it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

[CSpindizzy]

Kill the government sponsorship of marriage and all tax breaks and incentives for married people and it all becomes a mute point.

If you took the perks out of the argument, and there would be no issue. Maybe IP would still be arguing it but many of those protesting this issue come out and say they want access to those same perks. And that is what it typically comes down to. Few will come out saying they just want to legally be recognized as a couple.

The issue with this case argues due process and equal protection. In CA you have domestic partnerships which offer this equality. You have 'marriage' defined for the religious side and domestic partnerships which address the equality side. By tossing this out Judge Walker essentially kills the concept of having both marriage and domestic partnerships. He is saying there is only one concept. So any arguments for two separate aspects is moot.

 

[IPorange]

Specter of communism? Nice try but desperate. Read Marx. I'm not saying anything about Stalin and Hitler's views of homosexuality. Can you not read a post without taking it completely out of context? Are you that dysfunctional? Read the post guy. Read Marx's teachings. I referred to marriage. I referred to people taking marriage out and how it had ties to religion.

I'm not "conceding" anything. I'm not saying anything about my own views. I'm merely pointing out how morality plays an integral part in the concepts of more's, laws, ethics, etc. Read Aristotle some time. Where have I ever said my argument is based on being Biblical? Where have I ever defined my arguments and them being limited by anything. If anything, I am saying how a religious viewpoint and a viewpoint on morality in general is a part of our society and has been a part of all societies. There is no removal of it. You act as if it can be unplugged and has already faced some imaginary expiration date. I ask where did that come from and when did it happen?

I'll try to repeat something again for you. I never limited ANYTHING on being Biblical. I have repeatedly said "religious" and "morality" since it encompasses MANY religious views and over a few thousand years.

I'm not sure what your beef is with Christianity but it is quite obvious you have a problem with it. If anyone mentions anything religious, you go off on some anti-Christian tangent. You did in this argument and you have in others. I'm arguing religious views, morality, ethics, more's, etc. and you keep harping on the Bible. You seriously need to read a post and try extra hard to stay limited to that post you respond to. Putting words in my mouth is not a strong way to argue a point.

Another point - what Marx stated and what Hitler and Stalin did are two different things. Try to focus on the points made - Marx was dead far before the USSR and Nazi Germany. Bringing those two "examples" in was pointless. You're conceding you had no point and had to bring in some very reaching examples to argue a point.

You brought up Marx to make a connection to communism. It's pointless to try and deny that fact. Of course Stalin and Hitler were pointless to the discussion- just like Marx was.

You are leaning on Aristotle to keep your argument from being Biblical, but it isn't like I am not aware that Christians have been hitching their wagon to his philosophies of "everything having a purpose in nature" and what not for 800 years. Aristotle found homosexuality to be "immoral" because it was using certain body parts "intended by nature" for a particular act for other things. That logic has been argued with from the time it was uttered. Is walking on your hands immoral? Is kissing immoral?

No, of course not. Thomas Aquinas' counter to that was that it was only immoral if it was a body part that was being used against its purpose to "oppose God." And now we are right back where we started, aren't we? An assumption of everyone having to submit to the Judeo-christian concept of God.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You brought up Marx to make a connection to communism. It's pointless to try and deny that fact. Of course Stalin and Hitler were pointless to the discussion- just like Marx was.

You are leaning on Aristotle to keep your argument from being Biblical, but it isn't like I am not aware that Christians have been hitching their wagon to his philosophies of "everything having a purpose in nature" and what not for 800 years. Aristotle found homosexuality to be "immoral" because it was using certain body parts "intended by nature" for a particular act for other things. That logic has been argued with from the time it was uttered. Is walking on your hands immoral? Is kissing immoral?

No, of course not. Thomas Aquinas' counter to that was that it was only immoral if it was a body part that was being used against its purpose to "oppose God." And now we are right back where we started, aren't we? An assumption of everyone having to submit to the Judeo-christian concept of God.

Wow. You never cease to amaze me. I brought up Marx due to the marriage issue and why it should be removed. He believes as you and a few others here do. It was relevant and connected to this discussion. Just pointing out someone who agreed with your already stated viewpoint. Again, what did Stalin and Hitler bring to this debate?

You seriously do not understand context. My reference to Aristotle had nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, read my post and explain to me how I connected the two. Stay in context. Try your best not to just tie every statement to some critique on Christianity. I'm talking about marriage and also how morality plays a part in our laws and you want to discuss historical debates on homosexual acts and nature.

 

[gsvol]

And the specter of communism is invoked. This just gets better and better! Of course, the USSR and it's satellites were brutally oppressive of homosexuals. As was Nazi Germany. Should I wonder aloud how much you have in common with them? Of course not, that would be stupid.

You are presenting this as a simple dichotomy: either you are for biblical morality being legally enforced on the country, or you are for a chaotic "law of the jungle," stealing, raping, murdering apocalypse. It's like you are the President from Escape from New York.

It's telling that my religious views and my views on evolution keep being brought up by you. You are basically conceding that your argument is entirely biblical. That isn't good enough in a truly free country. Maybe in Iran...

WROGO BUCKO!!!

How can you be so wrong so often??

I know, you've been given bad information all your life, just like I was given when I was your age, some people live and learn and some belive ignorance is bliss.

Although the Nazis did punish some homosexuals that were political opponents, that was just a convenient charge.

The Nazi leadership was the weirdest sort of perverts the world has ever known.

The PinkSwastika 4th Edition - Final

Take the time to enlighten yourself, there is a handy guide on the left that is easy to use.

Here is 'the cultural elites' from the chapter "The Homosexual Roots of Fascism."

The PinkSwastika 4th Edition - Final

An interesting aside to this story is the fact that in 1886 Elisabeth Nietzsche and her husband founded a colony in Paraguay, South America called Nueva Germania (“New Germany”). After the fall of the Third Reich, Nueva Germania sheltered hundreds of fleeing Nazi war criminals, including the infamous Dr. Joseph Mengele (McIntyre: 5,205ff). Another interesting fact is that Rudolf Steiner, who would later found the occultic Anthroposophical Society, was briefly involved with Elisabeth in the management of the Nietzsche Archives.

Frederich Nietzsche’s influence on the Nazis is reflected in all they did. “Become hard and show no mercy,” Nietzsche taught, “for evil is man’s best force” (Peters:227). One wonders whether history might have been different if Germans had been aware that the writings of their fascist “genius” may have been influenced by impaired brain function “caused by...the tertiary phase of cerebral syphilis” (ibid.:35).

And today, as we speak, there are more gay bars than straight bars in Leningrad and Moscow.

Funny you should even mention Iran, but I digress.

 

[lumberjack4]

If you took the perks out of the argument, and there would be no issue. Maybe IP would still be arguing it but many of those protesting this issue come out and say they want access to those same perks. And that is what it typically comes down to. Few will come out saying they just want to legally be recognized as a couple.

The issue with this case argues due process and equal protection. In CA you have domestic partnerships which offer this equality. You have 'marriage' defined for the religious side and domestic partnerships which address the equality side. By tossing this out Judge Walker essentially kills the concept of having both marriage and domestic partnerships. He is saying there is only one concept. So any arguments for two separate aspects is moot.

As long as the government is involved with marriage, they cannot discriminate against same sex couples. Setting aside a separate institution for a particular subset of people is not equality. If you don't like same sex marriage, get the government out of the marriage business.

 

[CSpindizzy]

As long as the government is involved with marriage, they cannot discriminate against same sex couples. Setting aside a separate institution for a particular subset of people is not equality. If you don't like same sex marriage, get the government out of the marriage business.

Kind of like tax breaks for those who are married, those who have children, EIC qualified, affirmative action, quotas, scholarships, having states jump through even more hoops on voting rights based on racial discrimination decades ago, Native American benefits, and numerous other entities?

There are endless examples of the government setting aside separate institutions to enforce "equality". I think some of you are confusing "equality" with liberty as well. Also, I'm still waiting for all of those arguing for equality to now give me the new definition of marriage that grants equality to all parties. Lumberjack, can you tell me what the new definition is? I am asking for the definition where there is true equality for any and all. Give me a specific legal definition of marriage as if you could make law.

 

[IPorange]

Wow. You never cease to amaze me. I brought up Marx due to the marriage issue and why it should be removed. He believes as you and a few others here do. It was relevant and connected to this discussion. Just pointing out someone who agreed with your already stated viewpoint. Again, what did Stalin and Hitler bring to this debate?

You seriously do not understand context. My reference to Aristotle had nothing to do with homosexuality. Again, read my post and explain to me how I connected the two. Stay in context. Try your best not to just tie every statement to some critique on Christianity. I'm talking about marriage and also how morality plays a part in our laws and you want to discuss historical debates on homosexual acts and nature.

You are making a connection with being "pro gay marriage" with being for "destroying marriage" with agreeing with Marx. I am saying being against homosexual rights could link you to Stalin and Hitler by the same logic. Bury your head and refuse to get it, it makes as much sense as what you are saying. What's funny is you say, "again, what do Hitler and Stalin have to do with the discussion?" when I already said they don't really have ANYTHING to do with it, just like Marx doesn't. You are right, I do seem to have to repeat myself a lot. You don't like what I say, so you just re-ask your questions...

You keep saying I am derailing to conversation, when I am not. Get this: I don't accept homosexuality in and of itself as being immoral. You just state it as such. Prove to me that it is. My "derailments" have been trying to show that you are dependent on some religious concept to come to that conclusion. I won't just accept your presuppositions and loaded framing of the discussion.

 

[IPorange]

Kind of like tax breaks for those who are married, those who have children, EIC qualified, affirmative action, quotas, scholarships, having states jump through even more hoops on voting rights based on racial discrimination decades ago, Native American benefits, and numerous other entities?

There are endless examples of the government setting aside separate institutions to enforce "equality". I think some of you are confusing "equality" with liberty as well. Also, I'm still waiting for all of those arguing for equality to now give me the new definition of marriage that grants equality to all parties. Lumberjack, can you tell me what the new definition is? I am asking for the definition where there is true equality for any and all. Give me a specific legal definition of marriage as if you could make law.

You just don't read what anyone else is saying...

 

[IPorange]

WROGO BUCKO!!!

How can you be so wrong so often??

I know, you've been given bad information all your life, just like I was given when I was your age, some people live and learn and some belive ignorance is bliss.

Although the Nazis did punish some homosexuals that were political opponents, that was just a convenient charge.

The Nazi leadership was the weirdest sort of perverts the world has ever known.

The PinkSwastika 4th Edition - Final

Take the time to enlighten yourself, there is a handy guide on the left that is easy to use.

Here is 'the cultural elites' from the chapter "The Homosexual Roots of Fascism."

The PinkSwastika 4th Edition - Final



And today, as we speak, there are more gay bars than straight bars in Leningrad and Moscow.

Funny you should even mention Iran, but I digress.

Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals 1933-1945

Homosexuals were deeply persecuted, and were victims of the holocaust. Don't minimize it.

Stalin regarded fascists and homosexuals as one and the same, and brutally persecuted them as well. I have no idea what gay clubs in Leningrad and Moscow have to do with that. Obviously homosexuality is not linearly hereditary.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals 1933-1945

Homosexuals were deeply persecuted, and were victims of the holocaust. Don't minimize it.

Stalin regarded fascists and homosexuals as one and the same, and brutally persecuted them as well. I have no idea what gay clubs in Leningrad and Moscow have to do with that. Obviously homosexuality is not linearly hereditary.

Does that include having a #2 who was a known homosexual along with many of his close associates? We can't leave having such a close confidante and associate untouched. Good old Ernst Rohm was Hitler's enforcer. Having someone in such authority and power doesn't exactly spell out utter hatred...

 

[IPorange]

Oh. Well, I guess someone better go and scoop those "gay" ashes out of the furnace and let them know they don't count.

Seriously? Hitler was part Jewish, I guess the Jews weren't really all that persecuted either.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You are making a connection with being "pro gay marriage" with being for "destroying marriage" with agreeing with Marx. I am saying being against homosexual rights could link you to Stalin and Hitler by the same logic. Bury your head and refuse to get it, it makes as much sense as what you are saying. What's funny is you say, "again, what do Hitler and Stalin have to do with the discussion?" when I already said they don't really have ANYTHING to do with it, just like Marx doesn't. You are right, I do seem to have to repeat myself a lot. You don't like what I say, so you just re-ask your questions...

You keep saying I am derailing to conversation, when I am not. Get this: I don't accept homosexuality in and of itself as being immoral. You just state it as such. Prove to me that it is. My "derailments" have been trying to show that you are dependent on some religious concept to come to that conclusion. I won't just accept your presuppositions and loaded framing of the discussion.

I'm here talking about marriage. Not sure where YET AGAIN I've stated I am against whatever the definition of "homosexual rights" is. Strange how equality and not needing to separate into groups now morphs into a separate group of rights here.

Marx had complete agreement with you on marriage. Last I checked, I've never mentioned beating up, killing, and sending to concentration camps of homosexuals. Your very stupid and childish argument is getting old very quickly. I'm sorry you cannot admit that regarding this issue you keep quality company in the form of Marx - complete agreement I remind you. It has nothing to do with me not liking what you say. It has to do with you just afraid to admit your argument has no basis in fact AND you have complete agreement with someone you cannot admit to having. I'm arguing about morality, ethics, etc. You keep harping on Christianity, dislike for homosexuality, Stalin and Hitler, etc. You again are just all over the map here.

I won't just accept your presuppositions and loaded framing of the discussion.

Clearly you just won't accept anything logical and choose to take the argument in some distant tangent. I'm not sure why you cannot stay focused on the actual discussion but they do offer meds to help with that sort of thing. I'm not sure where I said I was limiting this to a Biblical argument or left it with some anti-gay rationale as well. Of course you just invent the conversation and argue whatever point you want.

 

[IPorange]

Prove to me how homosexuality is immoral. Go.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Oh. Well, I guess someone better go and scoop those "gay" ashes out of the furnace and let them know they don't count.

Seriously? Hitler was part Jewish, I guess the Jews weren't really all that persecuted either.

Did I say they didn't? Or is this just more of your kneejerk, childish argument as well?

As for Hitler being Jewish, there has never been proof to this. But since you introduced this, we'll go with one more mistake in your arguments.

 

[KB5252]

The idea of Hitler being part Jew and the resentment he felt toward them was ingrained early in life is an interesting subject. I studied Hitler quite a bit when I was younger. Although I found no real evidence to support the claim there is anecdotal evidence that this is a possibility.

 

[CSpindizzy]

There is a possibility but there is no proof. A young man growing up in a society that was anti-semitic and then being poor and homeless in a city with many rich Jewish families makes for some nasty combinations of bigotry. He was exposed to several 'norms' of the day which attacked anyone and anything Jewish. There were always blackmail attempts to try and prove his Jewish background which added to his paranoia and bigotry. Nothing was ever substantiated. If anything most of the theories have been put forth by those just trying to prove the irony.

 

[IPorange]

There is a possibility but there is no proof. A young man growing up in a society that was anti-semitic and then being poor and homeless in a city with many rich Jewish families makes for some nasty combinations of bigotry. He was exposed to several 'norms' of the day which attacked anyone and anything Jewish. There were always blackmail attempts to try and prove his Jewish background which added to his paranoia and bigotry. Nothing was ever substantiated. If anything most of the theories have been put forth by those just trying to prove the irony.

There is no proof, partly because the ancestor in question was illegitimate with "no father." His grandfather was born to a woman who worked in a wealthy Jewish household with many adult sons, who got pregnant. Seems plausible, if not provable.

 

[CSpindizzy]

There is no proof, partly because the ancestor in question was illegitimate with "no father." His grandfather was born to a woman who worked in a wealthy Jewish household with many adult sons, who got pregnant. Seems plausible, if not provable.

So plausible is grounds for fact? I thought we were only arguing hard, concrete factual evidence here. The theory of her working in the Jewish household in Graz and impregnated by the 19 year old son was the baseless conclusion by Hans Frank - no proof of her even working for a Jewish family exists. In fact a Jewish family in Graz is a rare and unheard of occurrence back then.

Next theory?

 

[IPorange]

So plausible is grounds for fact? I thought we were only arguing hard, concrete factual evidence here. The theory of her working in the Jewish household in Graz and impregnated by the 19 year old son was the baseless conclusion by Hans Frank - no proof of her even working for a Jewish family exists. In fact a Jewish family in Graz is a rare and unheard of occurrence back then.

Next theory?

This is a strange thing to try and take a stand on. So it isn't a verifiable fact. My bad. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuals were persecuted brutally by the Nazis, which was the original comment. You apparently felt it wasn't that hateful of a persecution, because Hitler's right-hand man was supposedly gay or bisexual or whatever.

Are you going to prove to me how homosexuality is immoral? Or...?

 

[IPorange]

Prove to me how homosexuality is immoral. Go.

bump.


I think there are some questions that you have "forgot" or "didn't see" in some other threads too.

 

[BigPapaVol]

bump.


I think there are some questions that you have "forgot" or "didn't see" in some other threads too.

everybody knows this one. It's because sex out of wedlock is akin to murder. I know that pesky little issue of fighting over who can be married matters in this somehow, but it can't really be that big of a deal, can it?

It's cool how we can set up an exclusionary little club and this call those outside of it lepers.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know. I could just be a childish "Marxist" with ADD.

 

[CSpindizzy]

bump.


I think there are some questions that you have "forgot" or "didn't see" in some other threads too.

Bump all you want. When you manage to answer one of my questions without some serious digression and tangent drift, I'll answer yours.

Let's put it this way. It's difficult to prove anything is immoral to someone who already does not believe in morality. I would have to 'prove' morality first to you. So basically the question you posed above is pointless to answer to you.

I guess if the bump game is what we're playing I will have to go back and bump say about 20 questions or even the same question asked 20 different ways to you. So when you make that great first step answering my questions without going off on a rant on Christianity, I may break down and answer your question.

 

[CSpindizzy]

This is a strange thing to try and take a stand on. So it isn't a verifiable fact. My bad. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuals were persecuted brutally by the Nazis, which was the original comment. You apparently felt it wasn't that hateful of a persecution, because Hitler's right-hand man was supposedly gay or bisexual or whatever.

Are you going to prove to me how homosexuality is immoral? Or...?

I merely pointed out that Hitler's number two was a homosexual as well as a good portion of his staff. You are the one who went off on ashes, etc. It's the little sensational, emotionally driven rants you throw in that make for laughable dialogue. Add to the fact you seem to think you know enough about me to tell me what I believe. Clearly with what you've said I've said, you have no clue.

 

[IPorange]

Bump all you want. When you manage to answer one of my questions without some serious digression and tangent drift, I'll answer yours.

Let's put it this way. It's difficult to prove anything is immoral to someone who already does not believe in morality. I would have to 'prove' morality first to you. So basically the question you posed above is pointless to answer to you.

I guess if the bump game is what we're playing I will have to go back and bump say about 20 questions or even the same question asked 20 different ways to you. So when you make that great first step answering my questions without going off on a rant on Christianity, I may break down and answer your question.

I can't answer your questions because they assume homosexuality is immoral in a secular way, and I don't see how it is.

So I take it you can't answer the question. That's what I expected. I guess I wasn't so off-base in my "rants" as you like to think.