Marty McFly
Well-Known Member
I just posted a list of like 20 things that are physically different in gay men and women.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
I just posted a list of like 20 things that are physically different in gay men and women.
here's a question for Bean, or anyone who cares to answer:
Before God made Eve for Adam did Adam have a *****?
there are some good answers here: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100603224751AA6Pw52
I mean, think about it. Adam came first. He wouldn't have needed that little appendage at all until Eve came along, and ate the apple and got them kicked out of the garden. So perhaps, in the beginning, they didn't even have the parts to do it anyhow, because they weren't supposed to be doing it - God would provide. At least that was the original plan.
things went awry, however.
Before God made Eve for Adam did Adam have a *****?
there are some good answers here: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100603224751AA6Pw52
I mean, think about it. Adam came first. He wouldn't have needed that little appendage at all until Eve came along, and ate the apple and got them kicked out of the garden. So perhaps, in the beginning, they didn't even have the parts to do it anyhow, because they weren't supposed to be doing it - God would provide. At least that was the original plan.
things went awry, however.
The Savior
Banned
Beantown and I will not read that list. The list is irrelevant when you consider biology, evolution, and such as.H.E. Pennypacker said:
No, this simply is not true. Marriage only exists for couples with the ability to procreate. Hell, I MADE marriage god dammit. Beantown considers this information to be false and unworthy of discussion, so we will simply not address it. EVOLUTION! BIOLOGY! EVOLUTION!Bronco said:
Hopper
Banned
I would tellya, Mo, sept fo I aint really knowin much bout no Adam and Eve. I has heard that Eve was the world's first carpenter, though, eh?
She made Adam's banana stand.
The Savior
Banned
None of that story actually happened. I was writing a children's novella for Jesus Jr. and somehow it got leaked and made canon. I mean, ****ing READ it, how could that HAPPEN. I didn't even consider a ***** in the story, if you must know.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I believe that man is created in the image of God. I believe Adam was created just as man is now with all the same organs. I also believe that it was part of God's plan for Eve to partake of the fruit. I believe this because I believe God is perfect and had a perfect plan. I don't think Eve took of the fruit and God was like, "Well, I better take a better look at the plans and change them now." The fall of Adam was necessary for mankind.
How dare you bring religion into this. Religion is evil and has no role in modern society... wait, it may prove that homosexuality is OK?? By all means, lets hear what you have to say!!
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Of course you have a ton of proof of this.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Beantown, please answer me this question. Why should two dudes not be allowed to marry each other and smuggle bones? Seriously. Why not? Because they can't procreate? Who gives a ****? The last thing this planet needs is more morans like you running around spreading the word of God (no offense good God fearers out there) and mongering their hate. Seriously, is this some huge concern you have? We're going to run out of people? Are you that blind? C'mon man, so I'll ask again. Why should two dudes not be allowed to marry each other and smuggle bones?
round and round and round in the circle game...
and so it goes - - this seems like it fits on so many levels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brMHaC0NiQY&feature=related
and so it goes - - this seems like it fits on so many levels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brMHaC0NiQY&feature=related
Beantown
Well-Known Member
I approve of civil unions.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Obviously, but why civil unions only? What would the downside of some bone smugglers being able to wed just like every other human being who resides in what is supposedly the greatest country on Earth?
Beantown
Well-Known Member
I believe it is more important to respect the biological importance of the heterosexual relation and reproductive process. I believe its socially irresponsible to claim these relationships as equals when they clearly were not meant to be by nature. Especially in a world that already disrespect the reprodcutive process.
Hopper
Banned
According to the judge's opinion in this case: "California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings." So this is like a case where the defendants "collude" with the plaintiffs to achieve a judicial ruling which both sides want.
According to Wiki: "The Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_(law)
When one side makes no attempt whatsoever to contest the alleged facts, this appears to be yet another reason for an appellate court to refrain from deferring to the "facts" as found by the trial court. An argument could seemingly be made that there was no "actual controversy" or "actual dispute between adverse parties," and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction to enter a ruling in the first place.
Addendum: Looking into this issue a little further, I find this:
"The most famous case setting forth the parameters of this requirement is Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), in which the Court held that when Congress paid the legal bills for both the plaintiffs and the defendant (in this case the U.S. Treasury department, by designation), then there was no real controversy between the parties, and a judgment of the Court would be the equivalent of an advisory opinion."
LINK
Last edited:
KatieMCR
Well-Known Member
Good god I have tried to stay away from this thread, but Beantown posts some of the most offensive BS I have ever seen. So people are only gay because they were molested or they have a "disorder"? seriously??!!! I don't even need to ask about your theory on people like myself. I'm sure it's the same as your bogus theory on homosexuality. For the record I can tell you without a doubt that I have never been molested. I also do not feel I have a disorder. It is so blatantly offensive for you to make these remarks. Homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it a disorder. Of course there is really no point in me trying to argue this with you, as has already been proven multiple times in this thread by many others.
To make matters worse, you go and resort to the bogus slippery slope argument? Marry your dog? Really?? What part of consenting ADULTS do you not understand?
To make matters worse, you go and resort to the bogus slippery slope argument? Marry your dog? Really?? What part of consenting ADULTS do you not understand?
The Savior
Banned
Right, you should to apply the rules of the animal kingdom to any social progress of mankind. If you don't, you are DISRESPECTING the animal kingdom. These people have no idea what evolution would do to them if they disrespect it. Do deer allow gay deer to marry? No, so we shouldn't either.
Beantown and I also think that people who can't procreate or are frail should not be allowed to vote. Evolution made those people weaker, and thus, not as human as others. They are maybe 3/4ths of a human AT BEST.
So by respecting evolution, you make evolution happy and therefore reap the benefits of evolution's kindness. But if you throw a cold shoulder to evolution, evolution will become unhappy and retaliate. Biology will kill your family. That's what Beantown and I are afraid of.
The Savior
Banned
Anyway, Beantown, you know that I will give you eternal life at my feet in the Celestial Kingdom if you continue to copy/paste your stance without considering other people's points of view whatsoever. That's what I want. I don't WANT you to really think about this issue, I want you to go into it with a mindset and never try to change. Just keep copy/pasting. My reasoning is that if you're going to be my footstool, you might as well be as boring and as closed-minded as one.
Hopper
Banned
It sounds like they didn't defend.
Well, there ya go then, eh?
Also overlooked in all this legal instruction we've been receiving from Kicky is the fact that the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, even after it had struck down an identically-worded statute for being "unconstitutional."
"These protests led to several lawsuits being filed in the State Supreme Court and the Federal District Court. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8, which consolidated into Strauss v. Horton....the Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
As far as I know, the California Supreme Court has and had full authority to strike down prop 8 on the the grounds that it violated the U.S. Constitution, even if it didn't violate the California constitution.
I guess if ya can't git what ya want from a full panel of Supreme Court Justices in Sacramento, ya can always try gittin it from one gay judge in San Francisco, eh?
Can you provide a link or any evidence that this is what Beantown thinks? If not, then you really should not be speaking (or writing) for him, or other posters.
Others put on a case on behalf of the defense side through the defendant-intervention procedure, making it distinguishable from Muskrat. Two experts testifed on behalf of the defense side even though the state chose not to participate.
Muskrat also operated in the other direction: one side paid both sides legal fees so that the defense could test its own legislation, rather than the state simply choosing not to participate in the defense. The Muskrat situation is obviously more collusive because the defense "staged" the action. The state didn't compel anyone to sue in this instance so that it could decline to defend.
In this instance there is also no single party paying for both sides bills, so it's unlikely Muskrat will apply.
There is obviously an actual case or controversy here aint. The plaintiffs are independent from those on the other side of the action, and have suffered a judicially cognizable harm that is 1) concrete and particularized and 2) actual or imminent.
It also doesn't make sense on the prudential level to bounce the case on standing issues because none of the reasons the standing requirement exists were violated in the litigation.
Even if you were correct, the defendants in this action didn't litigate standing at the trial level so they have waived it as a defense for appellate purposes.
You're also conflating the constitutional requirement of standing with the respective functions of trial and appellate courts. The issues are unrelated because one is a jurisdictional issue and the other goes to the type of review the court is empowered to make. The most that could happen on the factual side is that the court could find a procedural defect in how the factual portion of the bench trial proceeded and order a new trial. As is, they will likely have to engage in a significant number of gymnastics to try to come up with a legal opinion that is consistent with the factual findings or will come up with a way to frame a legal conclusion as a factual conclusion.
But congrats aint, you've managed to make it through the equivalent of half a class in a Fed Courts class. I'm sure are now convinced you're an expert ready to actually discuss the issues as is your general practice. Despite the fact that I've given you several reasons why your argument is surely wrong in this instance I'm sure you will answer one and then become convinced that you have won the debate.
Last edited: