Gay Marriage Ruling

[greekfire]

I must admit that I was utterly against gay marriage a number of years ago. I thought, “Marriage is a sacred institution, a sacred bond between a man and a women in the eyes of God.” I likened it to my perceived hijacking of the symbol of the rainbow by the homosexual community, which represented God’s covenant to Man that he would not destroy the Earth by water again.

As I age, I find myself taking a step back, and letting the forces of God and nature do their own work. If two consenting adults, of their own free will, want to enter into a contract of marriage, then so be it…regardless of their sexual orientation. The government, in my experience, seems to, in a time of need, trumpet issues like gay marriage before the people in an effort to rally support from their respective bases.

In a free society let lawful, tax-paying citizens live their lives as they wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

“Give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death

[Dukehorn]

How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”

a) Incest vs homosexuality

Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.

Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).

So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.

(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)

Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.

Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)

So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y

[Dukehorn]

How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”

a) Incest vs homosexuality

Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.

Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).

So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.

(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)

Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.

Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)

So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y

[Dukehorn]

How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”

a) Incest vs homosexuality

Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.

Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).

So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.

(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)

Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.

Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)

So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y

[Dukehorn]

How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”

a) Incest vs homosexuality

Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.

Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).

So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.

(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)

Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.

Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)

So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y

[Dukehorn]

How about applying some science and law to all these conflicting (and some rather absurd) scenarios that people are floating? And why some of this behavior is “ingrained”

a) Incest vs homosexuality

Damn, we breed horses and dogs with their siblings to accent certain traits and we definitely know that inbreeding also brings out certain recessive traits that limit survivability. Isn’t this fairly common knowledge. If someone disagrees, please post and we’ll ridicule you accordingly.

Therefore, from a reproductive behavior standpoint, modern societies and most modern religions have proscriptions against this behavior (see the Hapsburgs for an example of a royal family that played it sort of loose).

So, and I guess I need to remind some of you, the biological prohibition against incest does not really apply to homosexuality. I won’t even delve into the Greek tradition of homosexuality.

(b) State sodomy laws (including fellatio and cunnilingus)

Let’s not pretend that marriage is a federal institution or complain about states allow gay marriage. Remember that’s why certain states still have sodomy law on the books. You can talk about not interfering with privacy rights, but that’s just a legal “fiction” concocted by those “activist” judges. In theory, under strict construction, you don’t have privacy rights and states can enforce those sodomy laws against consenting adults (even heterosexuals). And need I remind you that sodomy is defined as “deviant” sex acts and includes oral AND anal sex.

Imagine, state laws prohibiting oral sex. You should be blessing those liberal judges that there’s no enforcement of those provisions…… Well, in 1986, these prohibitions were still deemed constitutional.

From Wikipedia:

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law that criminalized oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults. Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and held that such laws are unconstitutional. (See judicial review.)

So unless all of you are Quakers that are having sex with sheets between your bodily parts so it’s just about reproduction, don’t be hypocrites about what certain “conservatives” have put on the books. Y

[Dukehorn]

PS My Con Law prof was sort of considered a pervert and we spent a full week on Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Dukehorn]

PS My Con Law prof was sort of considered a pervert and we spent a full week on Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Dukehorn]

PS My Con Law prof was sort of considered a pervert and we spent a full week on Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Dukehorn]

PS My Con Law prof was sort of considered a pervert and we spent a full week on Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Dukehorn]

PS My Con Law prof was sort of considered a pervert and we spent a full week on Bowers v. Hardwick.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Author]

Posts