Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[magekillr]

Activist judges are a big problem. They're suppose to uphold the law, not interpret it to their own beliefs.

 

Uh, who told you that? Judges aren't "supposed" to do anything. There's no actual "job" explicitly stated in the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court -- and effectively every court dealing with Constitutional law -- has the right of judicial review, which as you should know is defined as the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary.

 

Was Brown v. Board of Education properly decided? Loving v. Virginia? What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Dred Scott? All of these cases either "upheld" the law, or "interpreted" the law. As you can see from the historical evidence, all cases of "upholding" certain laws are viewed from an historical analysis as "wrongly" decided, such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. And you'll notice that when one talks of judicial activism, these are the cases which are brought up.

 

Are you complaining about judicial activism with respect to DC v. Heller? Gore v. Bush? Citizens United v. FEC? I'd argue that the latter is not interpreting the law but making [cabbage] up, but that DC v. Heller was interpreting the law although I believe it was wrongly decided. Gore v. Bush was just flat out top 5 wrongly decided decisions, especially because the Supreme Court had no business meddling in the first place. That was pure kangaroo court.

 

And who is to say how you should interpret the law, and which way is correct? I don't view the Second Amendment the same way that Snipersas does, but I still don't see his interpretation as invalid. It's perfectly arguable and has merit, even if I disagree with the interpretation. That's what law is. It's fluid, it moves, it's interpreted.

 

A judge should be impartial and independent from politics, not projecting their political views on their rulings.

 

That won't happen, it will never happen. Judges are political actors just as much as any other politician, and people pretending that they're not is contributing to the problem. This is why Supreme Court nominees should face actual scrutiny about their positions; instead they skate around it, and usually are confirmed right away. I opposed Elena Kagan's nomination because I did not know anything about her view of the law, and she seems like she'd rule in favor of expanding executive power.

 

Proposition 8 was repealed by a judge out of activism. Now I don't know if you have plebiscites in your state, but they're based upon a popular vote. That is a ruling directly against a popular vote. I quite frankly don't care if the vote can be considered socially acceptable or not but it was cast and a definitive decision was made. America is suppose to be about democracy.

 

So if the people voted that blacks are 3/5th of a person we should just accept that? It's in direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. We're a nation of laws, and the Constitution supersedes anything state-wide.

 

Democracy is dead in the United States. The "presidents" we vote for are all corrupt. We don't really have a REAL choice of who gets elected. We get to choose between a few people...all of whom are ridiculously wealthy, or have been funded by massive corporations such as the Monsanto food corporation.

 

Democracy has never been "alive" in the United States. I don't know why people try and put politicians onto some lofty pedestal, but if you think democracy at some point had some meaning in this country, then you're only fooling yourself, or are insanely naïve. Just look at the history of it all. Since the Gilded Age, when both a large and permanent federal bureaucracy and massive national corporations emerged, there has been a Washington “system.” In order to get [cabbage] done, you have to play ball. This is why Carter is, as the Simpsons said, History's Greatest Monster, and other presidents are worshiped; Carter didn't know how to play ball, all of his advisors and staff were novices, and they failed inside.

 

Successful presidents like Lyndon Johnson soberly analyzed how “Washington” operated and made it work in their favor. LBJ had dirt on every single politician in Washington, and he used brute force and JFK's assassination to his favor. The most transformative president, FDR, eloquently bashed entrenched interests in the name of “the people,” while he and his advisers played those interests against one another for maximum legislative and electoral gain. He was not naïve enough to think he could uproot the system. FDR needed some of the most disgusting Southern Democrats who ran key committees to push through the signature bills of his New Deal. Social Security was a horrible compromised piece of legislation when it first came to the surface. Medicare was hardly a resemblance of its current face. Now these pieces of our state are cherished and loved by all, including, perhaps especially including, the Tea Partiers (they're mostly old, and a lot of them are on Medicare and collecting SS).

 

The deals with big business don't really drive me nuts because I kind of take them as a given. I am always aware of the structural obstacles to progressive aims, so I am not surprised by the sausage-making and capitulation. When it works to create something positive, I am happy. When we give away the store and get nothing, that's when I get pissed off.

 

I'd like to see the system changed so it isn't so rigged, but I think it's always been rigged. I judge Obama by what he can squeeze out of the lemon. I know that doesn't stack up to the whole Change You Can Believe In slogan, but I believe in it because he's the best, most-progressive minded president since at least Truman. I don't look a gift-horse in the mouth, especially when he is getting things done.

[obfuscator]

 

 

Bush wasn't elected; he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

And don't try to shift the blame: the Canadian public elected Harper, and the U.S. elected the Bushes, and Clinton. Obama is superior. In fact, he's the first thing to even resemble a Democrat to inhabit the White House in years. Please explain to me how he is corrupt. So far, he has refrained from starting a war, fought for public health care and the end of discrimination against gays. He's not perfect, but he's a step forward.

 

Well that's the first time I've heard that :? I hope you're joking. (at the Bush not elected bit, not after that)

[Alg]

Well that's the first time I've heard that :? I hope you're joking. (at the Bush not elected bit, not after that)

It's one of those issues that's divided along political lines.

People on the left feel that the 2000 election was either openly rigged, or illegitimate. People on the right feel that he was elected fairly.

I'm pretty sure the controversy is partially because Bush won the electoral college, but not the popular vote. Either way, the results were VERY close, close enough that the Supreme Court stepped in, as I'm pretty sure the Constitution dictates they should have.

He's not the first to have done this, but that fact can't get in the way of a good moral outrage.

 

Personally, I think it's people trying to justify being sore losers, much like the "Birth certificate" movement for Obama.

[The_Gabe]

 

 

Bush wasn't elected; he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

And don't try to shift the blame: the Canadian public elected Harper, and the U.S. elected the Bushes, and Clinton. Obama is superior. In fact, he's the first thing to even resemble a Democrat to inhabit the White House in years. Please explain to me how he is corrupt. So far, he has refrained from starting a war, fought for public health care and the end of discrimination against gays. He's not perfect, but he's a step forward.

 

 

Are you kidding me? Obama has done nothing since he got into office other then screw the U.S over. We did not need new health care, we don't need the crappy stimulus packages that are screwing the citizens even more. He did not at all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded. Oh and fyi, he didn't end discrimination against gays.. I don't know where you've been tbh..

[The_Gabe]

 

 

Bush wasn't elected; he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

And don't try to shift the blame: the Canadian public elected Harper, and the U.S. elected the Bushes, and Clinton. Obama is superior. In fact, he's the first thing to even resemble a Democrat to inhabit the White House in years. Please explain to me how he is corrupt. So far, he has refrained from starting a war, fought for public health care and the end of discrimination against gays. He's not perfect, but he's a step forward.

 

 

Are you kidding me? Obama has done nothing since he got into office other then screw the U.S over. We did not need new health care, we don't need the crappy stimulus packages that are screwing the citizens even more. He did not at all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded. Oh and fyi, he didn't end discrimination against gays.. I don't know where you've been tbh..

 

we dont need health care?

 

I hope your dad gets cancer and doesnt have insurance, and tell me if your opinion changes

 

Dont need the stimulus package? I suppose you wouldve perfered a second great depression (im assuming you were referring to the bailout, which bush started)

 

 

Your failed opinions are lulz

 

Umm, did you know most doctors are against the new health care bill? It's complete garbage anyways, it's not going to be worth anything.. When the new president gets elected, the bill will most likely be terminated. Oh, and my dad is 81 thanks, no cancer. Don't really know why you'd want him to have it tbh.. Seems kind of rude.

 

The econony would not have collapse without the stimulus package.. Companies are meant to be able to fail. Instead of the government bailing them out, they should have been bailing the government out.

[Giordano]

Stimulus package did very little to the economy for what it was worth, and don't forget, Bush was the one who started these things. A lassiez-faire consverative.

 

We don't need to add a whole new health care system neither. Two things we should do to fix this: allow medical insurance to cross state lines, so more competition would arrise, and, give legal protection to doctors so you can't sue them for everything.

 

The health care bill is oppressive; forces everybody to HAVE medical insurance. I don't see the nessesity of such a thing for certain groups. America is not purely seniors, parents, or cancer patients.

 

EDIT: halfway through typing my post, I forgot what thread this was again. Could we stick with homosexuality and maybe make a new thread about Judges, Obama, and health care.

[Saru Inc]

Or we could just call obama, healthcare and judges gay, and voila, we're back on topic. :D

 

I agree with Pasta Pollock.

[Giordano]

Or we could just call obama, healthcare and judges gay, and voila, we're back on topic. :D

 

I agree with Pasta Pollock.

Pasta Pollock, my god I like that.

[magekillr]

 

 

Bush wasn't elected; he was appointed by the supreme court.

 

And don't try to shift the blame: the Canadian public elected Harper, and the U.S. elected the Bushes, and Clinton. Obama is superior. In fact, he's the first thing to even resemble a Democrat to inhabit the White House in years. Please explain to me how he is corrupt. So far, he has refrained from starting a war, fought for public health care and the end of discrimination against gays. He's not perfect, but he's a step forward.

 

Well that's the first time I've heard that :? I hope you're joking. (at the Bush not elected bit, not after that)

 

It was not just a minor difference of legal opinion. It was corruption, plain and simple. The court, as I stated earlier, had no business making a decision in the first place. If after a recount of the votes there was still no clear winner, then the election goes to the House of Representatives with one state casting one vote each, just as the Constitution prescribes. There was never a full recount because the SCOTUS stepped in and said there was no need for one. Justice Souter almost resigned over it because it was so bad:

 

Toughened, or coarsened, by their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.

 

It was clear from follow-up journalism that if the vote had been completely counted in Miami-Dade that Gore would have won in spite of the votes lost with the Palm Beach County butterfly ballot. The difference between winning and losing in Florida was a mere 537 votes.

 

And I think that the GOP operatives knew this at the time, which is why they staged the "Brooks Brothers riot" at the Miami-Dade board of elections. And why they were so insistent that the vote not be recounted completely.

 

Back to the topic now that the politics/history lesson is over.

[Saru Inc]

We really bringing up Bush Gore?

 

What about Acorn in McCain/Obama? vut.

[Alg]

We really bringing up Bush Gore?

 

What about Acorn in McCain/Obama? vut.

If this gets any more politically irrelevant I'm going to start spamming images. You have been warned.

[Saru Inc]

Well, because everyone really agrees Homosexuality is acceptable/natural/good. Except for like 3 rednecks, 4 trolls and a red panda.

homophobe.

 

So there's not much for this thread to go on.

[magekillr]

We really bringing up Bush Gore?

 

What about Acorn in McCain/Obama? vut.

 

When a duo of right-wing provocateurs posing as a pimp and prostitute released selectively-edited videos trying to impugn the community activist group ACORN, both Democrats and Republicans condemned the organization.

 

Congress then voted to cut off federal funding for the group (a decision that was later ruled unconstitutional). Following negative press and Congress' vote, ACORN effectively disbanded Apr. 1 and reorganized under new names.

 

But a just-issued report by the Government Accountability Office that reviewed ACORN's federal funding at the behest of Congress found little grist for the mill for politicians or right-wing bloggers looking to bash the now-defunct advocacy group for the poor.

 

The 38-page report surveyed over 31 federal agencies, probing how ACORN used federal funds and whether adequate controls on spending existed.

 

The report found no evidence of fraud, lax oversight or misuse of federal funds.

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband

 

ACORN did what, exactly? Voter fraud is when you vote more than once or something. Voter registration fraud, which happens with any organization that registers people, cannot result in anyone actually voting. So if you're trying to imply that because of ACORN that Obama got more votes than he should have, you might wanna relook at the definitions of the two words. The guy who brought them down not only was found to be a completely staged event where the videotape was massively edited, but he was found illegally wiretapping government offices in Arkansas and tried to rape a CNN reporter on a boat.

 

Meanwhile, voter registration is down at an all time low. Do you know why that is? It's because ACORN doesn't exist anymore. Thanks! The GOP went after ACORN because even though they register anyone, they focus on the poor and downtrodden, and those people tend to vote Democratic.

 

Need more lessons, bonkers? Are you going to bring up the Scary Black Panthers?

[Alg]

[hide=Image]

[/hide]

Delivered.

[Skeptical]

The Supreme Court appointed Bush. Bush almost certainly rigged votes through his brother, taking advantage of electronic voting machines, which are doing as much to dismantle democracy as the Republicans.

 

Obama has stated that DADT will be removed on his watch. He has not started a war, especially an illegal one as Bush did. He has departed from pure neo-liberal economics through both the bailout and healthcare. He is not president because his daddy got tired of letting him run businesses into the ground and the GOP needed a monkey to dance. As far as is known, he has not engaged in any form of substance abuse.

[obfuscator]

Yeah I'm going to want some proof on that one. So many democrats still angry that Gore didn't win. Whether or not the supreme court should have intervened is one thing, but going as far as to say Bush swayed the vote with no evidence is pretty silly.

 

However, we're really getting quite off topic here so let's stick to the homosexuality discussions, eh?

 

If someone wants to make a judicial influence thread though that would be cool :P

[The_Gabe]

The Supreme Court appointed Bush. Bush almost certainly rigged votes through his brother, taking advantage of electronic voting machines, which are doing as much to dismantle democracy as the Republicans.

 

Obama has stated that DADT will be removed on his watch. He has not started a war, especially an illegal one as Bush did. He has departed from pure neo-liberal economics through both the bailout and healthcare. He is not president because his daddy got tired of letting him run businesses into the ground and the GOP needed a monkey to dance. As far as is known, he has not engaged in any form of substance abuse.

 

No, you're right. He's just the president cause he's black.

[Skeptical]

The Supreme Court appointed Bush. Bush almost certainly rigged votes through his brother, taking advantage of electronic voting machines, which are doing as much to dismantle democracy as the Republicans.

 

Obama has stated that DADT will be removed on his watch. He has not started a war, especially an illegal one as Bush did. He has departed from pure neo-liberal economics through both the bailout and healthcare. He is not president because his daddy got tired of letting him run businesses into the ground and the GOP needed a monkey to dance. As far as is known, he has not engaged in any form of substance abuse.

 

No, you're right. He's just the president cause he's black.

 

But I suppose that's better than a woman for president. After all, your daddy wouldn't have voted for no women-folk. And white guilt is the only qualifying feature that Obama possesses.

[The_Gabe]

The Supreme Court appointed Bush. Bush almost certainly rigged votes through his brother, taking advantage of electronic voting machines, which are doing as much to dismantle democracy as the Republicans.

 

Obama has stated that DADT will be removed on his watch. He has not started a war, especially an illegal one as Bush did. He has departed from pure neo-liberal economics through both the bailout and healthcare. He is not president because his daddy got tired of letting him run businesses into the ground and the GOP needed a monkey to dance. As far as is known, he has not engaged in any form of substance abuse.

 

No, you're right. He's just the president cause he's black.

 

But I suppose that's better than a woman for president. After all, your daddy wouldn't have voted for no women-folk. And white guilt is the only qualifying feature that Obama possesses.

 

Actually my dad supports Palin and the Tea Party.

 

But on the second part you are 100% correct.

[tripsis]

However, we're really getting quite off topic here so let's stick to the homosexuality discussions, eh?

 

If someone wants to make a judicial influence thread though that would be cool :P

I'd just like to reiterate this. Please remember to stay on topic you guys :) If you feel yourself branching off from the main discussion, please create a new thread. All posts should be related to homosexuality.

[das1330]

The Supreme Court appointed Bush. Bush almost certainly rigged votes through his brother, taking advantage of electronic voting machines, which are doing as much to dismantle democracy as the Republicans.

 

Obama has stated that DADT will be removed on his watch. He has not started a war, especially an illegal one as Bush did. He has departed from pure neo-liberal economics through both the bailout and healthcare. He is not president because his daddy got tired of letting him run businesses into the ground and the GOP needed a monkey to dance. As far as is known, he has not engaged in any form of substance abuse.

 

 

Do you actually believe that Bush was part of a conspiracy to rig the vote in Florida? Or are you just using this as a rhetorical device? The idea of any legitimate American politician actively rigging a national election is absurd in recent times.Further, I fail to see how attacking Bush has any relevance to a debate on the relative morality of homosexuality.

 

 

 

I'd just like to reiterate this. Please remember to stay on topic you guys :) If you feel yourself branching off from the main discussion, please create a new thread. All posts should be related to homosexuality.

 

Perhaps now is the chance to finally use that split tool into something other then the trash bin?

[Skeptical]

I've been placed into an interesting quandary by this: I have a friend who it turns out is a fundamentalist Christian, and aside from the idiocy of believing that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, he also militantly opposes the rights of homosexuals.

 

Now, I wouldn't maintain a friendship with a member of the KKK or a Neo-nazi, but I genuinely enjoy this persons company. I've actually found myself wishing that he wasn't, since at this point it's looking like our friendship is heading the way of Bruno.

[Alg]

Well, how often do you get into political/religious arguments? Unless one or both of you brings it up frequently and aggressively you could easily remain friends, I think...

[Skeptical]

Well, that's a good part my fault: if he says anything about astronomy, I will mention Bruno and/or Galileo, at which point our discussion becomes a debate about organized religion and biblical errors and contradictions. But that isn't really the issue: the problem is that he vehemently opposes the idea that homosexuals have the same rights that we "people" do. I also do know that he opposes distribution of condoms in Africa: combine that with the enforcement of patents on AIDS drugs, and you have genocide.

 

Simply put, I would not tolerate someone saying "Jews are not people, they should not be able to serve, marry, congregate, pronounce their faith, etc." Why should I make an exception for people's sexual orientation?

[The_Gabe]

Well, that's a good part my fault: if he says anything about astronomy, I will mention Bruno and/or Galileo, at which point our discussion becomes a debate about organized religion and biblical errors and contradictions. But that isn't really the issue: the problem is that he vehemently opposes the idea that homosexuals have the same rights that we "people" do. I also do know that he opposes distribution of condoms in Africa: combine that with the enforcement of patents on AIDS drugs, and you have genocide.

 

Simply put, I would not tolerate someone saying "Jews are not people, they should not be able to serve, marry, congregate, pronounce their faith, etc." Why should I make an exception for people's sexual orientation?

 

We came before Christians...

 

 

Also, people like that won't change because someone tells them to, they go directly by what their parents say. I wouldn't waste time arguing with them on those kinds of matters.