Louisiana Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

[Seawytch]

More like valid question too uncomfortable for you too answer.

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

homosexuality is biological you have no biological argument against it.
also your whole exsitance is dominated by your bigotry.'
not everyone has to agree.

Bullshit. The human rectum was not designed to be repeatedly penetrated by a penis. the human vagina was designed for that purpose. It is biological. homosexuality is an aberation of the human condition.

So the 38% of straights that have anal sex must have their marriage licenses revoked immediately?

Homosexuality is a human condition (and a condition for over 1,000 species of animals too.)

 

[Seawytch]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Let's settle the gun debate the same way! Great idea! If your state votes to ban firearms...suck it up sunshine!

 

[Seawytch]

yes, same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Did you notice that those civilizations collapsed shortly after that practice began?

Study a little history, dude. you might learn something.

But, thats not what I was addressing. Wytch keeps claiming that Loving established the basis for gay marriage-----------that is a lie. Loving established that different races should be able to marry---not two people of the same sex..

Shortly?

Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

false

nope, true. look it up

I did, there is no credible historical reference bolstering your claim..

Oh, well, that's because you want a credible source....fucking elitist.

 

[Seawytch]

yes, same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Did you notice that those civilizations collapsed shortly after that practice began?

Study a little history, dude. you might learn something.

But, thats not what I was addressing. Wytch keeps claiming that Loving established the basis for gay marriage-----------that is a lie. Loving established that different races should be able to marry---not two people of the same sex..

Shortly?

Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find a link between the onset of open homosexuality and the collapse of those empires. If you want to look at the Roman Empire, the emergence of Christianity occurred closer to the collapse than the emergence of homosexuality

christianity killed the roman empire ...

Homosexuality was openly accepted in Rome throughout the period of the Empire. It was the Christians who started calling it a "sin". It was shortly after the emergence of the Christians that the Roman Empire collapsed

The Roman Empire actually got too big NOT to fail.

Reasons for failure:

1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
2. Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor
3. The rise of the Eastern Empire
4. Overexpansion and military overspending
5. Government corruption and political instability
6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
8. Weakening of the Roman legions

8 Reasons Why Rome Fell HISTORY Lists

 

[WorldWatcher]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

I doubt if you would be able to amend the Constitutional between now and November as there are no providsions for a "National Referendum" on anything.



>>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

I doubt if you would be able to amend the Constitutional between now and November as there are no providsions for a "National Referendum" on anything.



>>>>>

Yeah, but gays get "special rights" remember? [emoji12]

 

[frigidweirdo]

you misunderstand what I am saying. The government should not be involved in marriage-----------but it is. The govt give tax breaks to married couples. I want those same tax breaks for gay couples. But thats not what this is about. This is about what society accepts as normal human behavior. Allowing gays to call their union a marriage is society saying that homosexuality is a normal human condition, equal in every way to heterosexuality-----------some believe that, the majority do not. Are we to be ruled by minority opinion or majority opinion? Thats what this gay debate is really about.

I've quoted you below on my signature. You said if the majority was in favor of gay marriage you'd support it. Now you don't?

You said the majority don't, but I've shown you that polls suggest that the MAJORITY DO support gay marriage.

To be honest, it's not about being ruled by the majority or the minority, it's about being ruled by the fundamental principles of the USA, which just happen to be human right.

Every election that happens upholds the fundamental principles of the USA, the vast majority of people are pro-human rights.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then that equal protection MUST also extend to bigamists and polygamists. Why do you support discrimination against the rights of these people to live and love who they want to?

I think most people's attitude towards polygamy, who support gay marriage, is that they don't like it, but don't care either.

Bigamy is basically fraud. If you marry when you're already married and don't tell the person you're marrying or married to, then this is wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Yeah, let's have one on gay marriage, one on slavery, one on whether women should be able to vote, one on whether blacks and whites can intermarry, one on whether minorities should be able to progress in life, on segregation, on EVERYTHING.

 

[frigidweirdo]

bullshit.you bogus argument is based on why people get married.
if children are the only reason for doing so then it's completely unnecessary.

Same-sex and third gender marriages
Main articles: Same-sex marriage and History of same-sex unions
As noted above, several kinds of same gendered, non-sexual marriages exist in some lineage based societies; this section relates to same gendered sexual unions. However, some cultures include third gender (two-spirited or transgendered) individuals, such as the berdache of the Zuni in New Mexico; is the marriage between a berdache and a man a "same sex marriage"? We'wha, one of the most revered Zuni elders (an Ihamana, spiritual leader) served as an emissary of the Zuni to Washington, where he met President Grover Cleveland. We'wha had a husband who was generally recognized as such.[42]

While it is a relatively new practice to grant same-sex couples the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly granted to mixed-sex couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[43][44] Ancient Greek same-sex relationships were like modern companionate marriages, unlike their different-sex marriages in which the spouses had few emotional ties, and the husband had freedom to engage in outside sexual liaisons. The Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE imposed severe penalties or death on same-sex relationships[45] but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.[46] Same-sex unions were celebrated in some regions of China

yes, same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Did you notice that those civilizations collapsed shortly after that practice began?

Study a little history, dude. you might learn something.

But, thats not what I was addressing. Wytch keeps claiming that Loving established the basis for gay marriage-----------that is a lie. Loving established that different races should be able to marry---not two people of the same sex..

Shortly?

Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

false

nope, true. look it up

Normally I'd tell someone to do their own research, especially in cases where to prove your point you'd have to prove a negative. But hey, let's see.

Homosexuality in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Good old Wikipedia.

"Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt is a passionately disputed subject within Egyptology: historians and egyptologists alike debate what kind of view the Ancient Egyptians society fostered about homosexuality. Only a handful of direct hints have survived to this day and many possible indices are only vague and offer plenty of room for speculation."

It also says NOTHING about marriage.

Timeline of LGBT history - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Pepi II Neferkare governs as Egyptian pharaoh. A later tale, King Neferkare and General Sasenet, suggests a homosexual interpretation around nocturnal visits to his General[4][4][5]"

"Marriage between men in Greece was not legally recognized, but men might form life-long relationships originating in paiderastia ("pederasty," without the pejorative connotations of the English word). These partnerships were not dissimilar to heterosexual marriages except that the older person served as educator or mentor."

"

• 385 BCE – Plato publishes Symposium in which Phaedrus, Eryixmachus, Aristophanes and other Greek intellectuals argue that love between males is the highest form, while sex with women is lustful and utilitarian.[9] Socrates, however, differs.[10] He demonstrates extreme self-control when seduced by the beautiful Alcibiades.[11]"

"338 BCE – The Sacred Band of Thebes, an undefeated elite battalion made up of one hundred and fifty pederastic couples, is destroyed by the forces of Philip II of Macedon who bemoans their loss and praises their honour.["

"

• 326 BCE – Military leader Alexander the Great completes conquest of most of the then known Western world, launching the Hellenistic Age in which millions of people are converted to a Hellenistic culture that views homosexual relationships positively."

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.[2]"

"Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebratingtraditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between men as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[119]Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[120] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against gay marriage began to appear."

"The earliest reference in Latin literature to a marriage between men occurs in the Philippics of Cicero, who insulted Mark Antony for being a slut in his youth until Curio "established you in a fixed and stable marriage (matrimonium), as if he had given you a stola," the traditional garment of a married woman.[126] Although Cicero's sexual implications are clear, the point of the passage is to cast Antony in the submissive role in the relationship and to impugn his manhood in various ways; there is no reason to think that actual marriage rites were performed."

So, there's evidence of informal marriages, not formal marriages in Rome. However this was becoming illegal by the 4th Century. Ie, it was the opposite of how you said it. At its peak the Romans were able to informally marry without much of a problems. When Christianity took over Rome went downhill and "gay marriage" disappeared.

In Egypt there is no evidence of gay marriage.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There's also no evidence in Ancient Greece of marriage. It's mostly men with boys.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm guessing California has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that pretty much copies the Federal Bill of Rights. Any initiative in California would have to be a Constitutional initiative which I'm also guessing needs an increased signature requirement. Even if such an Initiative were to get on the ballot in California, I doubt it would pass. IF it did it would still be subject to restriction by the Federal Bill of Rights which represents a wider majority opinion.

Whether you like it or not, marriage has been declared a fundamental right...which is why anti gay laws (based solely on animus for gays) are being found unconstitutional.

I dont believe it has been,...in fact I think European courts have rejected that idea. Laws prohibiting "gay-marriage"...which you term "anti-gay" are NOT solely based on animus for gays.

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

 

[dcraelin]

yes, same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Did you notice that those civilizations collapsed shortly after that practice began?
Study a little history, dude. you might learn something.
But, thats not what I was addressing. Wytch keeps claiming that Loving established the basis for gay marriage-----------that is a lie. Loving established that diferent races should be able to marry---not two people of the same sex..

Shortly?
Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find a link between the onset of open homosexuality and the collapse of those empires. If you want to look at the Roman Empire, the emergence of Christianity occurred closer to the collapse than the emergence of homosexuality

christianity killed the roman empire ...

Homosexuality was openly accepted in Rome throughout the period of the Empire. It was the Christians who started calling it a "sin". It was shortly after the emergence of the Christians that the Roman Empire collapsed

Rome was a Barbaric empire that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The people the Romans called barbarians started to eat away at the empire before Christianity really took hold as I understand it. Christianity's influence on Rome was to make it a more humane place.

 

[Seawytch]

Whether you like it or not, marriage has been declared a fundamental right...which is why anti gay laws (based solely on animus for gays) are being found unconstitutional.

I dont believe it has been,...in fact I think European courts have rejected that idea. Laws prohibiting "gay-marriage"...which you term "anti-gay" are NOT solely based on animus for gays.

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

 

[rightwinger]

I dont believe it has been,...in fact I think European courts have rejected that idea. Laws prohibiting "gay-marriage"...which you term "anti-gay" are NOT solely based on animus for gays.

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

 

[Redfish]

lets settle this. Lets have a national referendum on the november ballot. Let the voters decide-------------OK?

we settle everything else by voting, why not this?

Let's settle the gun debate the same way! Great idea! If your state votes to ban firearms...suck it up sunshine!

Works for me. Let the people speak. Thats what this country is all about-----------freedom, democracy, one vote per citizen, majority vote wins. Lets do it. Lets put all of these issues up to a vote of the people.

 

[Redfish]

I dont believe it has been,...in fact I think European courts have rejected that idea. Laws prohibiting "gay-marriage"...which you term "anti-gay" are NOT solely based on animus for gays.

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

So the historical context and the intent of the drafters of the 14th don't matter? You just assume that your interpretation is correct because it suits your agenda?

The 14th was about race, not sexual orientation.

 

[Redfish]

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

If they wanted to restrict the 14th amendment to just blacks they could have. They specifically opened it up to all people

Gay marriage was not discussed or considered or thought about when the 14th was drafted. You guys are totally out of context trying to make it about gay marriage. It was about equal treatment for all races. nothing more.

 

[Redfish]

Strawman

More like valid question too uncomfortable for you too answer.

I don't have to address every random question you ask me that has nothing to do with anything I said. Sorry Steve. A tip though, if you make it sound like you are addressing something I said when you are addressing the voices in your head, I definitely won't address it. I'm not interested in speaking for your voices, you can figure that one out yourself.

It does. Why should my civil marriage license be treated differently than yours? Explain that for us.

Because of human biology. your entire existence is dominated by your gayness. Grow the fuck up and accept the fact that not everyone will ever agree with you and that others will not accept the government mandating how they think or what they believe.

That does not answer the question. That is why you don't believe we should be able to marry at all. Why should my legal, civil marriage license, issued by the state of California be treated differently than yours?

In california and other states that recognize it, it shouldn't be. If I move to California my Louisiana drivers license won't be valid and I will have to get a Cal license. Either we have states or we don't. If everything is controlled by the feds in DC, why have states?

 

[Redfish]

yes, same sex marriage was practiced in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Did you notice that those civilizations collapsed shortly after that practice began?

Study a little history, dude. you might learn something.

But, thats not what I was addressing. Wytch keeps claiming that Loving established the basis for gay marriage-----------that is a lie. Loving established that different races should be able to marry---not two people of the same sex..

Shortly?

Like a thousand years?

much less than that. I recommend world history 101 at your local jr college.

Actually, you would be hard pressed to find a link between the onset of open homosexuality and the collapse of those empires. If you want to look at the Roman Empire, the emergence of Christianity occurred closer to the collapse than the emergence of homosexuality

christianity killed the roman empire ...

Homosexuality was openly accepted in Rome throughout the period of the Empire. It was the Christians who started calling it a "sin". It was shortly after the emergence of the Christians that the Roman Empire collapsed

^^^^^^^atheist version of history. amazingly stupid

 

[Seawytch]

You're not believing it does not make it less so. In Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely the SCOTU declared marriage a fundamental right.

A fundamental right for a man and a woman of different races to marry. It has nothing to do with gays.

Look up the other two cases. They weren't about interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment has to do with all Americans.

The 14th amendment was presented to the people that passed it as being about race, not gender as the need to have another amendment to allow women the right to vote some years later proves.

Besides that the 14th was the only amendment which had to be "reconsidered" under coercive threat. That includes the other slavery amendments the 13th and 15th.

That does not change what I said. The 14th Amendment, regardless of who it was originally written for or about has to do with all Americans, not just Americans of color.

The reason the 14th didn't give women the right to vote was because of the specific language in Section 2 having to do with voting.

So the historical context and the intent of the drafters of the 14th don't matter? You just assume that your interpretation is correct because it suits your agenda?

The 14th was about race, not sexual orientation.

That's right, it doesn't matter. The 14th was written to make former slaves citizens but it does not specifically mention race.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.​