not what "forces" anything really. California, since 1998, has had sexual orientation as part of it's state law against discrimination.

2) You'll have to be clear to me what you mean by "private individuals" or "organizations". For example, a business that's open to the public in California is subject to the state law against discrimination on all of the protected class factors, even if it's a sole proprietorship business with just a shop owner. A gun store or a bakery or a photography studio, for example, cannot discriminate based on race, or religion, or the interrelations between the two.

For example, a person with a supposedly deeply held religious belief that a jew and a protestant shouldn't be married together, cannot under state or federal law refuse to offer or give paid for services to such a couple. The same for interracial couples, as well (see the religious decision in State of Virginia v. Loving about making. Under the sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws, this also applies to them, too. The Marriage License itself doesn't trigger the anti-discrimination law.

What we're running into, however, are situations where persons are demanding a special right to discriminate, as a public accomodation employee or owner, only against gay people, using religion as their defense, when they ignore interracial or inter-religious marriages or claim specific wording weight of their religious text or custom with their claim.

The problem with this, of course, is that it puts a court in judgment over religious text and claims rather than going solely over one particular thing: Is it a public accommodation or not? See Employment Division v. Smith (1990) for the contours of how employment law and business law interact with religion.

Also, as an another example (since this directly applies to a sheriff with psychological evals for LTC's, but backwards). A person applies and is hired for a job. This job offers health insurance. It is found out a few months after hire that he is seeing a psychologist for post traumatic stress due to a previous incident. The person is fired because the owner of the business or one of the higher up supervisors is a Scientologist and is adamantly against psychology/psychiatry. It would be an ADA claim against his claim of religious liberty. The ADA claim would win under the language of Employment Division.

This is not to say I'm necessarily ratifying anti-discrimination law. The problem is that you're pro-supposing that potential that the marriage license itself is the non-discrimination factor. In almost every case, it is not.

From a personal perspective, I'm of the opinion that if anti-discrimination laws do exist under the state's police powers, especially if there were already existing protections beforehand for non-choices (race, gender) and choices (religion, marital status), then there is no reason that sexual orientation or gun ownership status shouldn't be protected choices, either.

Would I would fight very hard against is stripping away the positive protections purely on sexual orientation and not any other factor, which is what happened with Amendment 2 in Colorado. All must be removed, or none of them. That being said, if there were a situation in my state were there was a major effort to repeal all anti-discrimination laws, it would be when I'm quite old, and the two most important issues in my life *should* be resolved by then. I won't make a trek to the Legislature for such a bill, but if the Legislature tried to, say, ban guns, you can bet I'll come in a wheelchair or something to speak out against it. It's that important to me very particularly.

theicecreamdan
02-08-2012, 9:40 PM
I just want to give the critics of heterosexuality a chance to look at homosexuality under a different light.


I don't think anybody (with any shred of a legitimate argument) falls into that category. Where did that come from?

Coyotegunner
02-08-2012, 9:47 PM
WHAT DID PATRICK HENRY MEAN? GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH

I am a older,white,married to a woman guy that believes in marriage.
I have a niece that is gay and living with the same woman for 12 plus years now.If it was not for her partner,she would be alone and miserable.To know the 2 of them,I am blessed.
I am totally neutral to this whole Prop 8 issue.I think everyone is equal under the law.The last thing I would want,is to force my political or church beliefs on somebody by law.
I very much believe in our right of self defense.I am a NRA life member.Hunter.Registered Republican.
I see polls on here all the time.What would be the chance someone will put one up.I would be interested seeing where folks stand,since most gun owners,I am proud to say are about freedom.

Coyotegunner
02-08-2012, 10:02 PM
WHAT DID PATRICK HENRY MEAN? GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH

I am a older,white,married to a woman guy that believes in marriage.
I have a niece that is gay and living with the same woman for 12 plus years now.If it was not for her partner,she would be alone and miserable.To know the 2 of them,I am blessed.
I am totally neutral to this whole Prop 8 issue.I think everyone is equal under the law.The last thing I would want,is to force my political or church beliefs on somebody by law.
I very much believe in our right of self defense.I am a NRA life member.Hunter.Registered Republican.
I see polls on here all the time.What would be the chance someone will put one up.I would be interested seeing where folks stand,since most gun owners,I am proud to say are about freedom.

IrishPirate
02-08-2012, 10:27 PM
As far as homosexuality being well documented, or whatever, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Where would those animals be today if they dedicated their lifes to the same sex, they'd be on extinctanimals.com.


so gay people are going to cause humanity to go extinct because if any gay people exists, we'll all turn gay and stop procreating?? there's that whole "disease" thing again.....and yet you still claim you have nothing against gay people


Please, don't be angry and critical with me for simply stating facts and my opinion. It doesn't make any sense when people try and protest in public, make commercials, change policies, influence our youth, hell literally get in my face about their homosexual way of life, and when I simply state some irrefutable facts about nature I get my head bit off.


you clearly do not understand anything you're saying. you have contradicted more than one of your own statements. and you ask that we believe your opinions as facts, yet claim our facts as mere opinions. And to be clear, my facts come from scientific journals and research, your facts come out of thin air...


I enjoy our freedom, and I do believe that everyone has a right to do whatever they want (unless it interferes with other's way of life that is), and I'm NOT saying that homosexuals are BAD people. I'm simply saying that if you look at the facts I'm sure you'll find that it is contrary to the survival of the human species.


and yet we've been around and multiplied EXPONENTIALLY for hundreds of thousands of years while homosexuality was right there alongside us. Hmmmmmm.........yeah, your arguments hold absolutely no water whatsoever


If people can stop looking at prop 8, and associated legislation, as "discrimination" and perhaps take a step down and look at the facts, perhaps they'll see it in a different light.


the facts are, and always have been, that homosexuals are humans with the same rights as any other human. and that denying someone something you give freely to others simply because they are different than you is, by definition: DISCRIMINATION


You tell me that if we don't let homosexuals get married, the next step is losing our constitutional gun rights,

that's the first thing you've said that makes any sense....

and that almost strikes me as valid. However, there's just one problem with that; homosexuality isn't in the constitution, and guns are. If you understand a little bit about law, which you sound like you could, you should know that it's all a word battle. Law makers have spent their careers tweeking the words that are already printed on the constitution, for something that's not even specified in the constitution (US constitution), I fear that is an uphill battle. They can not take away our right to keep and bear arms. They can, however, take that right away from people whom have proven to be irresponsible and a potential danger to themselves and/or others.

and there you go....:facepalm:

the part which protects gay marriage is that pesky 14th amendment which provides equal protection to all. If anyone has the right to enter into a civil union as a contract with the gov't, then ALL must have that right. Marriage might not be the word used to signify a gay union, but whatever it is, it must come with ALL the same rights as marriage does. (because the constitution says so)


and yes, your ignorance on this issue does hurt our 2A cause.

clutchy
02-08-2012, 10:27 PM
The most well-thought, legitimate response I've heard on this topic yet. I wish these guys could see that it's not about discrimination, at least not with me. I do have my opinion, and that opinion is purely based on nature. Religion, nor any other form of influence affect my words. I guess I should just sit back and keep my "opinion" to myself while the whole world around me goes into self-destruct mode. I'm forced to hear their opinion every where I turn, but god forbid I have one of my own.

you are discriminating against people based on your perceived view of nature. When you break the argument down into it's component parts you end up with discrimination. I'm not comfortable discriminating against my fellow americans so I afford them the same rights i myself have and expect the same in return.


personally for me it's about liberty. I want people to treat me well so i treat them well.

Does that make sense?

CHS
02-08-2012, 10:40 PM
I know exactly what it's saying, and it doesn't refer to homosexuality; it refers to the government infringing on civil rights. This is why I elaborated on the word game that is legislation. If there are no words, there is no legislation.

Ok, you're reading a different 9th amendment than the rest of us, apparently.

The 9th amendment doesn't HAVE TO refer to homosexuality in order to protect it. And yes, it does refer to the government infringing upon civil rights not enumerated in the bill of rights, but held BY THE PEOPLE.

Read it again. Maybe 3rd time's a charm.

jdouglas
02-08-2012, 10:43 PM
A quick slightly off-topic question: should a father be allowed to marry his daughter (legal contract and all), if they are in love?

;)

EDIT: The answer is yes (even if the daughter is only 14).

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 10:45 PM
That checks and balances thing sucks, huh?

What sucks is that some aggrieved minority didn't bother trying to enlist public support. They cried because an election didn't go their way. Their entire argument consisted of, "Well, you guys can't come up with a good reason not to do this (actually, I can name several), so this must be a great thing to do to society."



Just remember your words next time you disagree with a measure that passed.


I live in California, remember? That's already happened to me dozens of times. Life goes on. I didn't gather up a bunch of my friends and sue the government simply because my fellow citizens expressed their opinion at the ballot box. Nothing was stopping gays from getting "married" before that - the issue at hand was state recognition.


Or when the "judicial fiat" actually rules in your favor when it comes to 2A rights.


A plain reading of the 2A and an affirmation that "yep, means exactly what it says" is not 'judicial fiat.' Judicial fiat is an imaginary 'right to marriage' being invented out of thin air without legal precedent or any citing of authoritative sources.


BTW, you talking about "the gay marriage people" (I guess I'm one of them) sounds so much like the Brady talking about us "gun nuts."


What would you call them? The activists and their allies? Is that better? The anti-Prop8 forces? Whatever.

There no "right to marry." None. Even the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court was unable to tell us where this "right" comes from. There *is* a right to keep and bear arms.

CHS
02-08-2012, 10:45 PM
A quick slightly off-topic question: should a father be allowed to marry his daughter (legal contract and all), if they are in love?

If they are legal adults, and consenting, I don't see why not.

The real question is, should the law allow them to have sex?

CHS
02-08-2012, 10:47 PM
What sucks is that some aggrieved minority didn't bother trying to enlist public support. They cried because an election didn't go their way. Their entire argument consisted of, "Well, you guys can't come up with a good reason not to do this (actually, I can name several), so this must be a great thing to do to society."

If "public support" is your way of justifying bad laws, then just get rid of your guns right now. There's been (and still is) PLENTY of "public support" for terrible, rights-infringing, asinine gun laws for about as long as I can remember.

Rights don't depend on "public support". They're rights.

CHS
02-08-2012, 10:48 PM
There no "right to marry." None. Even the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court was unable to tell us where this "right" comes from. There *is* a right to keep and bear arms.

There is a recognized right to marry, and a codified right to marry with the 9th amendment.

There is also an enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

It helps to read the constitution once in a while.

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 10:51 PM
You don't believe in gay marriage? Fine, don't have one!


It's not that simple and never has been. And you know it.

The state tried to use my tax dollars to recognize something that I think is immoral. Besides, this is going to wind up costing me money. If the state recognizes gay marriages, then that means my employer will have to as well. Which means that my co-worker's gay love is now on our company health insurance plan like my wife is.

Which means that another person (actually a bunch of people) just got added to our policy with only a small increase in premiums from the covered employee. Which means that yet another person is going to the doctor at the expense of my employer's health insurance provider. Which means the insurance company is going to raise rates on my employer (and on me!)...which means the boss won't be able to afford to give me that raise this year. He might even lay me off.

See how this works? It gets a bit more complicated when your friends stop calling people bigots and whatnot and you stop to think about what Prop8 advocates are trying to tell you, doesn't it?

jdouglas
02-08-2012, 10:51 PM
If they are legal adults, and consenting, I don't see why not.

The real question is, should the law allow them to have sex?

And the answer to that is yes as well...why should they be denied the basic rights that others have?

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 10:53 PM
If they are legal adults, and consenting, I don't see why not.

The real question is, should the law allow them to have sex procreate?

Fixed it! The thought of a father and daughter together like that is kinda making me nauseated, maybe a different example would be better?

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 10:53 PM
There is a recognized right to marry, and a codified right to marry with the 9th amendment.

There is also an enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

It helps to read the constitution once in a while.

Take your own advice.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nothing in there about marriage. There is no right to marriage by straights, either.

Gays already have the same right to marry as I do; the only restriction is the same as that placed on straights - the only restriction is universal - that it must be between two people of the opposite sex. That gays don't "want to" is beside the point. The wording of the 9th Amendment doesn't depend on that.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 10:54 PM
And the answer to that is yes as well...why should they be denied the basic rights that others have?

That's different. I think it would be like a pregnant mother drinking heavily. At that point you have a very good chance of hurting someone.




I never understood why the government is involved in marriages anyways? I know that there are certain tax breaks and medical reasons, but the government shouldn't regulate marriage in the first place IMO.

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 10:57 PM
If they are legal adults, and consenting, I don't see why not.

The real question is, should the law allow them to have sex?

That's the problem. You need something better than "why not." Gun owners have the 2nd Amendment. Gays have.....nothing.

If "public support" is your way of justifying bad laws, then just get rid of your guns right now. There's been (and still is) PLENTY of "public support" for terrible, rights-infringing, asinine gun laws for about as long as I can remember.


How the hell would you know? Don't rely on the SF Chronicle's editorial page to gauge public opinion. When was the last time we had a statewide contest that even attempted to measure this?



Rights don't depend on "public support". They're rights.


...when there's a precedent and/or a recognized authority for granting them. Such as the Constitution. Some judge pulling stuff out of his butt, doesn't cut it.

jdouglas
02-08-2012, 11:03 PM
That's different. I think it would be like a pregnant mother drinking heavily. At that point you have a very good chance of hurting someone.

Abort! Abort!

Besides, what's wrong with hurting someone? Is there some "natural" prohibition againts hurting things? There is tons of hurting going on in nature; it's been going on since the beginning. And if the hurt leads to death, all the better. Survival of the fittest. Apparently the animal/being that was hurt and killed wasn't fit.

IrishPirate
02-08-2012, 11:13 PM
It's not that simple and never has been. And you know it.

The state tried to use my tax dollars to recognize something that I think is immoral. Besides, this is going to wind up costing me money. If the state recognizes gay marriages, then that means my employer will have to as well. Which means that my co-worker's gay love is now on our company health insurance plan like my wife is.

Which means that another person (actually a bunch of people) just got added to our policy with only a small increase in premiums from the covered employee. Which means that yet another person is going to the doctor at the expense of my employer's health insurance provider. Which means the insurance company is going to raise rates on my employer (and on me!)...which means the boss won't be able to afford to give me that raise this year. He might even lay me off.

See how this works? It gets a bit more complicated when your friends stop calling people bigots and whatnot and you stop to think about what Prop8 advocates are trying to tell you, doesn't it?

so ban all that is of inconvenience to you or others? Your wife was EQUALLY as burdensome to your employer....perhaps we should nullify your marriage for the benefit of the company and then they will have more money to strengthen our economy and all will be well....

(see how that works ;) )

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 11:16 PM
Eh, excuse me everyone, but how did this thread turn into (I'm guilty of feeding into it) a discussion about gays, and how they should be criminalized? Or anything about how proper or improper the decision was?

3/4's of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

A moderator needs to come in and mass delete a lot of these crap posts that have ZERO to do with the actual subject matter at hand. Specifically:

How does the Perry decision effect gun rights court cases?

Stick with the legals, read Perry, and see how it can be used to help the gun rights cause in the legal field. This is not the thread to rant about gays or how Perry was wrong. PERIOD. If you can't be bothered to read Perry, there are plenty of places in "off-topic" you can rant about Perry.

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 11:17 PM
Abort! Abort!

Besides, what's wrong with hurting someone? Is there some "natural" prohibition againts hurting things? There is tons of hurting going on in nature; it's been going on since the beginning. And if the hurt leads to death, all the better. Survival of the fittest. Apparently the animal/being that was hurt and killed wasn't fit.

As a civilized human being I think hurting others for no just reason is where I draw the line. You guys are arguing like you guys are going to change each other's minds about this issue. News flash, not gonna happen haha ;)

I think we all need to learn that people may have different opinions and that we should respect their right to have different opinions as long as they are not hurting others.

For example, IF I hated gay people I still would not support the government saying whether they can get married or not. It's not a right or wrong issue for me its a, the government needs to butt out issue.

I've always viewed marriage as a religious institution, but if none religious people want to get married that is find by me.

Marriage is about two people committing their lives to each other. Simple as that.



Using the law to force your will upon others... isn't that what the anti-2A group does?

Nevermore
02-08-2012, 11:19 PM
I was reading through the opinion for the case and this gem came up pretty early, page 6:
"Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of the case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial."
Really, 9th Circuit? So does that mean you'll be moving on Nordyke v. King soon?

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 11:22 PM
so ban all that is of inconvenience to you or others? Your wife was EQUALLY as burdensome to your employer....perhaps we should nullify your marriage for the benefit of the company and then they will have more money to strengthen our economy and all will be well....

(see how that works ;) )

Except me marrying my wife was something that predates any institution of government, for one. The government simply recognized an institution that already existed before itself, and my employer followed suit. That cannot be said of gay "marriage," something that would have been unthinkable only 20 years ago.

Secondly, even if you were right, the fact remains that IT IS GOING TO COST ME MONEY. I tend to oppose things that do that unless I see a benefit for myself or my family in the process. I do not care what you think about that, and I suspect you're the same way if you are honest about it.

I should have been clearer about the other thing - I mentioned the issue of public support because there are lots of things that are not "rights," but are still a great idea. Those great ideas can garner public support if they're communicated effectively. There was no "right" to Prop 13 either, but lots of people agreed that letting local governments screw us on property taxes isn't a good thing, so the people voted to put a stop to it back in 1978.

The gays and their allies didn't bother with this, because as I said, the entire argument in favor boiled down to "fairness." After being defeated TWICE at the ballot box, they went over our heads and got the CA SSC to grant them a "right" which had never existed in California before.

This is why the Left and their tireless, tiresome social crusades frustrate me so much - like small children, they cannot handle being told "NO." They didn't like the outcome of Props 187 and 209 either (both denied certain publicly funded benefits to illegals). So they do the very thing Thomas Jefferson feared - cause the judicial branch to "become a despotic branch," where the Constitution shall become a mere thing of wax, which the judiciary shall mold and shape as they please.

I shudder at the thought that you and the other fellow are perfectly OK with the court system just slapping big changes to social policies on us, especially after the will of the people has already been made clear. Try to remember the quote - a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.

jdouglas
02-08-2012, 11:27 PM
As a civilized human being I think hurting others for no just reason is where I draw the line.
What is a "just reason"? Some arbitrary reason you came up with in your mind? Some arbitrary reason someone else (or a group of "someones") came up with? What if I want to hurt things just because? Why would my reasons be any less "just" than yours? "Justice" is non-existent in nature. Kill or be killed and/or do whatever you want in the meantime, is the only "law" in existence (aside from laws almost arbitrarily drawn out of random groups of people).

RRichie09
02-08-2012, 11:33 PM
What is a "just reason"? Some arbitrary reason you came up with in your mind? Some arbitrary reason someone else (or a group of "someones") came up with? What if I want to hurt things just because? Why would my reasons be any less "just" than yours? "Justice" is non-existent in nature. Kill or be killed and/or do whatever you want in the meantime, is the only "law" in existence (aside from laws almost arbitrarily drawn out of random groups of people).

lol you are going off the deep end sir. If you cannot answer the questions you have just asked me then I do not think we can have a intelligent discussion so I am signing off.

Dreaded Claymore
02-08-2012, 11:36 PM
This is why the Left enrages me so much - like small children, they cannot handle being told "NO." They didn't like the outcome of Props 187 and 209 either (both denied certain publicly funded benefits to illegals). So they do the very thing Thomas Jefferson feared - allow the judicial branch to "become a despotic branch," where the Constitution shall become a mere thing of wax, which the judiciary shall mold and shape as they please.

Okay...so if the SCOTUS had said "NO" in Heller vs. D.C., you would have just accepted that answer (unlike the Left)? There are a lot of people who believe that you do not, and did not ever, have a right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean that when Dick Heller, Otis McDonald, SAF, and Alan Gura went before the Supreme Court, they were encouraging it to "become a despotic branch?"

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 11:41 PM
Eh, excuse me everyone, but how did this thread turn into (I'm guilty of feeding into it) a discussion about gays, and how they should be criminalized? Or anything about how proper or improper the decision was?

3/4's of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

A moderator needs to come in and mass delete a lot of these crap posts that have ZERO to do with the actual subject matter at hand.


Because it's a contentious social issue that divides us, and it's unrealistic to expect that people aren't going to get sidetracked.

Why do people post on threads to complain about the subject matter at hand? If you don't care about it, go read another thread. It's not complicated.

Cylarz
02-08-2012, 11:43 PM
Okay...so if the SCOTUS had said "NO" in Heller vs. D.C., you would have just accepted that answer (unlike the Left)? There are a lot of people who believe that you do not, and did not ever, have a right to keep and bear arms. Does this mean that when Dick Heller, Otis McDonald, SAF, and Alan Gura went before the Supreme Court, they were encouraging it to "become a despotic branch?"

If Chairman Zero gets re-elected and has a chance to put a couple more justices on the USSC, we might find out.

I'm going to say this one more time. A plain reading of the 2nd Amendment doesn't qualify as the sort of judicial tyranny that I was complaining about above. James Madison, the guy who only WROTE THE CONSTITUTION, was exceedingly clear about this.

Inventing rights out of thin air (a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, a right to own fellow human beings, a right for the government to take your property just to turn it over to another private entity who will pay more in taxes) does qualify as judicial tyranny.

I know you and the other two fellows think I'm being inconsistent, but I am not. You are.

Stop playing word games. If you can't argue the point without resorting to hyperbole and strawmen, you've no business trying to engage me.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 11:52 PM
Because it's a contentious social issue that divides us, and it's unrealistic to expect that people aren't going to get sidetracked.

I get it. The man with the rainbow flag for an avatar doesn't like people like me hanging around in here making points in opposition to his preferred view. "But, but...I don't want anyone talking about this on a gun-related forum....." Sure you don't.

Why do people post on threads to complain about the subject matter at hand? If you don't care about it, go read another thread. It's not complicated.

Forum Rules:
By registering on calguns.net you are agreeing to abide by the following:
a)Please stay on topic in all forums.