So gay!!!

[sirkickyass]

The information is accurate, the article just isn't cited correctly.

Basically, federal courts don't get involved in a hypothetical game. You can't sue over a proposed law and get an opinion in advance on whether or not it is constitutional. This is mandated by Article III of the constitution in what is referred to as the "case or controversy" clause indicating that judicial power only extends to actual conflicts between parties.

In general, in order to have standing before a federal court (and most state courts in most situations) you have to meet three requirements:

1. There has to be an actual case or controversy (i.e. not a hypothetical issue)
2. The case has to be "ripe" (i.e. there has to be an actual conflict rather than potential for a future conflict)
3. The case can't be "moot" (i.e. the controversy can't have been effectively resolved by the time it got to the court)

There are a handful of exceptions, but those are the basic parameters.

The first two requirements prevent a judge from opining that a Prop. 8 like law violates the constitution through a judicial opinion prior to its passage. If there is no law on the books yet there is no case or controversy. Until someone is prevented from getting married by the law, the issue is not yet ripe.

If Prop 8 had been repealed before the trial, the case would have been dismissed as moot.

Clear enough?

 

[moevillini]

good explanation, thanks!

to expand on it a little from a different perspective - - it also is partly a matter of money and time. Laws are frequently passed that are later ruled unconstitutional. Generally, lawyers look at these things beforehand, and the proposed law is written according to the lawyers' best judgment that it will hold up to scrutiny. But the grounds for which they are declared unconstitutional may not be what appears to be obvious, so that can make it difficult to predict the outcome.

Also, particularly on "hot-button" issues, groups raise funds to achieve a goal - - if they just sit around having lawyers evaluate all the possibilities, their supporters may get disillusioned. It can be more expedient to get a law passed and then if it's ruled unconstitutional, try to tweak it and pass a new law according to however the ruling was written. It can then become sort of a rallying point to further help their fund-raising efforts.

 

[Beantown]

Dude... beantown doesn't actually know anything about Biology.

That article doesnt change anything. There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality. But none of them change the fact that homosexuals dont reproduce or will they ever partake in the continuation of human evolution. Unless they interact in heterosexaul relations. So plain and simple homosexuals have to rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species.

Do a little science experiment. Have 100 homosexuals live on a island and go back and check on them in 80 years. Then we can see how their community is blossoming.

 

[YB85]

Do a little science experiment. Have 100 homosexuals live on a island and go back and check on them in 80 years. Then we can see how their community is blossoming.

100 homosexual men or women or 100 men and women?

 

[Beantown]

100 homosexual men or women or 100 men and women?

Men and women. The only way that island isnt basically wiped out is if they went against there homosexual feelings and forced themselves to engage in heterosexual relations. Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.

Another example would be this:

-If the whole world were homosexual we are literally talking about the end of the world. Within about 100 years our species would not exist.

 

[moevillini]

GROUNDHOG DAY


I think we need a few homosexual groundhogs, just for perspective.

 

[YB85]

Men and women. The only way that island isnt basically wiped out is if they went against there homosexual feelings and forced themselves to engage in heterosexual relations. Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.

Put 100 heterosexual men on an island/prison and what do you think happens?

 

[Archie Moses]

Put 100 heterosexual men on an island/prison and what do you think happens?

I would think their would be a lot of beach sex on the beach, and a lot of butt sex in the prison. hehepeepeecaca.

 

[Beantown]

Put 100 heterosexual men on an island/prison and what do you think happens?

You dont make any sense. My example was both men and women.

 

[Safetydan]

Men and women? They'd be fine.

 

[Beantown]

Men and women? They'd be fine.

Not if they were homosexual, they would all be dead.

 

[YB85]

You dont make any sense. My example was both men and women.

True. Put 100 men and women on an island and the species is going to continue. You claim this proves your point that homosexuality has no biological or evolutionary importance. I went to the other extreme, an "opposite", so to speak. Put 100 heterosexuals of the same gender on the island. We know that not children could be created, but do you think that all of those on the island would not take part in some physical contact with members of the same sex, despite being heterosexual? Me neither. Does this prove anything? No. Neither did your example.

 

[chemdude1232]

That article doesnt change anything. There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality. But none of them change the fact that homosexuals dont reproduce or will they ever partake in the continuation of human evolution. Unless they interact in heterosexaul relations. So plain and simple homosexuals have to rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species.

Do a little science experiment. Have 100 homosexuals live on a island and go back and check on them in 80 years. Then we can see how their community is blossoming.

I don't think you read the article. The article, which cites people far better at biology than you or I, does actually provide sound reasoning as to why homosexuals exist due to evolution.

I'll distill the entire article for you even more: evolution caused homosexuality.

You discount the article because you don't agree with the "theory" that the citations (to say nothing about the authors) therein put forth. Let me ask you this: how many biology degrees do you have? How many co-authored, peer-reviewed articles on evolution do you have? If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and discount your hypothesis (to call it a theory is a slap in the face to those involved in actual science) a few notches below the article's theory.

 

[Cece]

@buzzbissinger

Marriage is the most difficult, unnatural institution known to humans. Why should straights be only ones to suffer …

 

[TroutBum]

Men and women? They'd be fine.

Biology and Science > Your Opinion

 

[Beantown]

True. Put 100 men and women on an island and the species is going to continue. You claim this proves your point that homosexuality has no biological or evolutionary importance. I went to the other extreme, an "opposite", so to speak. Put 100 heterosexuals of the same gender on the island. We know that not children could be created, but do you think that all of those on the island would not take part in some physical contact with members of the same sex, despite being heterosexual? Me neither. Does this prove anything? No. Neither did your example.

You're using gender as an example, I was using sexual preference to show mine. Again you dont make any sense.

 

[moevillini]

Men and women. The only way that island isnt basically wiped out is if they went against there homosexual feelings and forced themselves to engage in heterosexual relations. Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.

Another example would be this:

-If the whole world were homosexual we are literally talking about the end of the world. Within about 100 years our species would not exist.

Which proves my point that homosexual relations have no biolgocal or evolutionary importance.

IT DOES NO SUCH THING.

Dear Groundbeantownhog

We have been over this before. There is more to survival of the species than merely procreating. It is called SURVIVAL because that is a very important component. If none of the off-spring survive to reach maturity, it doesn't matter how many offspring there are, the species will still die out.

You can't prove that homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom might never play a role in the overall survival of the offspring. In fact, there is scientific evidence, in humans as well as other animals, that homosexual relationships do play an important role to help the species survive.

Yes, you are correct in saying that homosexual relationships do not result in procreation. However, as most reasonable people understand, survival of a species goes beyond that first step. In this thread, I cited a lengthy article from the NY Times, that itself cited numerous scientific studies detailing important homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom - relationships that provided nurturing to help the offspring survive, relationships that provided stability to the overall population to help the offspring survive, and relationships than conferred positive benefits on the individuals within the species.

In threads on the former board, I cited numerous studies of both humans and others that determined that homosexual relationships did indeed contribute positive benefits to the population. Your continuing refusal to acknowledge these studies is mind-boggling.

 

[TroutBum]

But is it REALLY mind-boggling, 'Evil? Think about who you're talking to and ask yourself again.

I officially love this thread, btw.

 

[moevillini]

I only said it for effect. And affect.

 

[Beantown]

Moe, all the theories you throw out there doesnt change the fact that homosexuals do not participate in evolution. In all species the higher percentage of the population that is invovled in procreation the better off that species is because of the greater amount of genetic diversity. Homosexuals are increasing which will result in less genetic diversity in humans.