Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Tampa Bay, Florida news | Tampa Bay Times/St. Pete Times-orders-use-of-islamic-law-in-tampa-lawsuit-over-mosque-leadership/1158818

I'd love to read up on that case, but your link doesn't work.

Much like his ‘argument.’

 

[Faun]

well i'm not up on the result of every court case that comes along......but it was one of the 51 cases or so that were mentioned...and that didn't include honor killings....

but more importantly......why the HELL are these types of cases even being heard in America in the first place....? that's what happens when we let in foreign people who are still adhering to barbarian belief systems....

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership | Tampa Bay Times

edit to fix link

Not exactly evidence either, though I grant you it is certainly more substantial than your New Jersey citation.

In this case, however, it was actually in arbitration, not in a trial and all parties agreed to it. And, according to the article you linked, "Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so."

And even more damaging for your position, is the Sharia Law the judge cited was. "It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves." So the judge didn't decide the case on Sharia law -- he differed to it in order to get the parties involved to try to work out a deal amicably in arbitration rather than go to court over the matter. I've seen judges do that before, though they didn't cite Sharia law. In this case, however, citing Sharia law as the reason to avoid a civil trial appears applicable as well as appropriate given the two parties both subscribe to it.

I'm still not clear where your imaginary boogey man about Sharia law stems from and that, unfortunately, did not shine any light for me.

 

[bodecea]

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership | Tampa Bay Times

edit to fix link

Not exactly evidence either, though I grant you it is certainly more substantial than your New Jersey citation.

In this case, however, it was actually in arbitration, not in a trial and all parties agreed to it. And, according to the article you linked, "Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so."

And even more damaging for your position, is the Sharia Law the judge cited was. "It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves." So the judge didn't decide the case on Sharia law -- he differed to it in order to get the parties involved to try to work out a deal amicably in arbitration rather than go to court over the matter. I've seen judges do that before, though they didn't cite Sharia law. In this case, however, citing Sharia law as the reason to avoid a civil trial appears applicable as well as appropriate given the two parties both subscribe to it.

I'm still not clear where your imaginary boogey man about Sharia law stems from and that, unfortunately, did not shine any light for me.

I'm more worried about those snake handlers.

 

[bodecea]

Grandpa...it looks like they can't "let that gay shit go."

 

[ScreamingEagle]

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

I'd love to read up on that case, but your link doesn't work.

Much like his ‘argument.’

so like most liberals you think international law should guide U.S. law.....

 

[Faun]

many women and children suffer in such an arrangement...

So? Many women and children suffer from infidelity, divorce, alcoholism, etc... and none of those are banned by U.S. law.

Do you think those should also be illegal?

so you think pointing to other problems justifies creating a new one....?

No, but then I'm not the one being inconsistent with my beliefs. And while I personally don't care how many people someone marries, I don't believe polygamy is Constitutionally protected like gay marriage is since there is no discrimination based on race or gender. So if states want to either ban it or allow it, I really don't care. Seriously, if a guy can handle more than one wife, more power to him. One is more than enough for me.

At any rate, I'm trying to gauge your consistency, which appears rather fluid to me. You're saying polygamy should be illegal, at least in part, because "many women and children suffer" from it. I pointed out several other things which many women and children suffer from which are legal.

And you avoided the question ... do you think infidelity, divorce, and alcoholism should be illegal?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well you were challenged to cite an example and the one you cited, which was one of the 51 they referenced in that video, turned out to be false.

So the challenge remains ... provide an example. If you can't, that's ok, but don't expect anyone else to be afraid of the imaginary boogey man you fear just because you believe it.

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?

TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.

But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.

"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership | Tampa Bay Times

edit to fix link

Not exactly evidence either, though I grant you it is certainly more substantial than your New Jersey citation.

In this case, however, it was actually in arbitration, not in a trial and all parties agreed to it. And, according to the article you linked, "Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so."

And even more damaging for your position, is the Sharia Law the judge cited was. "It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves." So the judge didn't decide the case on Sharia law -- he differed to it in order to get the parties involved to try to work out a deal amicably in arbitration rather than go to court over the matter. I've seen judges do that before, though they didn't cite Sharia law. In this case, however, citing Sharia law as the reason to avoid a civil trial appears applicable as well as appropriate given the two parties both subscribe to it.

I'm still not clear where your imaginary boogey man about Sharia law stems from and that, unfortunately, did not shine any light for me.

if all parties agreed to arbitration why did it wind up in the State court.....?

 

[007]

Grandpa...it looks like they can't "let that gay shit go."

Nope, sure the hell ain't...

 

[Faun]

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

Why not civil unions for ALL civil marriages.? Why just gays?

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm looking for the Constitution to be upheld where everyone is provided equal protection under the law.

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

That would solve the problem if it didn't persist in violating the 14th Amendment ... but regrettably, it still would.

It would not.

 

[bodecea]

Grandpa...it looks like they can't "let that gay shit go."

Nope, sure the hell ain't...

The guys on the Left are cute. Why are you comparing consenting adults on the left with children on the right? And why are they praying to the American Flag?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So? Many women and children suffer from infidelity, divorce, alcoholism, etc... and none of those are banned by U.S. law.

Do you think those should also be illegal?

so you think pointing to other problems justifies creating a new one....?

No, but then I'm not the one being inconsistent with my beliefs. And while I personally don't care how many people someone marries, I don't believe polygamy is Constitutionally protected like gay marriage is since there is no discrimination based on race or gender. So if states want to either ban it or allow it, I really don't care. Seriously, if a guy can handle more than one wife, more power to him. One is more than enough for me.

At any rate, I'm trying to gauge your consistency, which appears rather fluid to me. You're saying polygamy should be illegal, at least in part, because "many women and children suffer" from it. I pointed out several other things which many women and children suffer from which are legal.

And you avoided the question ... do you think infidelity, divorce, and alcoholism should be illegal?

obviously you think your argument for 'gay marriage rights' holds water while the argument for 'polygamous marriage rights' does not.....pretty hypocritical......

it couldn't hurt.....both infidelity and divorce used to be illegal......as for alcoholism if it affects the lives of one's family it should be considered abusive behavior....

how is it we hold signing a legal contract for buying a house more important than the signing of a marriage certificate....?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why not civil unions for ALL civil marriages.? Why just gays?

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm bored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Grandpa...it looks like they can't "let that gay shit go."

Nope, sure the hell ain't...

The guys on the Left are cute. Why are you comparing consenting adults on the left with children on the right? And why are they praying to the American Flag?

The kissing homosexuals are cute only to fellow pervs, and the kids are not praying to the flag.

Jesus, you are stupid as cold dog shit, Bo.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Actually, all you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.

 

[bodecea]

Because Woman and Woman is not Equal to Man and Woman... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Nobody is being drafted right now....but any man smart enough if it comes back will sue to make them draft women too. A man will sue because that will increase the pool for the lottery.

 

[Faun]

here's one.....so you still think this isn't real....?



edit to fix link

Not exactly evidence either, though I grant you it is certainly more substantial than your New Jersey citation.

In this case, however, it was actually in arbitration, not in a trial and all parties agreed to it. And, according to the article you linked, "Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so."

And even more damaging for your position, is the Sharia Law the judge cited was. "It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves." So the judge didn't decide the case on Sharia law -- he differed to it in order to get the parties involved to try to work out a deal amicably in arbitration rather than go to court over the matter. I've seen judges do that before, though they didn't cite Sharia law. In this case, however, citing Sharia law as the reason to avoid a civil trial appears applicable as well as appropriate given the two parties both subscribe to it.

I'm still not clear where your imaginary boogey man about Sharia law stems from and that, unfortunately, did not shine any light for me.

if all parties agreed to arbitration why did it wind up in the State court.....?

Because the judge backed down from his position that Sharia law be used to allow the parties to settle their case in arbitration rather than in a trial and he dismissed the case citing the U.S. Constitution. It ended up back in court when the plaintiffs refilled a case

You are now 2 for 2 in citing cases which actually didn't use Sharia law, though you thought they did.

Wanna try for three?

 

[Faun]

I'd love to read up on that case, but your link doesn't work.

Much like his ‘argument.’

so like most liberals you think international law should guide U.S. law.....

Can you show where "most Liberal" believe that?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Faun]

Ok, Civil Unions for homosexuals then. Problem solved.

That would solve the problem if it didn't persist in violating the 14th Amendment ... but regrettably, it still would.

It would not.

Of course it would since it would allow for a man to marry the woman of his choice but not allow a man to marry the man of his choice.

That is discrimination based upon nothing other than gender.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.