Prop 8?

@Lightwizard,

Yes for the only time I know of that HIV was transmitted by any kind of dental work out of the millions of procedures done every year and just somehow not one not two but six of his patients came down with the same HIV as he was carrying.

He just happen to had also expressed the opinion that until straights come down with HIV no one will care also.

I had work around human blood in a lab setting with the training that work require and HIV is ten times harder to get then such viruses as hepatitis and if you even look at it hard it will die. Dry blood hours old will not transmit the disease.

There is simply no way that 6 people could had been infected in one office, with out a human being behind it.

If you believe otherwise I have a wonderful bridge with great cash flow in New York for sale you might be interest in.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

As CA allow recall of judges I can only hope if they rule aganist this amendment that the judges are planing on going into private practice.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

He was bi-sexual - hardly a viable or rational example and he could have had sexual relationships with these individuals -- understandable why only one woman after sued for malpractice , curiously after he had already died.

That's a wish dream that any judges will be recalled -- the laws was struck down by the court previously with no such ramifications. Because of the recent polling that the enough of the people who voted for Prop 8 did not fully understand it and would have voted no, it would not pass today. Keep whistling in the dark and trying to hard sell your product -- the only people willing to buy it are not aware of caveat emptor.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more as a class heterosexuals couples are the one doing the heavy lifting of raising the society children and when that does change to include gay couples I am more then willing to support the changes of the laws to allow them to married.

So what about the homosexuals who already are raising children now? By your definitions, they have already earned their right to marry. Of course this is all irrelevant because you don't have to raise children to get married.

BillRM wrote:

Seem more then fair to me. Yes I know some gays wish an unearned windfall at everyone else expend but it not going to happen.

As thing are right now, by your definitions, the only people getting a windfall are straight couples that don't, can't or won't have children.

BillRM wrote:

Oh as far as your silliness about worrying about the small percent of married heterosexual couples that for one reason or another can not or do not wish to have children, I don’t see any practice way of declaring who they would be or not be and we both know that unless they happen to be 60s when they do tie the knot for example.

It's your silliness, not mine. The point remains Bill. Your silliness about a children clause is sunk if you allow these people full marital privilege and not gays on the basis of raising children etc.

You'll let a straight couple get married then go to a fertility clinic, surrogate mother, or an adoption center, but not a gay couple.

BillRM wrote:

Hmm was there not a married woman with help from medical science in the news lately that produce a child at 65? Oh well.

What's your point?

BillRM wrote:

The logic that just because a system is not perfect we should add a whole sub group that have zero chance of having children the old fashion way is silly, but the best anyone could do in your position I guess to defend an unearned windfall.

You're talking about straight couples with fertility issues here right? If you're not, I hope you understand that what you said above directly applies to them too.

As for "unearned," the system does not require that you earn the right to get married. If you'd like to prove me wrong, please direct me to and federal or state law that invalidates a marriage that does not produce children.

BillRM wrote:

Maybe we could raid the countries south of the border and kidnapped children wholesale for homosexuals to rise?

The interesting thing about your arguments Bill, is that you are willing to talk about anything OTHER than gay marriage. You'll talk about polygamy, incest, AIDS, child birth, raising children, but you won't talk about gay marriage.

BillRM wrote:

Oh as an amusing side note it is my understanding that gay males in this country are even lock out of being sperm donors because of their group high risk of HIV.

If it's your "understanding," I'm hardly impressed; hardly amused.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Amuzingly, the understanding of a twelve year old.

Chimpanzee

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

Keep whistling in the dark and trying to hard sell your product -- the only people willing to buy it are not aware of caveat emptor.

way to insult about half the American population, that beinging the roughly half that does not believe that gays should be able to get married. There are good arguments for why it is a bad idea, I have laid out a few, and Bill has as well. You are using a variation of the fait accompli argment, saying that all serious minds are in your favor. Those who have been around the block know that you are lieing, know that this question is not even close to having been already decided.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

I am sure he had sex with all those people in all those age and sex ranges and I am sure that if he did that not one of them would admitted to it after being told they had gotten at the time a death sentence.

I ready like you and my NY bridge is a real money maker that I am going to cut you into.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Hell come to think about it if he did indeed have unprotect sex with all six of them knowing he was HIV positive you are agreeing with me that he kill them.

Or are you going to say that they all agree to have sex with him after being told by him that he was HIV pos and thereby assume the risk of getting HIV?

In any case what is the differnce between injecting them with his blood by using a needle or by using his sperm and other body fluids on sexual partners that do not know his medical condition?

1 Reply

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO " The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO " In a sharp rebuke to supporters of a contested state ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, the California attorney general said Friday that the measure was constitutionally indefensible and should be overturned.

The attorney general, Jerry Brown, had previously hinted of his opposition to the measure, Proposition 8, but made his legal opinion concrete on Friday in a brief to the California Supreme Court, which is reviewing the measure. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20marriage.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1229789219-5Jba8InpqSnTxiuNRqbIqg

So much for the nonsense spouted in this thread about the question already having been decided by the best minds, that it is only the stupid and the ignorant who oppose gay marriage. As is normal for the gay rights movement, those who argue the for side in this thread have acted with little class, they refuse to respect the opposing argument and refuse to be civil. This is a shitty way to act.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The horse has already expired.

You don't understand sarcastic irony -- the fact that he wrote all the some 1,700 patients he had treated and confessed he had been HIV positive and to go to their physicians and get checked, but also stated he did not believe he could transmit AIDS by treating them. The rumor from hearsay that he might have deliberately infected 6 out of 1700 plus patients is just that -- unconfirmed hearsay. One out of millions of gay men bears no fruit concerning gay marriage, excepting perhaps the testing for SED's that a couple takes before tying the knot.

The horse briefly whinnied and then went to horsey heaven.

(We wouldn't want him to step on the 12 year old chimp).

0 Replies

By the 1990's, if anyone was having consensual sex without protection being it on the received end or not is subject to criticism for being stupid. If you don't want to get eaten by a shark, don't swim with sharks.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

.....

Quote:

By the 1990's, if anyone was having consensual sex without protection being it on the received end or not is subject to criticism for being stupid. If you don't want to get eaten by a shark, don't swim with sharks.

AID's kills, ideas do not.....Thanks for the timely demonstration of your sides inability to conduct yourselves as adults. The petulant child routine gets very old.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

There's no reason to treat bigots with civility. It is not only the stupid and ignorant who oppose gay marraige, but also learned bigots such as yourself and your ilk on this thread.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

noncivil behaviour begets noncivil behaviour, you can't count on your opposition continuing to be willing to take the moral high ground and not treating you as you treat them. Given that homosexuals are a small minority, and given the history of how homosexuals have been treated, you might consider not being so cavalier. Also, your argument that homosexuals should be awarded more rights on human decency grounds can't be taken seriously when the entire argument from your side displays human indecency. If you can't act like you know what decency is then it must be assumed that you don't.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

noncivil behaviour begets noncivil behaviour

You are seeing the effects of this right now. You and your fellow bigots are engaging in non-civil behavior towards your gay brothers and sisters here in America.

The rest of your paragraph isn't worth commenting on, Bigot. Soon we will prevail in court and you will be left with nothing but muttering and bitter regrets.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Yes, I agree that BRM writes like a petulant child. What's your excuse?

An idea kills if the idea is to have unprotected sex and acting on it. The idea may be stupid, but not nearly as stupid as your comment.

0 Replies

Attorney General of California, Jerry Brown, asks the Supreme Court to strike down the ban on gay marriage:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/MN6514RNVU.DTL&type=politics

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Soon we will prevail in court and you will be left with nothing but muttering and bitter regrets.

as I said earlier in this thread I as well expect that the courts will side with the freedom of choice argument, will side with the gay marriage side. However, it is what comes after that I am interested in. The gays assume that they will win majority approval, that the courts will not be overturned, but I see no basis for this assumption. Society has only just begun the debate, it is impossible to know which way the people will go. There are a lot of major differences between the civil rights struggle that gave majority approval to blacks and this struggle, gays should not assume that just because the blacks won their case in the court of public opinion that the gays will as well. The supemes have been very clear that they have no intention of getting into the middle of cultural struggles, so until this debate reaches some conclusion I would not expect the court to rule on the question of homosexual behaviour being a constitutionally protected individual freedom.

1 Reply

Quote:

Re: hawkeye10 (Post 3510085)
Afro Americans didn't "win their case in court." National legislation overruled state's laws which may not happen anytime soon in this case. That's because I don't believe this will be taken up by the USSC, one way or another anytime soon. They did take the Texas case finally (after many years) and struck down sodomy laws with consenting adults in private homes. It will go state-by-state and possibly in some future, legislation on a national level could be passed. I could be wrong -- but I don't believe if Prop 8 is nullified on the several Constitutionally (including, points out Jerry Brown, the California Constitution) legal contradictions and ambiguities that the opposition will be able to get the USSC to take the case anywhere near as quickly as they'd like -- maybe not even eight or ten years out.

Note, post deleted for unknown reason

sodomy laws were stuck down in part because the hetro majority was running afoul of them, as sodomy became acceptable sexual practice between man and woman. It is a mistake to rule this event as primarily a gay rights victory.

The blacks won in the court of public opinion and then the legal courts followed, gays think that they can win in legal courts and ignore public opinion, which shows that they don't understand how this society works. They also assume that each coming generation will be more inclinded to grant homosexuals full rights, based upon nothing more than the fact that this is the way the last few generations have gone. There is zero reason to make assumptions about how the next generation will consider these questions, as each is brought up in a different envirnoment.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

Attorney General of California, Jerry Brown, asks the Supreme Court to strike down the ban on gay marriage:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/19/MN6514RNVU.DTL&type=politics

See also: Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8
http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/1487648.html

Quote:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 on Friday argued for the first time that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton....

The new brief provides a preview of how Proposition 8's supporters plan to defend the measure. It asserts that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out Proposition 8.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

The anti-gay bigots are commanding the Supreme Court to bow down before them. In their arrogance, they fail to understand that the Court's primary role in our constitutional republic is to serve as a check against majoritarian oppression.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know