So gay!!!

[Hopper]

Anything you choose to do, you do for a reason, I figure. If I decided to go gay, I guess I would be "attracted" to it, sure.

Beyond that, it's a good thang mere "attraction" doesn't dictate choices and behavior. If it did there would be about 30 times as many 400+ lbs Babes waddlin the streets, on account of eatin the chocolate cake they're so attacted to 24/7, ya know?

 

[One Brow]

1. I wasn't making any judgment on whether any particular sexual activity is "right or wrong." That said, you bet the parties involved kept their inter-racial sex "hidden" back then.

I'm fairly sure lightly skinned men had little to fear from having sex with darkly-skinned women, at least in many parts of the country. But still, to keep your eyes from having to see it, they should be forced underground, that it?

Anything you choose to do, you do for a reason, I figure. If I decided to go gay, I guess I would be "attracted" to it, sure.

Again, you do not answer the questions of whether you could choose to have that attraction.

Beyond that, it's a good thang mere "attraction" doesn't dictate choices and behavior. If it did there would be about 30 times as many 400+ lbs Babes waddlin the streets, on account of eatin the chocolate cake they're so attacted to 24/7, ya know?

So, you have no objection to saying other people can't get married, or date publically, because you don't like how they look together?

 

[Hopper]

In theory I could "choose" about anything, Eric. Don't mean I'm gunna. But my whole point was that "choice" is irrelevant to begin with.

A bigshot pyschiatrist (Adler, mebbe, I don't recall, exactly) was once asked if there was any act or behavior so inherently immoral and disgusting that the average guy would refuse to do it.

He said, no, in my opinion there isn't, so long as one's peers approve of it. I see no reason why a "highly motivated" heterosexual couldn't go gay, just like gays can go straight.

 

[Hopper]

There was a story in the local newspaper a while back about a guy who was in the habit of entering women's restrooms at airports and other public venues. One woman told him to get the hell out. When he ignored her and tried to enter a stall with his highly poished shoes on (so he could "look up" into the adjoining stall) she slapped him and went to get the authorites.

He sued her. His position was that human beings have the same basic biological functions, regardless of sex, when it comes to waste elimination and that there was no valid reason to prohibit him from using women's restrooms if he needed to relieve himself. He lost, of course.

But belt some gay guy who comes into a men's restroom and tries to "flirt" with you or "spy" on you, and you're gunna do at least a year in the pen for a "hate crime" if the gays have their way, ya know?

 

[TheItinerantSon]

All due respect, aint, it doesn't sound like you've had a lot of positive experiences. It also sounds like you haven't had any friends.

fixed it.

 

[Scorpjazz]

It's passed pathetic now. A gay judge over rules Prop 8? Serious? lol, surprise.
This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself. That the rainbow movement tries to include or compare itself with racial causes is bogusand sad.
I dont care if someone DECIDES to be gay, that is their call and if it isnt illegal and 2 cxonsenting adult, have at it. BUT, to then try to impose on society that they should get all legal rights of non gay couples is stupid. Sorry, that is just how it is.
So-called progression isnt always good.
***Edited out because it is too honest and people cant handle that***

 

[YB85]

It's passed pathetic now. A gay judge over rules Prop 8? Serious? lol, surprise.
This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself. That the rainbow movement tries to include or compare itself with racial causes is bogusand sad.
I dont care if someone DECIDES to be gay, that is their call and if it isnt illegal and 2 cxonsenting adult, have at it. BUT, to then try to impose on society that they should get all legal rights of non gay couples is stupid. Sorry, that is just how it is.
So-called progression isnt always good.
***Edited out because it is too honest and people cant handle that***

Amen. I remember struggling for a long time about which team I should play for. I prayed. I talked to a lot of people. I read books, because one can not make this choice too hastily. Finally, I decided to flip a coin. Heads- hetero, tails- homo. When George Washington's profile appeared, my choice was made. I am glad I made that choice. How did you make your choice, Scorp?

 

[moevillini]

by drawing straws perhaps?


maybe he got the short one


(just another mindless post provided to you by a lithium-crazed midwesterner)

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

It's passed pathetic now. A gay judge over rules Prop 8? Serious? lol, surprise.
This isnt bigotry either. I dont care how un PC it is, sexual orientation IS a choice. It isnt race, ethnic heritage, or anything similar. It is a choice you decide for yourself. That the rainbow movement tries to include or compare itself with racial causes is bogusand sad.
I dont care if someone DECIDES to be gay, that is their call and if it isnt illegal and 2 cxonsenting adult, have at it. BUT, to then try to impose on society that they should get all legal rights of non gay couples is stupid. Sorry, that is just how it is.
So-called progression isnt always good.
***Edited out because it is too honest and people cant handle that***

Compelling and rich.

A microcosm of your entire post.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I'm curious. What if in 1,000 years, there are more homos than heteros in the country and they, the majority, then decide via legislation that heteros can't get married because, well, sorry, that is just how it is.

 

[G-O-A-T]

According the the Christian Science Monitor: "US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who invalidated Proposition 8, doubts the proponents of California's gay marriage ban have any standing to appeal his ruling...Walker said they needed the state government’s support, which they don’t have."

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-Supreme-Court

Seems like the judge himself sees a "cases and controversies" standing issue here, eh, Goat (you still around?)? If they don't have standing to appeal the case, how could they have had standing to "defend," it, I wonder?

“As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal,” Walker wrote in his ruling Thursday that lifted the stay on his earlier decision."

He's overreaching, I figure. By trying to make his ruling unappealable via claiming the state (who refused to defend) must join in, he's simply saying there was no "actual controversy" to begin with, aint he?

The very reason he is using to say that his ruling "can't" be appealed could be used by the appellate court to refuse to hear, and throw out, his ruling too, I figure.

Sometimes it's better to take things step by step instead of jumping to broad conclusions... this is one of those times.

In the trial court it's the plaintiff who must show standing. The gay couple succeeded... therefore the trial court decision holds up (at least for this issue).

In the appellate court it's the appellant (person bringing the appeal) who must demonstrate standing. Here, it's questionable whether the intervenors are actually being injured by the ruling... and that's what this article is about. On the other hand, the state of California is definitely being injured by the ruling (they can't enforce the constitution), but the state isn't the one bringing the appeal, the intervenors are.

In other words, the trial court decision will be unaffected by these potential standing issues at the appellate level.

The real issue you should to be concentrated on is whether the "proposition 8 proponents" (the group who defended the law) intervention was valid.

 

[Hopper]

In the trial court it's the plaintiff who must show standing. The gay couple succeeded... therefore the trial court decision holds up (at least for this issue)....In other words, the trial court decision will be unaffected by these potential standing issues at the appellate level.

I don't follow your reasoning here at all, Goat. You may or may not remember all the cases I cited and quoted, but the import was clearly that, in order for a court to even be willing to adjudicate a matter, BOTH sides must have a valid stake so that an "actual controversy" can arise under Article III.

In deciding this question, BOTH sides are looked at simultaneously, not in a discrete, serial manner. Nor is the import that ONLY one side need have a vested interest; in fact that is the very evil to be avoided. "Friendly suits" not only CAN be, but, if you take the court literally, MUST be dismissed, ESPECIALLY where rulings on constitutionality are at stake.

Under your reasoning, any ruling entered against a defaulting, "friendly" defendant would be absolutely unassailable rather than dismissable, i.e. voidable on grounds of collusion.