If it was up to a jury deciding the case, a gay juror wouldn't even be allowed when the court found out that they would have a vested interest in the outcome of this case. So forget a judge for fuck's sake. Unbelievable. I wonder how much money he got to rule this way.
I have worked as a US District Judge for 15yrs- & I can tell you that our criminal justice system is currently going down the tubes.
Last year I was ‘censured’- because of my socially-aware sentencing policy. It makes perfect sense to me to hand out a different range of sentences to wealthier, middle class criminals- their shame & loss of social/professional standing is usually harsh enough punishment.
Poorer/lower orders will always need more jail-time to realise the extent of their guilt.
Naturally a judge who, having lived with a same sex judge for 10 years, making a ruling on a law for the very purpose of determing if same sex individuals could get married, would seem to create a conflict of interest. Logically it would seem that no matter if the judge is homo or heterosexual, there would be conflict. It would seem that the best resolution of such law which affects the general population would be a bill which is voted by the people of the state.
His ruling needs to be thrown out and bring an unbiased atheist judge in and see what the ruling is, it will most likely be the same anyway so it doesn't really matter
Oh please! These hippy fruit cakes here in Northern California protest and get chaotic over ridiculous issues such as gay marriage. But these same liberal, tree hugging, and new age freaks sit on their lazy butts and NEVER protest and raise their voices about job shortages, foreclosures, healthcare, expensive groceries, and high gas prices.
The Judge absolutely should have excused himself from this case,he had an agenda to push the gay marriage issue.How the fuck can his ruling stand?He was biased right from the start....this shit is unbelievable.Fucking liberals...all they do is push for laws that allow more and more perversion in society.Marriage is between a man & a woman,that is the way it is.
so a female judge cannot rule on abortion cases? a african american judge cannot have a cicil rights case? and you need gay judges, because who else but homosexuals are qualified to rule over straight cases?
perversion if what you make of it. as in, not every one thinks the same things are perverted. but you seem to think that your sense of perversion and your definition of marriage is the one everyone should agree with.
REVERB is a must read of a beautiful, rich, master musician who learns to love someone other than himself. Strong gay characters enrich this gritty, edgy romance and are the best couple in the novel. Read it on reverbnovel or jcafesin dot com...
So, basically all divorced or married judges cant rule on divorce cases && all judges with children cant rule over juvenile courts???? C'mon....people just because you are gay doesnt mean you are for or agianst same sex marriage, it doesnt even mean that you will even object any bias at all.....
Walker should have recused himself - he has a direct gain from this. But Oh no faggots get a free pass on everything. They live in fairy tale world of rainbow and shit on your dick.
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
These homo's will stop at nothing to change everything to suit them. No more. Regular people are standing up and saying marriage is a traditional institution that needs to be protected in the face of liberal activist judges. This guy is just one example.
@jeffmonc2 lol a traditional instituation that hasnt been changed at all. nope, oh wait except for women no longer being BARTERED for and blacks being able to marry whites. yea heterosexuals changed it a lil for those. your religious views are about HOLY MATRIMONY. thats your REGULAR. marriage is different
@Knightmessenger This is about liberals saying a big "Fuck You" to catholic people....that is all it is.They can have same sex unions,why does it have to be called marriage? Because they know it pisses off republicans & catholics...lol
@xlr8r2010 If marriage is specifically what you don't like, what do you think about getting rid of all government recognition of marriage and allowing civil unions for everybody?
@Knightmessenger Don't try to make this out to be more than it is....this whole thing is about saying "Fuck You" to the right wing and its supporters.This isn't a freedom issue at all...they are free to have same sex unions,why does it have to be called "Marriage" for them to be happy?
@xlr8r2010 Well, there are significant differences under the law between a civil union and a legal marriage. When the government stops consenting adults from entering into a desired agreement, it is absolutely a freedom issue.
Plus it amounts to the government singling out and stigmatizing gay people and stating some people are more equal than others.
Civil unions are perfectly fine. Just remove all government recognition of marriage for anyone and it's all good.
.... the monetary gains is what is written in law as a reason for recusing one self from a case in which the judge stands to "gain" from the outcome. "Gain" again being emphasized as a monetary gain. So the rebuttal of "no one could judge this case based on non bias" is void.
.....Fact 3: A homosexual judging a same sex case HAS something MONETARY to GAIN, where as a heterosexual judging a same sex case, has nothing monetary to gain.
@lastround12 liberal mainstream... Liberalism isn't mainstream, in fact what is in fact mainstream, is a more moderate conservatism. Seriously there isn't jack diddly squat that's true liberalism in the mainstream media, the news agencies' parent companies wouldn't like that. People might start thinking for themselves, form an opinion, and want to change the way the system works.
@lastround12 Also why can't being straight be biased? Even if one is straight, and isn't pro-gay, or even if they are, the very fact that they fit into the opposition of the oppressed party within the bill, gives the impression they have to look out for the best interest in being straight. Now the best part is, he's gay and he's in a relationship. Okay that makes sense. What if being an atheist was illegal, doesn't the ideaof a judge would be christain seem biased in keeping that bill in effect?
This video is obviously in line with the liberal mainstream!! Very pop culture centered. However, the points you bring up are in fact the very reasons this decision was corrupt, and will be overturned. Fact 1: The judge was questioned (though maybe not formally - which was not smart on the Prop 8 side) about his sexuality, and denied having any conflict of interest. Fact 2: He was lying - which makes anything he has said and/or judge extremely questionable. .....
@kidomniman agree 100% first is was african american rights, then it was rights for women and now its homosexuals. and just as the other fights. it wont stop until equality has won.
Interracial marriage used to be illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that such a ban was unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. The very same argument and amendment can be used to support gay marriage. Where in the constitution is marriage laws? Nowhere, but the 14th Amendment ensured equal rights, liberties, and protections to ALL U.S. citizens, including homosexuals, promising them the right to marriage. Fuck the people who want to make gay marriage illegal. Unamerican fucks.
Who cares? Was his decision based on law or personal feelings? If it was personal feelings then it should be looked at, if it was based on LAW then they can back the fuck off.
We have laws that mandate that people reveal their personal biases when ruling on such matters. I do think it is not unreasonable to say he should've revealed he was gay, or recused himself (ie passed the decision to another judge).
That being said, I would only hear out Republican's objections if they can make a case that his ruling showed bias (ie his arguments were not legally sound).
@Joxman2k For starters rape isn't as clearly defined as many people think (does it require penetration, what is necessary to achieve "valid" consent), and the term "bad" is very problematic in philosophy and morality (as such most people avoid using it).
By comparison, determining if a legal charter prohibits a form of law is much more evidentiary based.
I also believe the term unnatural is pretty wrong.
Can homosexuality be considered a mental illness ? Yes, depending who your asking.
But either way mental disorders exists in nature from all walks of life and all time periods.
Playing devil advocate, did anyone else feel a bit uncomfortable when he mentioned transgenders ? "If not the gays or the straights can decide ? will the transgender ?" Isnt that implying that they arent either. I know its a harmless comment, it just sounded odd.
Then let's not ask the crackpots, but the health and mental health organizations. They deemed the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder inaccurate since it reflected untested assumptions based, not on science, but on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples.
Judge should have recused himself before any kind of ruling. Homophobic judges should also recuse themselves, of course. Not agreeing with this just means you don't have an understanding of the bigger picture!
On a personal note, it's a shame he came out, if he felt strongly enough to not recuse himself when he knows he should have, he should have at least had the decency to keep it to himself. >_> Now his ruling might get overturned.
If anyone is struggling with the sin and disease of homosexuality, please, turn to Christ for forgiveness and salvation. Then go to a doctor for medical help.
@mrchiefofsinners Why turn to an imaginary friend of superstitous goat-blowers from millennia ago...for something that's not even classified as a mental illness anymore?
i hate comparing gays to black because there is an objective difference in the two genders. if you don't believe so, then lets start drafting women and men
Yes there is, but the principal of this specific case is identical. That principal is that you cannot disallow somebody from judging a case because you believe that they may, on a personal level, have a preference towards one outcome over another.
The reason is simple: a judge must be objective. Objectivity makes any preference irrelevant. And *everybody* has opinions on cases; they simply don't factor into the making of the decision.
what's the difference between being married or having a civil service.
it doesnt really matter to me whether they allow same sex marraiges because i dont see the difference. really they should allow same sex marraiges cos it wont be an a big effort really but i think if people want to use religion to ban homosexuality they should ban fornication which is also a mega oneway ticket to hell type sin
@fasulia67 The worry is, and it's almost assured conservatives would try this, is to create a gay version of jim crow laws. Say if the partner has an insurance policy in which they only recognize marriage, but not civil unions. This is a narrow example, but it's guaranteed this would be attempted for every facet and benefit that marriage offers by conservatives.
That's why it needs to be equal, because "separate but equal" is not equality.
Gay 'marriage' is a problem. But not 'same-sex union'. Let the religious keep the word 'marriage'. Why not? Allow same-sex unions to have exactly the same privileges that 'marriages' have. But let the word marriage be defined 'as between one man and one woman;.
sexual preference and getting married does not effect us in any way... so get the fuck over it. I don't like pickles so I think we should ban all pickles from all restaurants b/c I think they're disgusting... sounds good to me, but it's just ridiculous.
I think these people forget that we the people have a Constitution of The United States of America not a Bible of the United States of America. They think because they have a rule book it must apply to all and usurp our Constitution that we fought and bleed for. Christian mob rule is not the law of the land and there is absolutely nothing American nor free about their Theocracy.
If a judge is going to usurp the will of the people, then there shouldn't be a wiff of a conflict of interest. This doesn't pass the smell test. And gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights - it's a public policy issue. Gays have exactly the same civil rights as straights - they're free to marry a member of the opposite sex. Nothing stopping them. If they want to change the definition of marriage, fine, just don't call it a civil right.
@megagagnon1 People in the the past were free to marry people of the same color as them but it was 100% obvious civil rights issue that they couldn't marry someone of an opposite color of themselves. Your bible does not get to decide what I can or cant do in a free society.
@Fr33d0m4a11 It's not the bible that decides what is acceptable in a free society - it's the society that decides. Our cultural norms. And your example is still a public policy issue, not a civil rights issue, even though many call it that.
@megagagnon1 Ok so.....its a policy issue that is not going away. Just because the Theocrats want to cry, "oh my God said," does not make it right. We are not the Vatican. You want Theocracy then you go to the Vatican city. Here everyone gets the right to make their own choices. That means if gays want to marry they should be able to. Your bible dont get to dictate what love is or how its expressed. If it does then hang it up because we are not a free nation any longer. That is Theocracy.
@megagagnon1 It is no different than if Muslims forced the world to be under Shariah Law. "We are the mob rule so we can say what religious rules we can impose on you." Sounds exactly like the Muslim radicals and the Christian Church of the Dark Ages. Maybe we can go back to burning gingers at the stake because the Church says their all witches. Theocracy has never worked and never will until God comes and rules us himself. Man cant be trusted with it religious convictions in their laws.
I love how many conservatives claim they want to fix they economy when they place so much time and energy into inane acts like fighting the gay right's movement, which is entirely unrelated. If you think being gay is unnatural or negatively affects society or the economy, provide hard evidence that demonstrates this. When you don't provide evidence, most people on this forum will dismiss you as an ignorant bible thumper. Intelligent claims make intelligent discussion. Dumb ones will be mocked
I don't think that the GOP can use this to bring Prop 8 back.. no to flimsy to .. as the video points out.. Judges are human to.. who is totally impartial if you try to use this to get Prop 8 back.
So what if he is gay and that's why he made the ruling?
Are Reps arguing that only straight people can make the rules for gays?
It's not like this gay judge ruled that straight people can't get married, but the Reps would be fine with a straight judge ruling gay people can't get married....and they can't see the hypocrisy!
Isn't that like saying that white people can make the rules for black people and black people making rules for black people is obviously unfair and biased?
@DminorELECTRIC 1. not allowing them to marry is society's way of telling them that they are inferior to us and their sexuality does not deserve to be acknowledged by the rest of us. if someone didn't allow you to marry just because of your hair color, height, etc, you would feel the same. plus married couples get tax breaks
2. you're a disgusting human being for thinking that children are better off in over-crowded, under-equipped orphanages than in a home with parents who love them.
@Cuddlebunzzzz Ok I understand your first point, thats reasonable. But your second point? ahaha! Right, Homosexuality is not natural right? It can't be otherwise life wouldn't exist. So there is obviously something wrong with you if you are a homosexual, thus you should not be allowed to raise a child. Let alone the fact the child will be extremely bullied and probably end up Homosexual and twisted! What right do Homosexuals have to take a child and raise it unnaturally anyway?
@DminorELECTRIC Why should something be unnatural if they can not procreate? Hinnies can not procreate. Should they be banned too? And gay children? What turned them gay? (if you were able to turn someone gay, of course) And don't tell me gay children don't exist, I'm a kid, I have gay friends in my age, which means, gay kids. And why should something unnatural be wrong? (if it was unnatural, which it isn't, because a lot of animal species have shown gay behavior)
@Narglesonamistletoe yeah unfortunately there are a lot of gay kids in my school too, animals that doing gay behavior, doesn't make them gay, they are probably confused or desperate. Its should only be wrong if it results in preventing something from living.
@DminorELECTRIC Homosexuality is 100%, unquestionably natural, no questions asked. Why? Because there isn't a single thing a human being can possibly do that can be called unnatural in any way. Humans are part of the natural world, and thus everything every human has ever done is 100% natural. Homosexuality is no exception. Get the fuck over it.
@megagrey Okay, Nature has laws? for example trees must have photosynthesis to work, without it its going to die. Humans need fertilization, without it they will die out. Mess with the laws of nature and nature will kill you its as simple as that
And you saying that anything a human does is natural, is utter crap, Humans get fake boobs, are they natural? Didn't think so. Homosexuality is wrong, it says it in most religions it says, nature says it, and logic says it. Stop making this world evil!
@superok4luv2u No, anything that prevents life or kills life unnecessarily, is wrong. Oh and have all of you fags teamed up on me or something? Can't take an opinion? Well you're all gay and a bunch of pussies, so its no surprise
@DminorELECTRIC well you are preventing life by typing on you are computer by not creating 'life' with your partner you should also stop doing anything in your life except for sex , You know what you should also make masturbation illegal since you are killing millions of 'lives' ,and i'm not teaming up with anyone i saw a comment that i responded to that's all
@superok4luv2u Oh come on! seriously? Is that your best argument? What I said wasn't meant to be taken that literally you tard! Look, if you all want to waste your life in such a ridiculous way, do it. But don't expect me to have any respect for you.
@DminorELECTRIC no i thought your argument was stupid and i followed you through until you realized how ridiculous it is. saying that unnatural things are evil is like saying that every thing a human does is evil, ignoring the fact that homosexuality has been observed in million of species and no body gives rat's ass about your respect
@superok4luv2u Yeah of course it was. Look, if you don't give a rats ass about my respect why are all of you arguing with me? I merely stated how I felt about the subject and then you all argue with me, then you say you don't care about what I think? You guys really are fucktards arn't ya?
your an embarrassment to heteros, please, hang yourself so that many other sane straight people can move on without thinking about your paethic excuse of a body
@psunny24ify Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not the same thing. One is between consenting adult who have Pheromones the other is between an adult with Pheromones and a child who has not yet developed them. Therefore the attraction has nothing to do with instinct as in the senses but with mentality. Not a fair comparison at all.
@psunny24ify Actually, you just made my heart swell with pride and laugh delightedly, what with your display of elementary-school playground mentality and all.
@psunny24ify Yay, more childish, baseless insults. Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to be afraid of backing up my statement that everything a human could ever do is natural? I'm not. Sorry for not falling into your feeble trap, with you falsely trying to equate 'natural' with 'good'. Or the baseless comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Another automatic fail on your part.
@psunny24ify Yes I do. As I've already said, there's no example of human behavior you can throw at me that I'd call 'unnatural'. Nothing humans can do, being part of the natural world, can be labeled 'unnatural'. That's because the term 'natural' is not equivalent or interchangeable with 'good', 'moral', 'healthy', or 'ethical', and you bring me no end of laughter by continuing to assert it is.
@psunny24ify Straw men arguments make you look like a tool. Natural isn't the same as moral. Anything "not natural" would be supernatural. So unless megagrey is a ghost pedophile, you don't have an argument or any basic grasp of logic.
@psunny24ify Hey stupid, you misread the definition. You might want to check the context use in the example given for that definition. It does not apply to morality. "Sharks have no natural enemies."
So you're rather too stupid to understand a dictionary definition when you've read it, or you're intentionally lying.
@Makosis so pedophilia is caused by nature? morality is irrelevant, were talking about nature remember, stop defending pedos, actually youre probably one which makes sense on why youre up my ass making a failed argument.
@psunny24ify Do you know what a straw man argument is? Go look it up.
Nature is ANYTHING but moral. Natural selection is a mechanism derived from the death of inferior strains. The button beetle when unable to find a mate with give birth asexually to a fertile male, just to breed with it then eat it. Pedophilia, incest, and cannibalism. Countless species are known to eat their own young.
Nature is anything BUT moral. Morality is an invention of humans to govern our society. Natural =/= moral.
@Makosis shall i give u MORE definitions on what NATURAL is? A convicted pedo can easily go into a courtroom and say "I only fucked the 7 yr old because hey, its only natural" again the statement was that everything humans do is 100% natural, pedophilia IS NOT NATURAL OR MORAL.
@psunny24ify You haven't given me one definition of natural that matches what you're trying to use it for. The last time you tried I pulled that same definition and pointed out it's context quote completely contradicts your attempts to use it as a moral qualifying.
Maybe if you laid off the Holland Vodka and picked up a book you'd learn some reading comprehension. Nature and morality are completely separate concepts. Unless you believe it's okay to eat babies as many species do. Baby eater.
Are you drunk right now baby eater? None of those definitions apply to using "Natural" as a substitute for moral. Copying pasting out of google means nothing if you don't understand the content of what you're showing.
@Makosis The numbfucker is still trying to use 'natural' and 'moral' interchangibly? Why am I so not surprised that an anti-gay bigot is being so thick-headed?
@megagrey I didn't read back far enough to check if they were bigoted. I kinda assumed it with the poor grasp on basic logic, reading comprehension, and how grossly they misrepresented arguments in a poor attempt to use shock tactics to silence an opponent.
I'd be terrified if moral and natural meant the same thing, as I mentioned earlier many species will eat their young. Natural, but not exactly moral to humans. Hence why I started refering to them as a baby eater; parody their shock tactics.
EVERYTHING that EVERY human has EVER done is 100% natural, so stop trying to assert that natural = good or natural = the norm. It gets you nothing except ridicule you richly deserve.
@MD3c0 You like many others seem to confusing the terms "unnatural" and "immoral". It's a bait and switch used by religious zealots to oppose gay rights while trying not to sound bigoted. Nothing can be unnatural in the terms they're trying to use it in, which is "not from nature".
@MD3c0 In the context the religious are trying to use it, yes. Swapping the term "immoral" for "unnatural" is incorrect. There's a semantic disagreement that anything that does not occur naturally is unnatural, homosexuality still doesn't fall under this context because it DOES occur outside of humans. The debate is if anything CAN be outside of nature, is using tools unnatural? Other species use tools too, we just do it on a larger and more complicated scale.
@Makosis Great point!! Yes. And who is to judge what is and what is not natural. I understand that some Jehovah’s Witness won’t have a blood transfusion because it’s considered unnatural. Maybe they feel that if god wanted Jim to have Jan’s blood, he would have made Jim, Jan. So I wonder what some of the other fundies would say about another Christian suggesting they are living a sinful life style be supporting/ having transfusions.
@xzrhsb this MD3cO character is a waste of time. He is obviously evading your simple and direct question. Hello! He was using the word unnatural in comments before you asked him. And now is looking for someone to educate him on a definition? He’s either incoherent, knows he can’t answer without conceding something to ya, and / or, he’s making a lame attempt to divert attention. Anyway, he’s not worth any more of your time.
@Luvcoffey yes, I think you are right. I’ve had religious fundies stop and ponder the blood transfusion thing. I guess it boils down to interpretation. Some fundies believe it’s natural and others believe it’s not. I suspect this MD3 character is too proud to admit its mere interpretation.
@megagrey Of course it's Natural. It happens IN NATURE. Thousands of species of animals have been documented to have homosexual sex and relationships, some that last a lifetime, some that last a mating season, and some that just like to fuck. (bonobo monkeys, for example)
@CommandoDude NOM and there youtube channel NationForMarriage are run by the mormons. Im sure we can all guess what kind of "Traditional" marriage THEY're trying to preserve
With all the problems we have in this country why all this fuss oveer gay marriage. If two people of the same sex want to get married who gives a fuck, except all those stupid bible thumpers.
Yeah I think he's a *little* biased. I'm tired of gays. This is what they should do get rid of all the tax and legal benefits of getting married. BAM! gays can get married because it won't matter legally anyways hopefully no one will ever cover gay rights again.
I still believe Homosexuality is a redundant gene that gets activated depending on societal circumstances. I believe its a fail safe protection mechanism for the human species. The only reason its not doing its job to hold down overpopulation and starvation is because we are to bigoted to let the fail safe do its rightful job. Maybe we wouldn't need abortion after abortion if homosexuality was holding down population like its supposed to. Modern religion lacks wisdom.
@Fr33d0m4a11 Opps meant to say environmental circumstances. Makes me consider the Dutch Hunger Winter Study. I wish they would do more research to see if starving societies or stressful societies presented more Homosexual children than average.
@SirWinstoneChurchill If breeding is left without checks and balances. The species dies from over population. Its been observed in every single species on the planet repeated throughout all of history.
I think this is all bullshit. I'm not gay or bisexual but I think the republicans and conservatives should seriously shut the fuck up and get used to the 21st century. We are the only race to have homophobes, and I find these homophobes as a disgrace. Go die in a hole I am sick and tired of your whining.
One example of homosexuality in animals is frogs. They have cycles where homosexuality appears when the frog population is large. Mammals are being observed more and more and homophobes will get a fist full of FACT!
I dont see why this is even a dispute. Because marriage is a private emotional decision between two individuals we need not intervene, whether its straight gay or interracial. If we could just come together as a nation and accept marriage for what it is, maybe we could get past the hate and stigma that revolves around gay marriage.
Shit let the gays get married, I love my gay brothers, they help me with style tips and women plus its less comp for me! I don't get all the hate, its like the bully @ school, he picks on kids, bc of his own issues. Only its closet gays picking on the gays, for being strong enough to be gay and not hide it.
SO - All heterosexual judges need to recuse themselves from any hetero marriage or divorce cases - or anything even slightly related. - AND that said, 'Justice' Thomas's, wife, working as a lobbyist - How DARE anyone ever QUESTION his integrity! - BTW - do you know about him and Scalia supporting the Koch Brother's Heritage Foundation? .....
This should move up to the Supreme Court. Prop. 8 was constitutional according to the people who allowed it through the bill formation process. I was debated before it went to vote, and was constitutional then. It was going to be passed automatically, but the gay rights activists (GRA) pushed to have it go as a proposition, because in California they thought it would pass. Even in the gayest sate it failed by a high margin, then the GRA wants to overturn the will of the populace.
@Psychodegu "This should move up to the Supreme Court."
I'm sure a lot of people would love to see this bill suffer the same fate as another similar mess about 20 years ago. Colorado's Amendment 2 went down in flames.
Sometimes it is necessary for courts to overturn the will of the populace to avoid mob rule. Such was the case with Loving vs. Virginia when the ban on interracial marriage ended. And rightfully so.
@BjoernarEricSven Gay and Black are not the same thing. Race has little to do with marriage at the core level. Sexuality is a fundamental part of marriage, as it is the legal union of people that is supported by a vested interest of the government, notably the birth of the next generation. None of the things apply to gay unions, but still apply to interracial unions. For this reason your comparing apples and oranges. In either case there is no right to marriage, each state can ban it.
@Psychodegu That is bullshit. cause married hetero couples aren't forced to have kids. A lot don't have kids. Besides, having a marriage status give huge economic benefits. Like having your partners benefits.
If it was up to a jury deciding the case, a gay juror wouldn't even be allowed when the court found out that they would have a vested interest in the outcome of this case. So forget a judge for fuck's sake. Unbelievable. I wonder how much money he got to rule this way.
valglass12 2 weeks ago
I have worked as a US District Judge for 15yrs- & I can tell you that our criminal justice system is currently going down the tubes.
Last year I was ‘censured’- because of my socially-aware sentencing policy. It makes perfect sense to me to hand out a different range of sentences to wealthier, middle class criminals- their shame & loss of social/professional standing is usually harsh enough punishment.
Poorer/lower orders will always need more jail-time to realise the extent of their guilt.
SuperTruth77 7 months ago
Naturally a judge who, having lived with a same sex judge for 10 years, making a ruling on a law for the very purpose of determing if same sex individuals could get married, would seem to create a conflict of interest. Logically it would seem that no matter if the judge is homo or heterosexual, there would be conflict. It would seem that the best resolution of such law which affects the general population would be a bill which is voted by the people of the state.
ANGELBLU2042 7 months ago
Comment removed
ANGELBLU2042 7 months ago
His ruling needs to be thrown out and bring an unbiased atheist judge in and see what the ruling is, it will most likely be the same anyway so it doesn't really matter
tigran914 7 months ago
The appeal just got interesting.
freakylocz14 7 months ago
/watch?v=AEuDDvqYbVw Video that explains jeffmonc2's problem and those like him.
xexixk 7 months ago
Homo's really have no clue really.
jeffmonc2 7 months ago
@jeffmonc2 No.. I am pretty sure you're a moron.
callmeishmel 7 months ago
@callmeishmel What kind of freak dredges up 3 week old comments? I think you are the one with the problem.
jeffmonc2 6 months ago
@jeffmonc2 I was unaware there was a time limit to respond to a post.... I just saw!
Relevant information never expires.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffmonc2 Oh...and now you have confirmed you are a moron. Thank you.
callmeishmel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh please! These hippy fruit cakes here in Northern California protest and get chaotic over ridiculous issues such as gay marriage. But these same liberal, tree hugging, and new age freaks sit on their lazy butts and NEVER protest and raise their voices about job shortages, foreclosures, healthcare, expensive groceries, and high gas prices.
TheLavish99 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheLavish99 8 months ago
Liberalism really is a mental disease...it has no logic or purpose.
xlr8r2010 8 months ago
The Judge absolutely should have excused himself from this case,he had an agenda to push the gay marriage issue.How the fuck can his ruling stand?He was biased right from the start....this shit is unbelievable.Fucking liberals...all they do is push for laws that allow more and more perversion in society.Marriage is between a man & a woman,that is the way it is.
xlr8r2010 8 months ago
@xlr8r2010
so a female judge cannot rule on abortion cases? a african american judge cannot have a cicil rights case? and you need gay judges, because who else but homosexuals are qualified to rule over straight cases?
perversion if what you make of it. as in, not every one thinks the same things are perverted. but you seem to think that your sense of perversion and your definition of marriage is the one everyone should agree with.
AceofDiamonds0 8 months ago
REVERB is a must read of a beautiful, rich, master musician who learns to love someone other than himself. Strong gay characters enrich this gritty, edgy romance and are the best couple in the novel. Read it on reverbnovel or jcafesin dot com...
jcafesin 8 months ago
marriage is something that shouldn't be used as if it were an experiment. That's like a state wanting to practice slavery in a free country.
expertstrategy 9 months ago
@expertstrategy
marriage is not being used as an experiment, it is simply something that changes over time.
AceofDiamonds0 8 months ago
So, basically all divorced or married judges cant rule on divorce cases && all judges with children cant rule over juvenile courts???? C'mon....people just because you are gay doesnt mean you are for or agianst same sex marriage, it doesnt even mean that you will even object any bias at all.....
tofugodess12 9 months ago
@tofugodess12 So....a liberal gay Judge is gonna vote against gay marriage? lmao@YOU!
xlr8r2010 8 months ago
Walker should have recused himself - he has a direct gain from this. But Oh no faggots get a free pass on everything. They live in fairy tale world of rainbow and shit on your dick.
jeffmonc2 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every study says a child a natural family is the ideal environment.How do children get male & womanhood bonding available only in a natural marriage?Saying marriage is a civil right is an insult to Dr. King & Malcolm X.Sodomy is not a civil right.Dr. Robert Spitzer, who got this off the list of mental diseases in the 1980's said 2001: "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue some people can and do change"
BlackRepublican2010 9 months ago
These homo's will stop at nothing to change everything to suit them. No more. Regular people are standing up and saying marriage is a traditional institution that needs to be protected in the face of liberal activist judges. This guy is just one example.
jeffmonc2 9 months ago
@jeffmonc2 Yes, that must be why polls indicate th percentage of those who support gay marriage is 50% or more.
megagrey 9 months ago
@megagrey yeah, in L.A.
phantom1000A 9 months ago
@jeffmonc2 lol a traditional instituation that hasnt been changed at all. nope, oh wait except for women no longer being BARTERED for and blacks being able to marry whites. yea heterosexuals changed it a lil for those. your religious views are about HOLY MATRIMONY. thats your REGULAR. marriage is different
isakechaos 9 months ago
@jeffmonc2 So what are the homos trying to change besides a law that infringes on their freedom while permitting it for others?
Why should government decide who can get married? Shouldn't that be left up to the individual?
It is actually the religious groups who are trying to modify the laws just to suit their personal beliefs and impose them on everybody else.
In this case, they are the ones pushing for bigger government and less freedom.
Knightmessenger 9 months ago
@Knightmessenger This is about liberals saying a big "Fuck You" to catholic people....that is all it is.They can have same sex unions,why does it have to be called marriage? Because they know it pisses off republicans & catholics...lol
xlr8r2010 8 months ago
@xlr8r2010 If marriage is specifically what you don't like, what do you think about getting rid of all government recognition of marriage and allowing civil unions for everybody?
Knightmessenger 8 months ago
@Knightmessenger Don't try to make this out to be more than it is....this whole thing is about saying "Fuck You" to the right wing and its supporters.This isn't a freedom issue at all...they are free to have same sex unions,why does it have to be called "Marriage" for them to be happy?
xlr8r2010 8 months ago
@xlr8r2010 Well, there are significant differences under the law between a civil union and a legal marriage. When the government stops consenting adults from entering into a desired agreement, it is absolutely a freedom issue.
Plus it amounts to the government singling out and stigmatizing gay people and stating some people are more equal than others.
Civil unions are perfectly fine. Just remove all government recognition of marriage for anyone and it's all good.
Knightmessenger 8 months ago
.... the monetary gains is what is written in law as a reason for recusing one self from a case in which the judge stands to "gain" from the outcome. "Gain" again being emphasized as a monetary gain. So the rebuttal of "no one could judge this case based on non bias" is void.
lastround12 9 months ago
.....Fact 3: A homosexual judging a same sex case HAS something MONETARY to GAIN, where as a heterosexual judging a same sex case, has nothing monetary to gain.
lastround12 9 months ago
@lastround12 liberal mainstream... Liberalism isn't mainstream, in fact what is in fact mainstream, is a more moderate conservatism. Seriously there isn't jack diddly squat that's true liberalism in the mainstream media, the news agencies' parent companies wouldn't like that. People might start thinking for themselves, form an opinion, and want to change the way the system works.
Mduenisch 9 months ago
@lastround12 Also why can't being straight be biased? Even if one is straight, and isn't pro-gay, or even if they are, the very fact that they fit into the opposition of the oppressed party within the bill, gives the impression they have to look out for the best interest in being straight. Now the best part is, he's gay and he's in a relationship. Okay that makes sense. What if being an atheist was illegal, doesn't the ideaof a judge would be christain seem biased in keeping that bill in effect?
Mduenisch 9 months ago
This video is obviously in line with the liberal mainstream!! Very pop culture centered. However, the points you bring up are in fact the very reasons this decision was corrupt, and will be overturned. Fact 1: The judge was questioned (though maybe not formally - which was not smart on the Prop 8 side) about his sexuality, and denied having any conflict of interest. Fact 2: He was lying - which makes anything he has said and/or judge extremely questionable. .....
lastround12 9 months ago
@kidomniman agree 100% first is was african american rights, then it was rights for women and now its homosexuals. and just as the other fights. it wont stop until equality has won.
GLADLYxGAY 9 months ago
Interracial marriage used to be illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that such a ban was unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. The very same argument and amendment can be used to support gay marriage. Where in the constitution is marriage laws? Nowhere, but the 14th Amendment ensured equal rights, liberties, and protections to ALL U.S. citizens, including homosexuals, promising them the right to marriage. Fuck the people who want to make gay marriage illegal. Unamerican fucks.
Ceenymeeny 10 months ago
Who cares? Was his decision based on law or personal feelings? If it was personal feelings then it should be looked at, if it was based on LAW then they can back the fuck off.
:P
Joxman2k 10 months ago
boobs
SeriouslyPissedOff 10 months ago
We have laws that mandate that people reveal their personal biases when ruling on such matters. I do think it is not unreasonable to say he should've revealed he was gay, or recused himself (ie passed the decision to another judge).
That being said, I would only hear out Republican's objections if they can make a case that his ruling showed bias (ie his arguments were not legally sound).
Wolfau5 10 months ago
@Wolfau5
Well said.
It should not matter his sexuality. Thats like saying " I'm a heterosexual, and I think Raping a woman is bad!"
"AH! HA! YOU ARE BIASED! because you are heterosexual?"
:P
Joxman2k 10 months ago
@Joxman2k "Rapidng women is 'bad' " is a subjective value judgement. "Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional" is much less subjective.
Wolfau5 10 months ago
@Wolfau5
How do you figure?
:P
Joxman2k 10 months ago
@Joxman2k For starters rape isn't as clearly defined as many people think (does it require penetration, what is necessary to achieve "valid" consent), and the term "bad" is very problematic in philosophy and morality (as such most people avoid using it).
By comparison, determining if a legal charter prohibits a form of law is much more evidentiary based.
Wolfau5 10 months ago
If only Earth was like Paul the alien's planet, where everyone's bi.
fakesmith797 10 months ago
I also believe the term unnatural is pretty wrong.
Can homosexuality be considered a mental illness ? Yes, depending who your asking.
But either way mental disorders exists in nature from all walks of life and all time periods.
Playing devil advocate, did anyone else feel a bit uncomfortable when he mentioned transgenders ? "If not the gays or the straights can decide ? will the transgender ?" Isnt that implying that they arent either. I know its a harmless comment, it just sounded odd.
Rinrenken 10 months ago
@Rinrenken
"Depending who you are asking"?
Then let's not ask the crackpots, but the health and mental health organizations. They deemed the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder inaccurate since it reflected untested assumptions based, not on science, but on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples.
BjoernarEricSven 10 months ago
So if you're not gay or straight you're transgendered? I love ya Cenk but you're lack of appropriate terminology astounds me xD
JermzzzyFTW 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This will be thrown out
hanksnow82 10 months ago
Judge should have recused himself before any kind of ruling. Homophobic judges should also recuse themselves, of course. Not agreeing with this just means you don't have an understanding of the bigger picture!
On a personal note, it's a shame he came out, if he felt strongly enough to not recuse himself when he knows he should have, he should have at least had the decency to keep it to himself. >_> Now his ruling might get overturned.
75RDM 10 months ago
If anyone is struggling with the sin and disease of homosexuality, please, turn to Christ for forgiveness and salvation. Then go to a doctor for medical help.
mrchiefofsinners 10 months ago
@mrchiefofsinners Why turn to an imaginary friend of superstitous goat-blowers from millennia ago...for something that's not even classified as a mental illness anymore?
megagrey 10 months ago
let love be free~
We all need to be accepting of religion and of LGBT, people need to be more loveing :)
Kabutopuppy 10 months ago
So black judges are not allowed to rule that discrimination against them is against the 14th amendment?
gamegeek2 10 months ago
i hate comparing gays to black because there is an objective difference in the two genders. if you don't believe so, then lets start drafting women and men
GodAthie 10 months ago
@GodAthie
Yes there is, but the principal of this specific case is identical. That principal is that you cannot disallow somebody from judging a case because you believe that they may, on a personal level, have a preference towards one outcome over another.
The reason is simple: a judge must be objective. Objectivity makes any preference irrelevant. And *everybody* has opinions on cases; they simply don't factor into the making of the decision.
ViolentRiC 10 months ago
what's the difference between being married or having a civil service.
it doesnt really matter to me whether they allow same sex marraiges because i dont see the difference. really they should allow same sex marraiges cos it wont be an a big effort really but i think if people want to use religion to ban homosexuality they should ban fornication which is also a mega oneway ticket to hell type sin
fasulia67 10 months ago
@fasulia67 The worry is, and it's almost assured conservatives would try this, is to create a gay version of jim crow laws. Say if the partner has an insurance policy in which they only recognize marriage, but not civil unions. This is a narrow example, but it's guaranteed this would be attempted for every facet and benefit that marriage offers by conservatives.
That's why it needs to be equal, because "separate but equal" is not equality.
Makosis 10 months ago
Gay 'marriage' is a problem. But not 'same-sex union'. Let the religious keep the word 'marriage'. Why not? Allow same-sex unions to have exactly the same privileges that 'marriages' have. But let the word marriage be defined 'as between one man and one woman;.
ETworldjone 10 months ago
Hey, I'm 100% straight, but I'm 100% supportive of gay marriage.
xXRockXLobsterXx 10 months ago
@xXRockXLobsterXx
Thankfully you're not a rarity. Hell, I was 100% supportive of gay rights back when I was 100% straight.
Fortunately, most decent people don't only care about that which affects them personally.
ViolentRiC 10 months ago
sexual preference and getting married does not effect us in any way... so get the fuck over it. I don't like pickles so I think we should ban all pickles from all restaurants b/c I think they're disgusting... sounds good to me, but it's just ridiculous.
redasscd 10 months ago
I think these people forget that we the people have a Constitution of The United States of America not a Bible of the United States of America. They think because they have a rule book it must apply to all and usurp our Constitution that we fought and bleed for. Christian mob rule is not the law of the land and there is absolutely nothing American nor free about their Theocracy.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
who gives a fuck if gay people get married, i mean really its not a big deal at all
TheMunchMaster 10 months ago
Marriage doesn't equal having kids.
Many hetero couples don't want kids. Many women have kids and can't even take care of them.
If anal sex is bad between two men why would it be okay in a hetero couple?
If gay sex is bad cause it doesn't procreate, then I say no hetero couples should EVER have sex unless it's to make a kid...
YamiSeigy 10 months ago
If a judge is going to usurp the will of the people, then there shouldn't be a wiff of a conflict of interest. This doesn't pass the smell test. And gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights - it's a public policy issue. Gays have exactly the same civil rights as straights - they're free to marry a member of the opposite sex. Nothing stopping them. If they want to change the definition of marriage, fine, just don't call it a civil right.
megagagnon1 10 months ago
Comment removed
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
@megagagnon1 People in the the past were free to marry people of the same color as them but it was 100% obvious civil rights issue that they couldn't marry someone of an opposite color of themselves. Your bible does not get to decide what I can or cant do in a free society.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
@Fr33d0m4a11 It's not the bible that decides what is acceptable in a free society - it's the society that decides. Our cultural norms. And your example is still a public policy issue, not a civil rights issue, even though many call it that.
megagagnon1 10 months ago
@megagagnon1 Ok so.....its a policy issue that is not going away. Just because the Theocrats want to cry, "oh my God said," does not make it right. We are not the Vatican. You want Theocracy then you go to the Vatican city. Here everyone gets the right to make their own choices. That means if gays want to marry they should be able to. Your bible dont get to dictate what love is or how its expressed. If it does then hang it up because we are not a free nation any longer. That is Theocracy.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
@megagagnon1 It is no different than if Muslims forced the world to be under Shariah Law. "We are the mob rule so we can say what religious rules we can impose on you." Sounds exactly like the Muslim radicals and the Christian Church of the Dark Ages. Maybe we can go back to burning gingers at the stake because the Church says their all witches. Theocracy has never worked and never will until God comes and rules us himself. Man cant be trusted with it religious convictions in their laws.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
I love how many conservatives claim they want to fix they economy when they place so much time and energy into inane acts like fighting the gay right's movement, which is entirely unrelated. If you think being gay is unnatural or negatively affects society or the economy, provide hard evidence that demonstrates this. When you don't provide evidence, most people on this forum will dismiss you as an ignorant bible thumper. Intelligent claims make intelligent discussion. Dumb ones will be mocked
funderkitty07 10 months ago
I don't think that the GOP can use this to bring Prop 8 back.. no to flimsy to .. as the video points out.. Judges are human to.. who is totally impartial if you try to use this to get Prop 8 back.
masticina 10 months ago
So what if he is gay and that's why he made the ruling?
Are Reps arguing that only straight people can make the rules for gays?
It's not like this gay judge ruled that straight people can't get married, but the Reps would be fine with a straight judge ruling gay people can't get married....and they can't see the hypocrisy!
Isn't that like saying that white people can make the rules for black people and black people making rules for black people is obviously unfair and biased?
Fucking moronic.
Teloculos 10 months ago 5
Why do Gay people want to get married anyway? Its not going to do anything, unless they adopt a child, which is just unfair on the child
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC 1. not allowing them to marry is society's way of telling them that they are inferior to us and their sexuality does not deserve to be acknowledged by the rest of us. if someone didn't allow you to marry just because of your hair color, height, etc, you would feel the same. plus married couples get tax breaks
2. you're a disgusting human being for thinking that children are better off in over-crowded, under-equipped orphanages than in a home with parents who love them.
Cuddlebunzzzz 10 months ago
@Cuddlebunzzzz Ok I understand your first point, thats reasonable. But your second point? ahaha! Right, Homosexuality is not natural right? It can't be otherwise life wouldn't exist. So there is obviously something wrong with you if you are a homosexual, thus you should not be allowed to raise a child. Let alone the fact the child will be extremely bullied and probably end up Homosexual and twisted! What right do Homosexuals have to take a child and raise it unnaturally anyway?
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC Why should something be unnatural if they can not procreate? Hinnies can not procreate. Should they be banned too? And gay children? What turned them gay? (if you were able to turn someone gay, of course) And don't tell me gay children don't exist, I'm a kid, I have gay friends in my age, which means, gay kids. And why should something unnatural be wrong? (if it was unnatural, which it isn't, because a lot of animal species have shown gay behavior)
Narglesonamistletoe 10 months ago
@Narglesonamistletoe yeah unfortunately there are a lot of gay kids in my school too, animals that doing gay behavior, doesn't make them gay, they are probably confused or desperate. Its should only be wrong if it results in preventing something from living.
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC Homosexuality is 100%, unquestionably natural, no questions asked. Why? Because there isn't a single thing a human being can possibly do that can be called unnatural in any way. Humans are part of the natural world, and thus everything every human has ever done is 100% natural. Homosexuality is no exception. Get the fuck over it.
megagrey 10 months ago 48
@megagrey Okay, Nature has laws? for example trees must have photosynthesis to work, without it its going to die. Humans need fertilization, without it they will die out. Mess with the laws of nature and nature will kill you its as simple as that
And you saying that anything a human does is natural, is utter crap, Humans get fake boobs, are they natural? Didn't think so. Homosexuality is wrong, it says it in most religions it says, nature says it, and logic says it. Stop making this world evil!
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC so most of human inventions are wrong because they are unnatural then you shouldn't use your computer
superok4luv2u 10 months ago
@superok4luv2u No, anything that prevents life or kills life unnecessarily, is wrong. Oh and have all of you fags teamed up on me or something? Can't take an opinion? Well you're all gay and a bunch of pussies, so its no surprise
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC well you are preventing life by typing on you are computer by not creating 'life' with your partner you should also stop doing anything in your life except for sex , You know what you should also make masturbation illegal since you are killing millions of 'lives' ,and i'm not teaming up with anyone i saw a comment that i responded to that's all
superok4luv2u 10 months ago
@superok4luv2u Oh come on! seriously? Is that your best argument? What I said wasn't meant to be taken that literally you tard! Look, if you all want to waste your life in such a ridiculous way, do it. But don't expect me to have any respect for you.
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC no i thought your argument was stupid and i followed you through until you realized how ridiculous it is. saying that unnatural things are evil is like saying that every thing a human does is evil, ignoring the fact that homosexuality has been observed in million of species and no body gives rat's ass about your respect
superok4luv2u 10 months ago
@superok4luv2u Yeah of course it was. Look, if you don't give a rats ass about my respect why are all of you arguing with me? I merely stated how I felt about the subject and then you all argue with me, then you say you don't care about what I think? You guys really are fucktards arn't ya?
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@DminorELECTRIC
your an embarrassment to heteros, please, hang yourself so that many other sane straight people can move on without thinking about your paethic excuse of a body
BalooDumptruck 10 months ago
@megagrey so if i wanted to fuck a kid that would be natural?
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not the same thing. One is between consenting adult who have Pheromones the other is between an adult with Pheromones and a child who has not yet developed them. Therefore the attraction has nothing to do with instinct as in the senses but with mentality. Not a fair comparison at all.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
@Fr33d0m4a11 the argument that was made was everything that humans have done was 100% natural, so i guess fucking kids is natural.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Yes it would be, you quaint little dipshit, oblivious to the fact that natural =/= good.
megagrey 10 months ago
@megagrey did i hurt your wittle feelings weelings?
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Actually, you just made my heart swell with pride and laugh delightedly, what with your display of elementary-school playground mentality and all.
megagrey 10 months ago
@megagrey how? because according to you fucking kids is natural, YOU are the sick one here, pedo.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Yay, more childish, baseless insults. Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to be afraid of backing up my statement that everything a human could ever do is natural? I'm not. Sorry for not falling into your feeble trap, with you falsely trying to equate 'natural' with 'good'. Or the baseless comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Another automatic fail on your part.
megagrey 10 months ago
@megagrey dont be mad that you sound like a pedo by saying fucking kids is natural, good or bad, you say its natural.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Yes I do. As I've already said, there's no example of human behavior you can throw at me that I'd call 'unnatural'. Nothing humans can do, being part of the natural world, can be labeled 'unnatural'. That's because the term 'natural' is not equivalent or interchangeable with 'good', 'moral', 'healthy', or 'ethical', and you bring me no end of laughter by continuing to assert it is.
megagrey 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Straw men arguments make you look like a tool. Natural isn't the same as moral. Anything "not natural" would be supernatural. So unless megagrey is a ghost pedophile, you don't have an argument or any basic grasp of logic.
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis natural- 1 existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
2 of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something, pedophilia is NOT natural
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Hey stupid, you misread the definition. You might want to check the context use in the example given for that definition. It does not apply to morality. "Sharks have no natural enemies."
So you're rather too stupid to understand a dictionary definition when you've read it, or you're intentionally lying.
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis so pedophilia is caused by nature? morality is irrelevant, were talking about nature remember, stop defending pedos, actually youre probably one which makes sense on why youre up my ass making a failed argument.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify Do you know what a straw man argument is? Go look it up.
Nature is ANYTHING but moral. Natural selection is a mechanism derived from the death of inferior strains. The button beetle when unable to find a mate with give birth asexually to a fertile male, just to breed with it then eat it. Pedophilia, incest, and cannibalism. Countless species are known to eat their own young.
Nature is anything BUT moral. Morality is an invention of humans to govern our society. Natural =/= moral.
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis shall i give u MORE definitions on what NATURAL is? A convicted pedo can easily go into a courtroom and say "I only fucked the 7 yr old because hey, its only natural" again the statement was that everything humans do is 100% natural, pedophilia IS NOT NATURAL OR MORAL.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify You haven't given me one definition of natural that matches what you're trying to use it for. The last time you tried I pulled that same definition and pointed out it's context quote completely contradicts your attempts to use it as a moral qualifying.
Maybe if you laid off the Holland Vodka and picked up a book you'd learn some reading comprehension. Nature and morality are completely separate concepts. Unless you believe it's okay to eat babies as many species do. Baby eater.
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
you are so fucking useless in this argument, try not to fuck any kids today.
psunny24ify 10 months ago
@psunny24ify
Are you drunk right now baby eater? None of those definitions apply to using "Natural" as a substitute for moral. Copying pasting out of google means nothing if you don't understand the content of what you're showing.
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis The numbfucker is still trying to use 'natural' and 'moral' interchangibly? Why am I so not surprised that an anti-gay bigot is being so thick-headed?
megagrey 10 months ago
@megagrey I didn't read back far enough to check if they were bigoted. I kinda assumed it with the poor grasp on basic logic, reading comprehension, and how grossly they misrepresented arguments in a poor attempt to use shock tactics to silence an opponent.
I'd be terrified if moral and natural meant the same thing, as I mentioned earlier many species will eat their young. Natural, but not exactly moral to humans. Hence why I started refering to them as a baby eater; parody their shock tactics.
Makosis 10 months ago
@psunny24ify That would be against the law most probably, but is it natural? Only if the kid had hit puberty, otherwise its not natural.
DminorELECTRIC 10 months ago
@megagrey " Homosexuality is 100%, unquestionably natural, no questions asked". Banging a sheep or a cow is 100% natural too, right bubba?
megagagnon1 10 months ago
@megagagnon1 Yes.
EVERYTHING that EVERY human has EVER done is 100% natural, so stop trying to assert that natural = good or natural = the norm. It gets you nothing except ridicule you richly deserve.
megagrey 10 months ago
@megagrey I find Facebook unnatural :(
WabbitHuntin 10 months ago
@megagrey Nothing can be unnatural? I think that's just a little bit ignorant. And by a little bit I mean extremely.
MD3c0 10 months ago
@MD3c0 Yep, nothing a human does is ever unnatural. To suggest otherwise is to say humans are somehow supernatural entities or some shit like that.
megagrey 10 months ago
@MD3c0 You like many others seem to confusing the terms "unnatural" and "immoral". It's a bait and switch used by religious zealots to oppose gay rights while trying not to sound bigoted. Nothing can be unnatural in the terms they're trying to use it in, which is "not from nature".
Makosis 10 months ago
@Makosis What? So you're saying that to be unnatural is impossible?
MD3c0 10 months ago
@MD3c0 In the context the religious are trying to use it, yes. Swapping the term "immoral" for "unnatural" is incorrect. There's a semantic disagreement that anything that does not occur naturally is unnatural, homosexuality still doesn't fall under this context because it DOES occur outside of humans. The debate is if anything CAN be outside of nature, is using tools unnatural? Other species use tools too, we just do it on a larger and more complicated scale.
Makosis 10 months ago 2
@Makosis Great point!! Yes. And who is to judge what is and what is not natural. I understand that some Jehovah’s Witness won’t have a blood transfusion because it’s considered unnatural. Maybe they feel that if god wanted Jim to have Jan’s blood, he would have made Jim, Jan. So I wonder what some of the other fundies would say about another Christian suggesting they are living a sinful life style be supporting/ having transfusions.
xzrhsb 10 months ago
@MD3c0 would you consider blood transfusions, unnatural?
xzrhsb 10 months ago
@xzrhsb define unnatural.
MD3c0 10 months ago
@MD3c0 Please use etiquette and answer my question before commanding an action of me. Again, “Would you consider blood transfusions, unnatural”?
xzrhsb 10 months ago
@xzrhsb ....you need to define "unnatural" so that I can answer the question. Again, "Define unnatural".
MD3c0 10 months ago
@xzrhsb this MD3cO character is a waste of time. He is obviously evading your simple and direct question. Hello! He was using the word unnatural in comments before you asked him. And now is looking for someone to educate him on a definition? He’s either incoherent, knows he can’t answer without conceding something to ya, and / or, he’s making a lame attempt to divert attention. Anyway, he’s not worth any more of your time.
Luvcoffey 10 months ago
@Luvcoffey yes, I think you are right. I’ve had religious fundies stop and ponder the blood transfusion thing. I guess it boils down to interpretation. Some fundies believe it’s natural and others believe it’s not. I suspect this MD3 character is too proud to admit its mere interpretation.
xzrhsb 10 months ago
@megagrey Of course it's Natural. It happens IN NATURE. Thousands of species of animals have been documented to have homosexual sex and relationships, some that last a lifetime, some that last a mating season, and some that just like to fuck. (bonobo monkeys, for example)
electronicoffee 10 months ago
Prop 8 was only pushed through because of bullshit mormon propoganda anyway.
CommandoDude 10 months ago
@CommandoDude NOM and there youtube channel NationForMarriage are run by the mormons. Im sure we can all guess what kind of "Traditional" marriage THEY're trying to preserve
Laughtraxx 10 months ago
We have a Prop 8 in my state but it's only to make sure puppy mills treat their animals more humanly like clean food; clean water etc. etc. etc.
Even though all us voters voted yes take better care of the dogs and puppies. But the Representatives over turned it. Poor puppies :(
TheWingedunicorn 10 months ago
Aliens should judge the case....
mrx0066600 10 months ago
Gay is ok
mephesh 10 months ago
With all the problems we have in this country why all this fuss oveer gay marriage. If two people of the same sex want to get married who gives a fuck, except all those stupid bible thumpers.
MrBigfan007 10 months ago
It might not make sense to you, because you have sense, it does to people that don't. XD
MistressArte 10 months ago
ppl ppl, don't use the kids issue to go against gay people. a crack whore can have 9 kids so that makes her better than a gay person?
masterkayaki 10 months ago 22
unless you want your own kid then being gay is right up your alley
SirEsahc 10 months ago
Yeah I think he's a *little* biased. I'm tired of gays. This is what they should do get rid of all the tax and legal benefits of getting married. BAM! gays can get married because it won't matter legally anyways hopefully no one will ever cover gay rights again.
ubermisogynist 10 months ago
@ubermisogynist Good luck with that.
ponyboy316 10 months ago
I still believe Homosexuality is a redundant gene that gets activated depending on societal circumstances. I believe its a fail safe protection mechanism for the human species. The only reason its not doing its job to hold down overpopulation and starvation is because we are to bigoted to let the fail safe do its rightful job. Maybe we wouldn't need abortion after abortion if homosexuality was holding down population like its supposed to. Modern religion lacks wisdom.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago 2
@Fr33d0m4a11 Opps meant to say environmental circumstances. Makes me consider the Dutch Hunger Winter Study. I wish they would do more research to see if starving societies or stressful societies presented more Homosexual children than average.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
@Fr33d0m4a11
Monogamy is a hackneyed tenet of religion...
Mammals can only evolve heterosexually.
SirWinstoneChurchill 10 months ago
@SirWinstoneChurchill What does that have to do with monogamy?
ponyboy316 10 months ago
@SirWinstoneChurchill If breeding is left without checks and balances. The species dies from over population. Its been observed in every single species on the planet repeated throughout all of history.
Fr33d0m4a11 10 months ago
Cenk comes up with the best analogies. Smart cookie, that dude.
oftenbach 10 months ago
I think this is all bullshit. I'm not gay or bisexual but I think the republicans and conservatives should seriously shut the fuck up and get used to the 21st century. We are the only race to have homophobes, and I find these homophobes as a disgrace. Go die in a hole I am sick and tired of your whining.
Michael0697 10 months ago 2
Can someone explain how gay couples will affect straight couples from having kids?
jpowers55 10 months ago
One example of homosexuality in animals is frogs. They have cycles where homosexuality appears when the frog population is large. Mammals are being observed more and more and homophobes will get a fist full of FACT!
CHAOSoriginal 10 months ago 2
cenk's son is a faggot.
thirtyoneuniform 10 months ago
oh really? a BIASED faggot? no... fucking... shit.
thirtyoneuniform 10 months ago
I dont see why this is even a dispute. Because marriage is a private emotional decision between two individuals we need not intervene, whether its straight gay or interracial. If we could just come together as a nation and accept marriage for what it is, maybe we could get past the hate and stigma that revolves around gay marriage.
aacdo 10 months ago
Shit let the gays get married, I love my gay brothers, they help me with style tips and women plus its less comp for me! I don't get all the hate, its like the bully @ school, he picks on kids, bc of his own issues. Only its closet gays picking on the gays, for being strong enough to be gay and not hide it.
arofluv 10 months ago 3
Who cares what animals do, you fuckers. Animals don't have a fucking Constitution!!
sicklesickle 10 months ago
Your honor; you go girl.
chenalos 10 months ago
Many giraffes have gay relationships when they're young adults. Just putting that out there.
Ez3monie 10 months ago
ana never heard of vested interest?
redryan20000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FearEquality "I'm 100% against Prop 8, but I don't understand how it's unconstitutional"
What compelling interest exists to allow a law that restricts the rights of a particular group?
l0gically 10 months ago
SO - All heterosexual judges need to recuse themselves from any hetero marriage or divorce cases - or anything even slightly related. - AND that said, 'Justice' Thomas's, wife, working as a lobbyist - How DARE anyone ever QUESTION his integrity! - BTW - do you know about him and Scalia supporting the Koch Brother's Heritage Foundation? .....
TheJayde5 10 months ago
This should move up to the Supreme Court. Prop. 8 was constitutional according to the people who allowed it through the bill formation process. I was debated before it went to vote, and was constitutional then. It was going to be passed automatically, but the gay rights activists (GRA) pushed to have it go as a proposition, because in California they thought it would pass. Even in the gayest sate it failed by a high margin, then the GRA wants to overturn the will of the populace.
Psychodegu 10 months ago
@Psychodegu "This should move up to the Supreme Court."
I'm sure a lot of people would love to see this bill suffer the same fate as another similar mess about 20 years ago. Colorado's Amendment 2 went down in flames.
l0gically 10 months ago
@Psychodegu
"Even in the gayest sate it failed by a high margin"
LOL bullshit.
Prop 8 barely passed.
mecher3k 10 months ago
@Psychodegu
Sometimes it is necessary for courts to overturn the will of the populace to avoid mob rule. Such was the case with Loving vs. Virginia when the ban on interracial marriage ended. And rightfully so.
BjoernarEricSven 10 months ago
@BjoernarEricSven Gay and Black are not the same thing. Race has little to do with marriage at the core level. Sexuality is a fundamental part of marriage, as it is the legal union of people that is supported by a vested interest of the government, notably the birth of the next generation. None of the things apply to gay unions, but still apply to interracial unions. For this reason your comparing apples and oranges. In either case there is no right to marriage, each state can ban it.
Psychodegu 10 months ago
@Psychodegu That is bullshit. cause married hetero couples aren't forced to have kids. A lot don't have kids. Besides, having a marriage status give huge economic benefits. Like having your partners benefits.
robinvan1983 10 months ago