# Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 133
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/133 "2011-06-16T20:54:06Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Are you serious? You want me to cite that humans are born to reproduce? Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it? > [@](#): > > That it’s an innate and natural characteristic, one so strong that we have to regulate how it’s done? You are conflating biological urges with some kind of higer “intention?” Cite that anything is “intended,” and specify who is the “intender.” > [@](#): > > You have a penis, right? And a wife and a daughter? Three daughters. > [@](#): > > Presumably they spend hours in front of the mirror before special occasions, _preening_ themselves for the opposite sex? Over my dead fucking body 🆒 > [@](#): > > And you really think that this trait is designed to limit someone to only one member of the opposite sex? The “norm” for human beings appears to be serial monagmy. Not just one partner throughout a lifetime, but generally one partner at a time. > [@](#): > > You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just _is_. This is horsehit. There’s nothing “anomalous” about them. It is a normal orientation. Calling it “abnormal” is like calling left-handed people abnormal. Homosexuality is ubiquitous not just among humans, but among mammals and other animals in general. It’s not anamolous in the slightest. Read some fucking literature. > [@](#): > > But the Western world has tried to protect itself from innate biological characteristics for a long time so that we can be the ‘perfect’ human society. We reject things that aren’t like ‘us’: homosexuality (thankfully that’s changing), pre-tech cultures, polygamy, other religions, other forms of law, and so forth. There’s nothing biological about polygamy. Polygamy is a cultural practice, not a characteristic. > [@](#): > > So? So your attempt to say that same-sex marriage bans don’t deprive gay people of rights is specious, fatuous sophistry. Just as with miscegenation laws, they deprive people of being able to marry the person of their choice, absent any rational basis for the government to do so. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that recognizing that men and women are not meant for lifelong relationships is in any way immature. there is no such thing as “meant for” in nature > [@](#): > > For militant atheist, you sure do have a thing for small-minded morals. What the fuck makes me a “militant atheist?” In what way am I “militant?” > [@](#): > > Actually, _you_ lack the…well… **I** understand the 4th Amendment just fine. But if you mean 14th, well, [Scalia has something to say about that](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html). (Scalia is in no way my legal hero. But you have to consider that it is not you or I who make and rule on law here.) > > As a married person, you are a class. Consider your health insurance benefits, your leave of absence benefits, your car insurance premiums, loans, and tax breaks. Saying that _polygamists_ don’t exist is like saying that married gay people in South Dakota don’t exist and are therefore not a protected class. Marriued gay people in South Dakota, in fact, do not exist and therefore cannot be a protected class. _Unmarried_ gay people exist in South Dakota and are a “class,” but unmarried polygamists do not exist, by definition, and cannot eb a 'class." > [@](#): > > My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. \*\*It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies _and_ a daddy? I don’t give a fuck about polygamy one way or the other. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. The merits of polyygamy are not germane to the point that polygamy bans don’t discriminate because there is no class of people who are affected by it any more than any other class. _Why_ should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again? [/quote] I don’t care if you’re in favor of it or not. I’m just trying to explain that it’s discriminatory in a way that laws against polygamy are not. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500)._