Yes, like men having oral and anal sex with other men. That time, however, is long past.



Unfortunaltly, a lot of male homosexual within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



Can you?



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusiion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psychosexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

Yes, like men having oral and anal sex with other men. That time, however, is long past.



Unfortunately, a lot of male homosexuals within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



Can you?



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psycho-sexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

Yes, like men having oral and anal sex with other men. That time, however, is long past.



Unfortunately, a lot of male homosexuals within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



Can you?



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psycho-sexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

Yes, like men having oral and anal sex with other men. That time, however, is long past.



Unfortunately, a lot of male homosexuals within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



Can you?



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psycho-sexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

Unfortunately, a lot of male homosexuals within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



Can you?



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psycho-sexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

Unfortunately, a lot of male homosexuals within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism.

Calvin Klein began mainstreaming underage eroticism a quarter of a century ago. Homosexuality, one among many kinds of "sexualities" and fetishes that broke out of the shadows and into a central place in the culture beginning in the late sixties. All of this is of a piece, as the gospel shows us.



In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psycho-sexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.

It has also encouraged the whole gay marriage movement, which is, despite common shibboleths to the contrary, a kulturkampf against all traditional sexual norms whose purpose is the complete overturning and redefinition of the concepts of family and gender.



Yes, we will.

[DELETED---see my reply on the new thread]

Droopy has again demonstrated that he does not know what he is talking about. Once a state has established a liberty or property interest in something, then the 14th Amendment applies and a liberty or property interest defined by state law becomes a federal question if the state seeks to deprive a person of that liberty or property interest without due process.



In case there was any doubt that Droopy has no idea what he's talking about, here he puts any such doubt to rest. The 14th Amendment makes it a federal constitutional issue for a state to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If state law creates or defines a liberty or property interest, then the state infringing on that interest without due process violates the federal constitution. For example, if a couple is married as defined by state law, then they now have a constitutionally protected interest in their state-sanctioned marriage. If a state creates or defines parental rights to custody and control of the parent's children, the parent now has a protected constitutional interest in the custody and control of his or her child (e.g., child protective services removing the child from the parent requires due process of law). If a person has a legally-recognized ownership interest in a home or a car, then he or she does have a constitutionally protected property interest.

The takings clause of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment would be completely meaningless unless it is assumed that judges should make reference to outside law for defining property interests. When Droopy is saying that a person does not have a "right" in any salient constitutional sense to things that the state has established as legitimate property or liberty interests, he is saying that the 14th Amendment is not part of the Constitution.



Things like this look really impressive to stupid people. But once a state does define the scope, limits, and conditions of marriage, then the 14th Amendment comes into play because the state has created a recognized liberty/property right. The rights Droopy has listed here are all in the First Amendment, and before the 14th Amendment, these rights only applied to the federal government. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was ratified to make sure that states also were prohibited from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Stating that marriage in a constitutional sense is reserved to the states and the people and not in the same class as the rights in the First Amendment is spectacularly idiotic. Until the 14th Amendment was ratified, the First Amendment did not apply to the states. The same amendment that makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states also makes state-created liberty and property interests applicable to the federal constitution.



Here we see yet another example of Droopy parroting conservative talking points without having any idea what he's talking about. He clearly does not understand the difference between establishing case law and the various ideas about how to determine what the constitution means. Case law is a fundamental feature of common law countries, which the United States is, having common from England, which is a common law country. Lower courts being bound by the decisions of higher courts is what case law is. The method of interpretation and construction of the Constitution is irrelevant to establishing case law. Whether a court uses a strict constructionist approach, an originalist approach, or any other method of construction/interpretation, the resulting decision will be binding on lower courts.

This is why Droopy's talk radio understanding of the Constitution is so dazzlingly stupid. "This again, you see, is the problem with government by case law and not by law, and through the building of a body of legal precedent and not of principle." Case law is law.

Case law is embodied in the Bill of Rights. Here is the 7th Amednment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

How exactly does a person have the right to a jury trial in suits at common law if common law is antithetical to the Constitution? Well, see, the 7th Amendment assumes that the United States is a common law country, which means that common law---"legal precedent"---is law. Droopy thinks that case law is some thing that exists on its own that has supplanted the rule of law. That's why his rants are so f*****g stupid: legal precedent is the rule of law. Case law prohibits judges from just making it up on a case by case basis. It has nothing to do with ideology. A conservative, originalist or strict constructionist appellate decision is case law. So is a decision based on the idea of a "living constitution" (apparently a dead constitution is preferable). That you disagree with what some particular case says is a completely separate issue from whether case law should even exist.

Droopy's ignorance of what he, in his Walter Mitty existence, has decided he is an expert in basically comes down to saying something like, "I oppose the English language because the English language can be used to say things that I don't like."

It appears that Darth J's argument presupposes Hugo Black's doctrine of full incorporation, which is not unanimously held.

No, it presupposes a mechanism for any of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.

EDIT: Whether you want to do this under the Due Process clause or the Privileges and Immunities clause, it still comes under the 14th Amendment.

Droopy wrote:

Yes, like men having oral and anal sex with other men.



It doesn't interest me. It does interest male homosexuals, however.

Oh, outside of personally? It does interest me as to its psychology and origins.


Droopy wrote:
Unfortunaltly, a lot of male homosexual within the cruising culture and the "chicken" market disagree with you, as do many within the modern cult of eroticism (the pornography culture and industry).



As Judith Riesman has shown, pedophilia is rife within the male homosexual culture, and disproportionally so when compared to heterosexual culture.

Droopy wrote:
In which case, based on both the mountain of social science data and historical evidence we have, homosexuality should be vigorously discouraged.



Invest some substantial time at NARTH and do some serious reading there, follow all links and sources to the relevant subject matter. There is a great deal of information at this clearinghouse, which is probably the best on the web on this issue at present.

Droopy wrote:
It fosters further gender identity problems, as well as deep moral confusiion, in any future generations growing up in that situation. That is, it encourages psychosexual dysfunction and and acceptance of an extremely risky and volatile lifestyle.



See above.

According to the Constitution itself, or according to some judge's claim that this is, according to accumulated precedent, the correct interpretation?

In any case, that question is moot, because marriage, as I've said already, is not a constitutional "right" at all, and hence cannot be federally protected by the 14th amendment.



Yes they do, but only because the federal constitution doesn't mention marriage, or privacy, or abortion, or much else that has for several decades been effectively nationalized and become the fodder of culture war, with no small thanks precisely to the mechanitions of the lawyer class, a particularly virulent sub-species of parasitical organisms that thrive at the expense of society, in all too many cases, rather than as a cooperative and productive aspect of it.

Marriage has always had distinct limitations and conditions attached to it, such as age, maturity and long standing social mores and norms grounded in centuries of human experience and accumulated wisdom. The concept "marriage" and the concept "homosexual" are mutually exclusive, and cannot be compounded without the destruction of the fundamental meaning and implications of the concept "marriage".



No. I am saying that all rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. Marriage is a matter of tradition, custom and deep moral gravitas. It is not an unalienable right, in the sense of the other such rights mentioned in the Declaration (which its interesting you should mention here, as the Declaration is not a legal document) because it can be alienable if the core conditions of its legitimate exercise are not met. Homosexuality delegitimates the core meaning of the concept, and hence, can be alienable where homosexuals are concerned.



Notice here the reliance upon procedure and process over principle and logical coherence. It was always, among others, the lawyers who were angry, put out and who felt threatened and cornered by the prophets and the faithful Saints in the Book of Mormon.

Darth is interested only, as I've always suspected, only in case law; only in what "the courts" have said and the precedents that have been set, not in the original intent of the Constitution, and not with philosophical rigor. Legal, Socratic reasoning is not the same thing as philosophical reasoning or a philosophical temperament.



Yes, yes, I learned all this in my 100 level American Government class years ago.



You're problem is then to supply the logical and conceptual link with "liberty", as mentioned in the Declaration, and property, with marriage as traditionally defined.

Little children cannot drink or smoke, or drive a vehicle. I cannot marry my sister or my mother. Homosexual marriage is in direct and open conflict with the fundamental prime directives and preconditions of a morally and socio-culturally healthy society, as well as with the imperative to reproduce our own kind. It is in direct conflict with the entire Judeo-Christian concept of marriage, gender, family and the purpose of human sexual relations. Hence, the sheer weight of legal word gaming and the sheer weight of any edifice of case law is of no value unless it is in harmony with the Constitution, and the Constitution never mentions marriage. Marriage is a matter of culture, not constitutional law. Hence, the state should, through law, make every attempt to preserve, maintain and protect marriage, but it has no business defining, or redefining it.

It has already been defined as a general rule, by all healthy societies in history, as heterosexual and monogamous, and the state should encourage and protect that institution, but not be involved in avant garde social engineering in the name of exaggerated concern for the desires (not "rights") of tiny deviant minorities seeking cultural acceptance by force.



The problem, as I've now stated over and over and over again, is that over time, case law tends to trump the original intent and meaning of the Constitution. See Roe v Wade and the large body of case law attendant to it. We can't get rid of Roe now because its a "right". Is there something in the Constitution justifying such a claim? No. But the case law, from Roe, has been established, and the Constitution, as with universal healthcare, the welfare state, the Fairness Doctrine, the ESA, wetlands regulation, the nationalization of banks, the voiding of legal contracts and the taking over of corporations, our monetary policy etc., is no longer even a peripheral consideration.



This is a sockpuppet. I'll figure out who in time.



Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Roe or homosexual marriage.



You're knocking down your own strawmen as fast as you can set them up. Nowhere have I ever claimed that common law is antithetical to the Constitution. Nowhere have I ever claimed that case law is antithetical to the Constitution. What I have held consistently is that case law has become the primary means of circumventing and rewriting the Constitution through the incremental bleeding of case law into the Constitution, erasing its core character over time.





"The wicked".

Really quite that simple.

We could just let gay people get married if they want to and thus eliminate the need for such lists.

This kind of mealy intellectual vacuity increases year by year at an ever increasing pace Moksha. Its shameful.

I actually pity you.

Quick, someone, take that mirror away from Droopy. He's describing himself again, only he thinks he's addressing and describing Moksha. Poor sap, that Droopy.

The Constitution itself talks about property and freedom of contract. The Constitution does not define what those are. The Constitution itself presupposes other sources of law to define these things in order to determine what is constitutionally protected.

Maybe Droopy can explain how a court is supposed to apply the Constitution without interpreting it. Or how not all judges agree on how to interpret the Constitution.

There are some kinds of stupid that you can't fake, as Droopy shows us. Once marriage is created and defined by a state, a liberty/property interest attaches under the 14th Amendment. Try telling a judge in any jurisdiction of the United States that state-sanctioned marriage is not protected under the 14th Amendment and see how far you get.

What Droopy is doing here is sanctifying his ignorance by claiming that anyone who knows what they're talking about doesn't believe in the "real" Constitution like he does is just a sophist or something. He is trying to use his professed belief in the sanctity of the Constitution to deflect any criticism of his value judgments----just like everyone does, and just like all believers in the Bible think they have the one, true interpretation.



This is 100% irrelevant to what I said. If the state defines marriage, then a person who meets the requirements for marriage in that state has a liberty/property interest in it.

Neither did I mention privacy, or abortion, or "much else." This is just more of Droopy not liking lawyers because he is threatened by anyone who knows what they are talking about---as if all lawyers have the same point of view in the "culture war" or are all arguing for the same interpretation and construction of the Constitution. How the expansion of rights, which is a limit on government power, automatically equates to a leftist agenda is anyone's guess. Let's wait for the brilliant, erudite, so much smarter than everyone else Droopy to learn how to spell "machinations" before we ask him.



I never mentioned the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and property is taken from the 14th Amendment. If the requirements for marriage are not met, then the right is not "alienable." The right did not exist in the first place. Under the 14th Amendment, a person must have a legally recognized liberty or property right, not merely a unilateral expectation.



Note here the reliance on platitudes and ignorance over how the framers themselves assumed that the judiciary operates (common law). It was always, among others, the half-literate and poseurs at knowing what they are talking about who were angry, put out, and who felt threatened and cornered by people who have actually been trained in this field and have done it for their profession.



What "the courts" have said and the precedents that have been set are how courts understand and apply the original intent of the Constitution. Once again, everyone thinks that their personal value judgments are embodied in the Constitution and only they know the true meaning.

I think that Droopy heard a talk show host on AM radio mention "Socratic method" in law school one time, and now he thinks that covers American jurisprudence or the actual practice of law entirely. This would be similar to watching batting practice and thinking that this is actually how a game of baseball is played.

Case law and common law are the same thing, by the way.



Hey, I got my First Aid Merit Badge. Maybe I can go tell doctors how to perform surgery!



Just to clarify, "liberty" is mentioned in the 5th and 14th Amendments. As in, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That Droopy thinks I am taking this language from the Declaration of Independence truly shows his dazzling knowledge of what the hell he is talking about.

"Your problem"---the logical and conceptual link---is that liberty and property interests are defined by other sources of law. This would also require having some vague idea of what exactly it is you are pontificating about, which is why Droopy just launches off into more platitudes while explicitly saying that "liberty" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, instead of from two constitutional amendments.

Where this goes from stupid to profoundly r******* is that Droopy is acting as if I said homosexuals have a constitutional right to marriage, which I never did. But since he brought up this point I never made, how can the state "preserve, maintain and protect marriage" without defining it?

And since the 9th Amendment makes it clear that the Bill of Rights does not list all rights that could possibly exist, and the 10th Amendment vests all authority not designated to the federal government to the states and to the people, what is the constitutional basis for saying that the people cannot choose to "redefine" marriage if they so choose?

The fact that Droopy purports to be a defender of a church whose members once claimed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to have a constitutional right to practice polygamy makes this even better.

However, it remains that once a person fulfills the state-defined requirements for marriage, he or she does have a constitutionally protected right in the liberty/property interest the state has created. What Droopy wants everyone to think is that every single court in the United States has gotten this wrong but he is right because he believes in this mythical "pure Constitution" that is somehow unrelated to common law.



This has nothing to do with anything I said, since I was talking about the judiciary giving federal protection to rights that the state has actually created.

If Droopy's demonstrated reading comprehension is this good, we can only imagine his mind snapping like a steel trap on the Constitution.

Droopy has to resort to Roe v. Wade because, like Sarah Palin, this is the only case that people who parrot platitudes about the Constitution have ever heard of. Where the case law is that establishes a constitutional right to universal healthcare, the welfare state, the Fairness Doctrine, the ESA, wetlands regulation, the nationalization of banks, the voiding of legal contracts and the taking over of corporations, our monetary policy etc., I have no idea.


Sorry, Coggins. Not a sock puppet.

I wonder if Droopy is aware that case law and common law are the same f*****g thing. My bet is no.

Maybe, but this isn't about male homosexual fantasy, it's about whether or not the government has incentive to offer both male and female homosexual couples the benefits of state-sanctioned unions. Seems like a rather vulgar thing to focus in on.


Citation? She has multiple books.


I'll look into it. Please clarify your position for me though: are you opposed to all same-sex unions (civil unions, domestic partnerships) or just calling it "marriage"?

Call it what you will Droopy and even stand in the doorway blocking justice if you must. However, the true shame is in not according others the same rights that you enjoy.

.

Succinctly and well put, Moksha. How are things in 'burb these days? Give my regards to E.