Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)  
User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6896 times:

Continuation of Part 1 which had reached 301 replies.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/2001069/


Blank.
336 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5231 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 296):
I'm sorry you're so bitter...your own bigotry seems to poison your attitude and tone.


Nice attempt at changing the subject. I'm more than willing to admit that I despise organized religion and the hatred it engenders but, are you willing to admit that you dislike gays?

Quoting Slider (Reply 296):
For the world's religions, it's clear that homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman isn't. Being black isn't. But the act of homosexuality is. Now you may not agree with that, and that's your prerogative, but there are forces and factors here that are MUCH larger than the instant-gratification whims of protesters in California, USA in 2008.


For the sake of those of us who choose to make life decisions based on something other than the fact that religion has deemed it a sin, explain to us why being gay is wrong. That's right, take religion completely out of the equation and explain to me why it's wrong for me to have been born gay.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

Today's Sacramento Bee also points out another group that voted against Prop 8 in big numbers:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1378391.html


User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6857 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):
Today's Sacramento Bee also points out another group that voted against Prop 8 in big numbers:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1378....html

That's what I love about this the most! Prop 8 passed by 2.5%, Blacks made up 10% of the
vote, and 70% of them voted for Prop 8, which means that they account fo 7% of the "yes"
totals. Now it said that Blacks accounted for 6% of the vote in 2004, but because of Obama,
their participation this election increased by two-thirds. See Obama is already bringing change.
And who would have thought that so many Blacks are Mormons!



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6854 times:



Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
By any view or measure of BASIC EQUALITY and HUMAN DECENCY, you CANNOT say that two non-related, consenting adults can enter into that contract and receive those benefits, but this group of non-related, consenting adults over here cannot, soley because one of those adults is of the wrong sex!!!! PERIOD.

The law says it, and in a consistent manner - it's not an issue that equates it w/gender or race.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
It is DISCRIMINATION

If it fell under the same classification as gender, race, etc., then it would be wrongful discrimination.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 249):

homosexuality is something that involves behavior, which reflects choices, responsibility, morality, etc. Being of a certain color or gender is not in the same category - these are obviously inherent qualities to who individuals are - and until there's absolute scientific proof that homosexuality is purely an inherent part of who an individual is, those 11.7 million and more will continue to conclude that same-sex relations are a matter of behavior.



Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
you certainly are no less 'sinful".

That's true - Romans 2:1.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
Wash yourself in the blood of Christ as much as you want.

Anyone - you, me - is welcome to do that.

Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
But you do NOT have the right to impose your g-d religious beliefs on others, especially when the act of those people receiving the same benefits as you does not affect you in any way.

It's a matter of how it defines marriage in society . . .

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 290):
Who said it redefine's yours or any other's in particular? It's redefining the concept.



Quoting TWFirst (Reply 300):
I'm sure your unmarried messiah is repulsed at how people are treating each other in his name.

As long as people are living by Romans 2:1 (not subjectively judging - basically condescending), there's nothing in Scripture to support your remarks. He's the living Word, and the written Word has references concerning His take on the matter (beyond the Leviticus citing some like to make) such as Romans 1:26-27 - "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due", 1 Timothy 1:9 - "knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites" and 1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites".


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6853 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 1):
Nice attempt at changing the subject. I'm more than willing to admit that I despise organized religion and the hatred it engenders but, are you willing to admit that you dislike gays?

No, I'm not willing to admit that because I don't. I have gay friends, have no problem with co-workers, fraternity brothers, neighbors, et al bieng gay. I condemn the sin not the sinner. If anything, I shouldn't shun them. That would be hateful.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6848 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 1):
That's right, take religion completely out of the equation and explain to me why it's wrong for me to have been born gay.

For starters, it's wrong for you to assume you were born gay. From the previous thread . . .

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 263):

I'm sorry, but I'd have to say that the burden of proof should be on those who say that homosexuality is NOT an inherent part of who you are.



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 293):
Sexual relations obviously deal in more than just mutual pleasure - they deal in reproduction - basically the most natural thing in life. Being naturally disposed to procreate with each other, heterosexual relations are the natural way to accomplish that - obviously it's not done through same-sex relations, thus, the burden of proof should (and usually does) rest with those who advocate for same-sex relations.



User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6838 times:



Quoting OA412 (Reply 1):
That's right, take religion completely out of the equation and explain to me why it's wrong for me to have been born gay.

No, it is not wrong, you are what you are from birth. The question here, is it a violation of your "rights" to not be allowed to marry? Obviously, the majority of voters feels no at this point in California. Blaming it on certain groups is not the way to go, they are all legal voters and well within their rights to say no on a ballot, or yes. Everyone had an agenda, even the losing side.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

Did anyone think about the cold hard fact the reason the Gov't is against Homosexual marriage is just a monetary one.
Lost revenue by filing married instead of single for income tax.
Paying surviiving SS benefits to surviving spouse.
I'm sure we are talking billions in payouts.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6832 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4):
The law says it, and in a consistent manner - it's not an issue that equates it w/gender or race.

??????????????????

That's EXACTLY what these laws say... that the benefits endowed by this civic contract are available only to two parties of opposite gender - it's the only such legal construct defining the gender of the parties who may enter into it. So, how exactly is it not a gender issue??

Also, if you're not able to debate a matter of law and the issue of discrimination without quoting the bible, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

To argue with a fool is to become one, thus, I'm done arguing. Logic cannot be used with someone who unfortunately can only view the world through his/her blind faith in an omnipotent being.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6819 times:



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7):
The question here, is it a violation of your "rights" to not be allowed to marry?

Actually they can marry, just not to the same gender. Growing up in San Diego next to the
Naval Bases, I can tell you this, gay men would marry a woman (usually a lesbian) because
it meant more cash each month. Now nothing about the passage of Prop 8 stops that.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 8):
Did anyone think about the cold hard fact the reason the Gov't is against Homosexual marriage is just a monetary one.
Lost revenue by filing married instead of single for income tax.
Paying surviiving SS benefits to surviving spouse.
I'm sure we are talking billions in payouts.

Except for the Joint Filing one, all of those others involve the federal government, not the
state governments which is where these ballot measures are taking place. And the Joint
Filing tax revenue thing is negligible. It's not like it's a 2-for-1 discount.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6798 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 2):

Today's Sacramento Bee also points out another group that voted against Prop 8 in big numbers:

This is mostly what I've been reading and hearing as to why 8 had passed.But there were two other factors weighed as well.

1)The Lesbian couple that got married to close to election day that had school children in attendence.

2)And,here in SoCal(state?),the WW2 Japanese-American TV ads felt to have a negative.Some ask how can you compare the pruging and imprisionment of Japanese-Americans with gay politics.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7):
Blaming it on certain groups is not the way to go, they are all legal voters and well within their rights to say no on a ballot, or yes. Everyone had an agenda, even the losing side.

 checkmark  So,stop the protests against the votors and the Norman church(SoCaL news).This could turn ugly.It takes one idiot to make everyone else look bad if damage is done.

Respect the vote.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21498 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6773 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 6):
it's wrong for you to assume you were born gay.

Not wrong at all. Do you think anyone would choose to be gay in the current social environment? It's a genetic pre-disposition. And not just a human one - it's been observed in a number of species.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6755 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4):
As long as people are living by Romans 2:1 (not subjectively judging - basically condescending), there's nothing in Scripture to support your remarks. He's the living Word, and the written Word has references concerning His take on the matter (beyond the Leviticus citing some like to make) such as Romans 1:26-27 - "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due", 1 Timothy 1:9 - "knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites" and 1 Corinthians 6:9 - "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites".

Interesting. What's the Bible say about slavery? Are your opinions on that subject as consistent with the Good Book as they are regarding homosexuality?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7):
Blaming it on certain groups is not the way to go, they are all legal voters and well within their rights to say no on a ballot, or yes. Everyone had an agenda, even the losing side.

You can absolutely blame certain groups in this case, and to argue otherwise is pretty lame. To be completely blunt, blacks should be ashamed. They among all others should know something about the "legal" restrictions on civil rights, but yet they continue to perpetuate anti-gay sentiment in greater numbers than most other communities. What a disgrace. I guess civil rights are only important when it's convenient for them, but screw anyone else.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6724 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 13):
Are your opinions on that subject as consistent with the Good Book as they are regarding homosexuality?

A far cry than the system that was laid down in the O.T., Philemon was told to treat his servant/slave like a brother - which even goes beyond the admonition Paul gave to "masters" to "give what is just and fair" (Col. 4:1) - what would be wrong in being consistent about treating people like one would a brother? Lots of good things you'd find in the "Good Book".


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6714 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 14):
A far cry than the system that was laid down in the O.T., Philemon was told to treat his servant/slave like a brother - which even goes beyond the admonition Paul gave to "masters" to "give what is just and fair" (Col. 4:1) - what would be wrong in being consistent about treating people like one would a brother? Lots of good things you'd find in the "Good Book".

O Holy One, you missed my point--because the Bible inherently accepts slavery, do you thus support the existence of slavery in 2008? Or do you disagree with it?


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6710 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4):
If it fell under the same classification as gender, race, etc., then it would be wrongful discrimination.

So they you agreed with the California Supreme Court decision that Proposition 22 was wrongful discrimination? They ruled that it was a protected class, just as race, gender, age, and religion are.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6701 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 15):
O Holy One, you missed my point--because the Bible inherently accepts slavery, do you thus support the existence of slavery in 2008? Or do you disagree with it?

Don't be a child, Husky - in the O.T., slavery was used (often) to punish enemies, but there's no indication of that in the N.T. - Paul never condoned/condemned slavery, but only told Philemon to treat his servant like a brother. And, of course, I don't accept slavery. Care to address any of the other content I've offered w/o simply waving your hand in dismissal? Moving on . . .

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):
So they you agreed with the California Supreme Court decision that Proposition 22 was wrongful discrimination? They ruled that it was a protected class, just as race, gender, age, and religion are.

Actually, the court got it wrong - look at the very preamble of the California Constitution - "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God (hmm, interesting  scratchchin  ) for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution
. The people established it - not some court - and the people have spoken again.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 17):
Don't be a child, Husky - in the O.T., slavery was used (often) to punish enemies, but there's no indication of that in the N.T. - Paul never condoned/condemned slavery

The NT does talk about divorce though. How come divorce is perfectly legal and acceptable?

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 17):

Don't be a child, Husky - in the O.T., slavery was used (often) to punish enemies

So the OT is not valid anymore?

Does the NT even mention the 10 commandments? What the NT does mention is animal sacrifices (Matthew 8:4),

And dont forget the torrid love affair between David and Saul mentiones in the OT

"1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt"

They made a covenant uh huh..

click here for the first gay soft porn

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...earch=1%20Samuel%2020;&version=31;

[Edited 2008-11-07 14:22:07]

[Edited 2008-11-07 14:26:02]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6685 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4):
o you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites".

Yet there hasn't been a ban on masturbation has it?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6670 times:



Quoting PSA727 (Reply 10):
I can tell you this, gay men would marry a woman (usually a lesbian) because
it meant more cash each month. Now nothing about the passage of Prop 8 stops that.

So much for that "sanctity of marriage" argument we keep hearing.

If this was really about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" rather than just outright discrimination, why aren't these people fighting to make getting married something you can't do at a drive through? Why aren't they fighting to make it harder to get a divorce?

Why? Because that's not what this is all about. And everyone knows it.


User currently offlineMason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 748 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Quiting Mir:

"If this is the case, then you would agree that the government should play no part in a marriage - neither granting nor denying them to anyone. Let the church take care of that, and let the government take care of civil unions for both gay and straight couples. Marriage should have no legal standing - it's just a religious ceremony."

Exactly.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6653 times:



Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 17):
Actually, the court got it wrong - look at the very preamble of the California Constitution - "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God (hmm, interesting    ) for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution. The people established it - not some court - and the people have spoken again.

What is the point of equal protection for protected groups if the majority gets to decide who is a protected group? First you say that discrimination is against protected groups, and therefore homosexuals don't qualify. When it is pointed out that your argument doesn't hold up because the California Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuality does qualify under the state constitution, your argument is that the justices of that court are ignorant as to the purpose and meaning of the constitution.

You are correct that the people established the constitution. As part of that constitution they included equal protection language to ensure that the majority could not trample the basic rights of the minority. That same constitution also established a court system that would evaluate and rule on these constitutional issues, based not on what the majority wants, but on what the constitution already says.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineSbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 836 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6644 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 13):
Interesting. What's the Bible say about slavery? Are your opinions on that subject as consistent with the Good Book as they are regarding homosexuality?

No the opintions would not be consistent because like a lot of religious people they only choose to belive the parts of the Bible that support their own ideas / prejudices and conveniently ignore the rest.

My argument against the whole thing is why this was even put to the vote - who decided that one group of people should be able to have a direct effect on someone elses life because of their beliefs.

I would love to be able to marry a gay partner at some point in the future as I want to be able to express my love for a person just the same way that everyone else can! - WHY IS THAT SO WRONG??



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24791 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6632 times:



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):
So they you agreed with the California Supreme Court decision that Proposition 22 was wrongful discrimination? They ruled that it was a protected class, just as race, gender, age, and religion are.

Prop-22 was a family law statue which the court found contravened the states constitution.

In its 120 page decision the same court however actually hinted as a remedy voters could consider amending the constitution instead. (something that we know has been successfully done in 29 other states now)

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 17):
look at the very preamble of the California Constitution - "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God (hmm, interesting ) for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution. The people established it - not some court - and the people have spoken again.

 checkmark 

Courts interpret laws including the constitution. However those laws are created by society.

Super liberal CA attorney general Jerry Brown who supported same-sex marriages is even skeptical as to the basis of any challenge against Prop-8.

“At the end of the day, it is the people who determine what their constitution looks like. The idea that people are disabled from making changes to their own constitution is a hard argument to make to a judge.”



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 Superfly : " target=_blank>http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1378....html What a lot of people don't realize is that there are a lot of religious church going Bla
26 Alias1024 : Yes it was, and I never said it wasn't. I was responding to an assertion that sexual orientation would not be a qualifying classification under the c
27 Vikkyvik : OK, well first of all, I am generally utterly opposed to using science in any way to promote discrimination or to suppress rights. But to address you
28 HuskyAviation : And my feeling, harsh though as it may be, is that blacks most of all should simply know better than (1) be played as a pawn of conservatives and (2)
29 Mariner : Not to me. Even if I never had sex - or had sex exclusively with women - I would still be homosexual, and have known that since my earliest cognizanc
30 WarRI1 : I agree, you were born that way, as I was born the other. I do think anyone who thinks that it is a matter of choice is naive to a fault. As to the m
31 Starbuk7 : Because of two things: Either A: Until two men can have sex and produce a child, they shouldn't be married. or B: Until two women can have sex and pr
32 LAXintl : Well to date no one has tried - or should I say wanted to risk taking anything to Federal and ultimately the US Supreme Court as the outcome could be
33 StuckInCA : But you don't have to be able to or intend to have children to get married. Do you suggest that that is a prerequisite? Should infertile women (or me
34 Mariner : That's jolly bad news for a man and a woman who are married and cannot, for whatever reason, have a child. Or how about chilldless - married - straig
35 Charles79 : And having kids has nothing to do with it either. As the others already posted, marriage licenses are not handed out on the condition of procreation.
36 Diamond : Do you realize that the same book you use to define sin considers condemnation a sin? Condemnation is hateful.
37 Allstarflyer : The Bible says I'm a sinner and I need Christ. It also says I'm no one to judge another (Rom. 2:1), but it does say to judge righteous judgement. Tha
38 Mariner : Whoa. I haven't expressed an opinion. I have stated a fact. mariner
39 Vikkyvik : OK. So why did you bring science into it, then? Now I'm more confused. And if you have the time or the inclination, I'd be interested in your respons
40 UAXDXer : So are you saying gay marriages won't wind up in divorce?
41 Post contains links AirxLiban : Thanks for that. I just went online and downloaded the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf which groups those 1,049 benefits into
42 KC135TopBoom : I find this most interesting. It seems to me, the people of California spoke, and passed Prop 8. Now, those on the losing side want to go against the
43 Alias1024 : The California Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that in the state of California marriage is a basic right. Two problems here. First is that the
44 Stratosphere : I guess because crime is so prevelant in my current suroundings this topic is really a non-issue for me..As I have gotten older I have become more mel
45 LTBEWR : The issue of civil marriage allowing same gender unions is a very emotional one for many, especially those of active faith and those that are Gay/Lesb
46 Tsaord : When is traditional marriage going to get fixed in all of this? Because right now its in shambles and made a complete joke of. People get married to g
47 IAirAllie : Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 241): My next door neighbor is a gay man. My former roomate and close friend was a gay man. Some of my friends are black, er,
48 Aaron747 : Boy, I can't think of the last time I supported denying rights to my friends or roommates on account of my personal beliefs. Talk about selfish.
49 Johnboy : btw, you are so misinformed if you think this is the case.
50 EWRCabincrew : As long as they aren't married, I guess, you have no issues. So if one of them was married, legally, would you take issue? You should show this to yo
51 LAXintl : I dont see Latter-day Saints putting their money where their mouth is being against any of the finance laws. Its pretty clear that churches are not s
52 IflyKPDX : Yes, I'm sure African Americans considered themselves very lucky when society determined that they couldn't marry someone of a different skin color.
53 Charles79 : And that's the biggest problem. We have to make a clear distinction between church and state, otherwise we end up creating a society where those with
54 LAXintl : You might not approve of the outcome, but yes I am very thankful I live in a society where citizens can directly create or influence society laws and
55 IflyKPDX : And believe it or not, people often make the wrong decisions, as evidenced by the centuries of oppression that came about from many of them.
56 LAXintl : Laws very much are based on what is perceived to be society norms. Whether criminal, financial or social. Homosexuality while being a fact of life, do
57 Mt99 : A lot of people used to believe that the earth was flat...
58 NW747400 : So your saying as long as something doesn't affect someone personally it should be lawful? Then by this argument bestiality should be legal because i
59 Mt99 : So you are saying your own claim is baseless?
60 IflyKPDX : Always nice to be compared to livestock.
61 NW747400 : No, I am saying that the idea that something should be legal based solely on the fact that it doesn't affect anyone else is ridiculous. Consent does
62 IflyKPDX : Maybe not directly, but comparing two people getting *married* to a person having sex with a cow is completely nonsensical.[Edited 2008-11-10 12:05:2
63 Mt99 : One thing at a time tiger, So you then agree that Gay Marriage does not affect anyone directly?
64 PSA727 : I've got one!!! How about siblings marrying? Or parents and children marrying? Consenting adults, others aren't harmed by it. Why not? And once again,
65 Mt99 : How is that handled now? Can a Father marry his daughter?
66 SKYSERVICE_330 : Marriage is for the reproduction of the familial unit (whether it be gay or straight, natural birth, adoption etc. or no kids) which is one of the mo
67 Mt99 : How many siblings have been married in Canada, Spain, The Netherlands?
68 PSA727 : Well people of the same gender cannot reproduce, and whose to say that the incestuous couple cannot adopt. And actually, incestuous marriages have be
69 SKYSERVICE_330 : ...and look how messed up most of them are!
70 SR117 : About family members marrying, well if they have children then the children ARE harmed by this as the risk of genetic defects increases when inbreedi
71 PSA727 : [quote=SR117,reply=70]About family members marrying, well if they have children then the children ARE harmed by this as the risk of genetic defects in
72 Mt99 : Yes. 50 women having children is an attempt to traditional families. It should be banned.
73 EWRCabincrew : The laws are specific with regards to this. Putting money where you mouth is to get a message out as a church and financially backing ads, airtime, e
74 Drgreen757 : Just found this article, Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan’s gal pal Samantha Ronson is really sad about California’s Proposition 8, which bans same
75 Charles79 : Is this a joke, I mean are you really comparing a relationship of two consenting adults to the merciless attack on a defenseless animal? And I'm supp
76 Mir : No, trying to tell society what it must accept as LEGAL behavior. You don't have to think it's normal, nor do you have to think it's common. Bestiali
77 Superfly : I voted NO on prop 8 and NO prop 2.
78 Dougloid : As any student of comparative anatomy could tell you, the cow would likely be only dimly aware of the intentions of the human. I was watching PBR thi
79 AKiss20 : The question is less whether the cow would "like" or "notice" it but rather can it consent to it. As neither children nor animals can consent (legall
80 Post contains links JCS17 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4m5yUhrXj0 I love how the gay activists are taking their anger out at the tough targets... the Mormon Church and Saddl
81 Aaron747 : You commented on what's keeping independents like myself and Charles79 out of the GOP in another thread - it's smarmy attitudes mocking a genuine str
82 Iairallie : They would still have my love and friendship. That wouldn't change. I'd be supportive of their relationship and be glad for their happiness. That doe
83 QXatFAT : I voted Yes on prop 8 and No on prop 2
84 DocLightning : So my great aunt is quite an amazing woman. Now in her '90's but with her faculties still intact, she was born and raised in Germany. In 1942, she and
85 LAXintl : Again why should a special interest group force society at large to declare something legal which is against most folks basic belief and values? In t
86 LAXintl : Hey I love this --- Lets see in this thread non-gays or yes on 8 supporters have been called And now Talk about who has a lack of tolerance for differ
87 Mariner : Which raises the question - is marriage a civil institution or a religious one? I don't look for or expect the support of the church and equally, I d
88 IflyKPDX : The funny thing is when pressed, no one can back up their opinions with any logical reason. By the way, did you just pick out every "bad" adjective a
89 LAXintl : Valid questions. To me it should be the people at the ballot box as our constitution allows such direct democracy, however you cant invalidate the fa
90 IAirAllie : I backed up my opinion with logical reason several times on the earlier thread.
91 Mariner : And if John McCain had not chosen Sarah Palin, would he have won? The world is full of if's. All we know is what you demand - the proof of the ballot
92 IAirAllie : And the proof said that in California a lager percentage of Democrats voted. Which means you cannot say that it is the conservatives and mormons faul
93 Tsaord : Something is starting to really irk me watching tv and reading some articles. White gays are really trying to turn this into a gay vs African American
94 Tsaord : Go ahead, you and them folks in California start going after African Americans about something we don't consider a Civil Rights issue.....You all don
95 Mariner : I'm not saying that. Atheists cannot marry? mariner
96 Post contains links Tsaord : And so it begins. I here the N word is flying around toward blacks in California. Before you know it a sexual minority will be pitted against a racial
97 Aaron747 : Both groups have been subject to a tyranny of the majority in past legislation...check. Both groups have been denied what courts have ruled as a basi
98 DocLightning : I once would have been curious to hear it. I'm done with the argument. After the words of my great aunt, I've given it some careful thought. See, the
99 Charles79 : You do realize that I was responding to a post comparing gay marriage to bestiality, don't you? Or did you just decided to pick out words regardless
100 Post contains links Slider : http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80711 Oh, it gets FAR worse, LAX! Check out the link to the KPSP video in there where an o
101 IAirAllie : No one dead or alive can be converted without their consent even those baptized posthumously have the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinances
102 Dougloid : I think that's pretty sound, but you're going to get broasted by people who are intolerant of views that conflict with their own-it's almost like "We
103 Virgin744 : With regards to the topic heading; There's absolutely nothing wrong or shameful in Californians exercising their constitutional rights to vote Yes on
104 Post contains links Aaron747 : Fully agreed. Militant hate is on every side of every social issue and generally mars every cause. The majority of protests I've been to as a member
105 Post contains links Johnboy : We'll just see how moderate and tolerant the Mormon Church is....Equality Utah is asking for their cooperation in advancing civil union and domestic
106 EWRCabincrew : Tell that to the many who are married that don't need a religion to acknowledge their relationship. Marriage is more of way to divorce, really. Look
107 Mt99 : And do all religions define marriage the same way? How many religions allow for multiple wives? Do all "traditions" define marriage the same way? How
108 Post contains links Johnboy : Tell that to the United Church of Christ http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/marriage/#UCC_Marriage_Equality_Information And the Metropolitan Community Church. h
109 Charles79 : Alright, since you won't repeat the statment that you said I'll copy it here: "I still have nothing against gay people I just don't think that marria
110 Dougloid : I missed that in all the fol de rol. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me and folks are entitled to all the happiness they can carry home in a l
111 Tsaord : Eh. Yelling at Black folks and calling us names is REALLY gonna get California African Americans around your cause huh? 70% of the African Americans v
112 Mariner : I know many gay people who have fought for black equality. I was one of them - I have an Image Award from the NAACP. I would continue to fight for bl
113 PSA727 : Since I'm gay, gay marriage would affect me. However, what if we change the marriage laws to allow siblings to marry? Or say an uncle and niece. As l
114 Mt99 : Dont be silly. That is not what is being asked. You can protest that when that is the question. Its the same thing of me saying. We cant possibly vot
115 Dougloid : I think the assumption in the gay world is that black folks would recognize all this as discrimination and get on the bus without really asking wheth
116 Aaron747 : That's essentially the idea. This was a needed kick in the pants. Again, there are no substantive responses. I'm still waiting for an answer from the
117 DocLightning : Really? This is why the LDS church locked gays up and tortured them in an attempt to change them? This is why the LDS church has been posthumously ba
118 QXatFAT : I know that it was not directed at me but I did read your post. You did make some valid points. I voted YES on PROP 8 and it is based upon my morals
119 IAirAllie : They aren't going to oppose or obstruct civil unions or domestic partnership rights but I'm not sure why the LDS church should be responsible for hel
120 Aaron747 : That's why the results of your anti-liberty vote will eventually be overturned in court. Your morals do not take precedence over fundamental rights a
121 Tsaord : Which is where they failed completely! I am a black gay man. But even in the gay community its separate but equal and tension among races when it come
122 QXatFAT : Not nonsense at all. You just refuse to admit that it is something that will happen. I have my American right to vote and I will always take up that
123 Post contains links Aaron747 : Those lawsuits are wrong and will be opposed to the appropriate degree. More liberal arms of gay activism are easy to quell once the primary issues i
124 Charles79 : Oh dear, it is amazing to read the things that people write in here sometimes. One of the advantages of living in DC is that I get to visit the memori
125 IAirAllie : If you are going to make wild allegations you need to back it up with credible links. Some of them have legitimate claims in when placed in an enviro
126 LAXintl : Same sex couples never had the right to begin with for something to be taken away. Voters with Prop-8 simply returned laws to how they were prior to
127 Mariner : Would you support civil unions? mariner
128 Post contains links ADXMatt : Has anyone seen this MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage and more! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY I don't know how to embed it into
129 QXatFAT : As long as it is on a ballot I will continue to vote the way I have. "Could you please let us live the way we want and well let you live the way you
130 LAXintl : As I have stated I have many gay friends and associates. I believe that what one does in your own bedroom is your business, and truly wish them all t
131 Mariner : I'm sorry you feel that way, but there seems little that I - or anyone can say. I am only puzzled with your concept of the "basic accepted norms." It
132 ADXMatt : Which of the 1,138 rights and protections are you against a gay couple from having from a marriage vs civil union/domestic partnership? According to
133 LAXintl : Agreed. From an intellectual point of view, I believe this issue is a little different then many others over the years as this directly contradicts t
134 QXatFAT : Good point but I know that we always hold our views higher than anothers. It will be something people will always do no matter how "tollerant" or "hu
135 Mariner : If marriage is a religious issue, how can (heterosexual) atheists marry? mariner
136 Post contains links Aaron747 : Anyone who would find such claims legitimate doesn't understand the law. It is absolutely agaisnt everything the Constitution stands for to force any
137 Dougloid : I agree. It's quite the thing to use a church as a punching bag, but when their membership outside of Utah is miniscule, they don't have the boots on
138 Post contains links Tsaord : Now this is interesting. Now they are pointing fingers at each other. They just assumed this was going to pass and didn't reach out in the right place
139 LAXintl : Aaron, We're obviously never going to agree on this topic. The bottom line is that to me marriage is only between a woman and a man. Trying to redefin
140 WunalaYann : If I did not think it already, that bit alone would lead me to think that gay marriage is a good thing. For what it is worth, the Nazis also believed
141 QXatFAT : I was not saying you would but showing another issue that people have to deal with that they want gun rights taken away. Everything effects everyone.
142 EWRCabincrew : They may not have the boots, but they have deep coffers. They were huge as financial supporters. As were the Knights of Columbus (to name two). Do yo
143 Post contains links Tsaord : More on this from CNN which brings in Obama and African Americans. This is a video. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...op.8.protests.cnn?iref=vide
144 Charles79 : LAXintl, I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in a position where a majority tries to force their own view of the world upon you and it's al
145 Max999 : I agree it is very shameful what happened. But I believe that the blame should be laid on the process of direct democracy in the state of California.
146 Dougloid : the national socialists had a remarkably schizophrenic view of the issue. On the one hand they were trying to sell clean living and cold showers to t
147 Mir : Yes, but that doesn't mean that you should impose them on others. I dislike pornography, but you won't see me voting to ban it, because I just choose
148 Post contains links Mt99 : Mean while, in Connecticut: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/gay...age.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview The health department had new marriage applicati
149 Post contains links EWRCabincrew : To some it does. But I always thought that divorce and annullment were equal to the destruction of society. But since heterosexuals do that, it is no
150 Mariner : One of the problems is that we are not - as you point out - dealing with logic here. We have same-sex civil union in New Zealand. which is a terrific
151 EWRCabincrew : I forgot about that aspect of family values.
152 QXatFAT : Good assumption but I believe it to be wrong. I would vote against polygamy. Me being a Christian (non-LDS) does not believe that the Bible teaches p
153 QXatFAT : So EWR, do you personaly want to be able to raise kids? My idea behind why they choose to not let same sex couples raise kids is because of the influ
154 IAirAllie : If it affects my church or how I choose to worship it affects me in one of the most personal ways possible. It doesn't get anymore personal than your
155 EWRCabincrew : No. I like to give them back to their parents. Straight couples raise kids that turn out to be gay everyday. My parents are straight and did little t
156 Mariner : If "the Bible" is the written word of God, it is illogical to pick and choose which parts you want to believe. Christ does not mention homosexuality
157 QXatFAT : Start the thread and I will. By the way, not all information that comes from lds.com is 100% truth. Why would they put up some of the sick things tha
158 EWRCabincrew : Sure they did. Look at all the ads they backed. Do I need to provide links?
159 Post contains links Johnboy : http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=25948090664661 i'm just sayin'.........
160 Mt99 : He does. He is not thrilled by it. But it is mentioned in the same paragraph as divorce. He is not thrilled about that either. But hey we let that on
161 QXatFAT : You might. Thanks for assuming for all Christians though
162 Mt99 : You are welcome. Thanks for assuming that all gay are sexual perverts.
163 Mariner : You're right, I won't. I like a little logic in my debates. But when you try to impose your faith on me, I'll respond. I have been studying religions
164 Mt99 : The classic Bible-Lover out. For some things "It easy, right there in black and white, Matthew 32:98, no mistake, clear as water" For some other thin
165 Dougloid : A point well taken, although it is less than a drop in the bucket compared to some contributors both for and against.
166 WunalaYann : True that. You don't say... I see a bit of a contradiction here. You are saying that gay couples are not different from heterosexual ones. Then why w
167 QXatFAT : You are welcome. Thanks for assuming that I think they are perverts. Who said I was trying to impose my faith on you. I was trying to just mearly TEA
168 WunalaYann : Thanks for trying to read too much into people's posts. Not everyone has a political/religious agenda. I like the idea of gay marriage because I beli
169 QXatFAT : And that is why everyone has a vote regardless of their "ideology" Yeah he actually does.
170 Mir : I think you severely overestimate that influence. Homosexuality is, at its heart, not something that you pick up from society. And what about childre
171 Mariner : You impose your faith on anyone the moment you vote against equality. Beyond that, I think it is bizarre for you to suppose that I have not studied y
172 Aaron747 : I almost forgot we're all here to talk about the thing we love most. I'm almost sorry I won't be pursuing my flying career in the US - must be fun to
173 QXatFAT : Well it was just my idea of WHY they choose that. I am not saying it is my stone hard fact. I would not die on the hill at all! I think it is horribl
174 WunalaYann : And don't you think that providing equal rights to everyone (aka allowing anyone to marry anyone else under condition of adulthood and consent) would
175 Mt99 : Yes apparently it is. You are ignoring the first part of my argument in reply#164. See you are the picking and choosing
176 Dougloid : Yep. A working knowledge of history reveals all sorts of interesting facts and contradictions. Kinda like when the story of the last 25 years of Amer
177 Mir : Ok. But how do you reconcile that with this: If homosexuality was something that you picked up from those around you, then how could someone with hom
178 Cairo : Would this work as a compromise? Allow no automatic legal/financial benefits to marriage of any kind, however, allow any two people of any relationshi
179 QXatFAT : No because I didnt see an argument in your first part of your reply. I just saw words that were making fun of my faith. Thats all. Based upon my pers
180 Mt99 : Actually the whole post was making fun of your religion. But you chose to reply to part one part of it, but not the other.. Just like you pick the pa
181 Mt99 : I am sure all the dad of gays here had at one point a sexual relations with a woman. Yet that did not cause them to be straight. I was never taken to
182 Mir : I would argue that your parents being heterosexual had little to do with who you are attracted to. I know that I did not need any parental influence
183 StuckInCA : LOL. Now, I'm not gay, so perhaps I'm not in the know, but what exactly... in the hell... is a "gay function?" I've got to say, also, that I'm quite
184 Vikkyvik : I've stayed out of this thread after having a couple posts deleted (because the referenced posts were deleted...made it a waste of time for me to writ
185 EWRCabincrew : That is what children of gay parents would be seeing. Two parents, working in tandem, building a family, making a future for them all. Great things t
186 Post contains links and images Johnboy : Some pics from the Sacramento rally to protest the Gay Marriage Ban on Sunday, November 9, 2008. I have posted this before, but the other thread was d
187 PSA53 : But there is a point when enough is enough! Then it becomes bullying and intimidation of the voters. This morning,on local news station said an emplo
188 Dougloid : What this entire contretemps points out far more clearly than I could is the idiocy of single issue politics, as well as the failings of the initiativ
189 EWRCabincrew : Like the lies told in the pro-Prop 8 ads. Yes, the voice of the people has been heard. Still doesn't make it just. That is what the legal system does
190 PSA53 : No, it doesn't.Just like Prop 187 and others props.Very hard dicisions are never "Just." Never by POTUS.Not the people.So,respect the system. But do
191 WunalaYann : Of course you will have a very valid explanation for 1) the high number of religious gays (of any religion), and 2) the fact that a few churches, not
192 EWRCabincrew : Sure. Let's bring slavery back, give up the right to vote for women, make interracial marriages illegal. There are people to support that. Put enough
193 WunalaYann : Were the civil rights protests a healthy approach? What's your point?
194 EWRCabincrew : Let me throw this out there. Food for thought. Your 26 year old child, who happens to be gay, comes home to tell you that they are going to marry thei
195 PSA53 : A little bit of an overkill. Fine.Gulty as charged.Overkill on my part.. That was not my intention and you know it.I won't play that. A little differ
196 WunalaYann : Kudos to you for admitting that you pushed it too far. Now I would just like to point out to you that this very overkill you mention is at the heart
197 PSA53 : Very true.And if this election told us anything, there is still much work to be done to bridge the gap.
198 EWRCabincrew : Okay, civil rights movements of the 60s. Then word it correctly and don't generalise. Selma to Montgomery march, March 7, 1965. Were they in the wron
199 Johnboy : I'm not sure which example you're talking about....is this the Mexican restaurant across from Paramount studios? If so, I believe it's actually one o
200 EWRCabincrew : My hard earned money can go elsewhere, too.
201 Mariner : When I was seventeen, I was prepared to embrace the Catholic church. The priest from whom I was receiving instruction told me that heaven was barred
202 PSA53 : The priest.But If I may say,there is a little time difference of culture thinking between then and now. I went to radio station's website(KNX) and co
203 Mariner : I have not noticed that the Catholic church has radically revised its opinion towards homosexuality between then and now. Nor do I expect them to or
204 Post contains links Mariner : Nor do I see change here. And this isn't even about homosexuality: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314 "The priest at S
205 Johnboy : I never said the anti gay marriage people couldn't do the same thing. It's a free country. oh except if you're gay and want to get married to your sa
206 Dougloid : The question that remains unanswered is whether the those basic rights you speak of ever existed in the first place, young feller. The legislation's
207 Post contains links Vikkyvik : I don't think the "No on 8" crowd carried the whole coast. According to: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...3859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0 Ev
208 PSA727 : Of course it's your right to boycot, just as it was the right of those who voted yes to do so. And no one took away the right to marry, it's the same
209 KC135TopBoom : That is much more than it takes to win, the minimum is 50% + 1 vote. Correct, the Republicans in California stayed home on 4 Nov. BTW, McCain would h
210 Post contains links AKiss20 : Actually, the most recent studies have said that YOU are wrong. I quote "The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional conne
211 Johnboy : Thank you for your permission, LOL!
212 Mariner : Who's blaming anyone? Looking back on my life, I'm very grateful to that priest. He caused me to examine myself at the core of my being. And it would
213 EWRCabincrew : Other than the "people have spoken", what are legal reasons why gays should not be equal to the rest of the population and have marriage?. Legal reaso
214 Mir : And innaccurate. Being gay is not a failure. -Mir
215 EWRCabincrew : One thing as well, as voters you do not want to me seen as an equal or having the same, but are more than willing to use my taxes. How fair is that? M
216 Dougloid : Or an old twat. On a more serious note, every church that gets vandalized and every person whose business gets hounded out of existence or who loses
217 Mariner : I wonder why not? It has been an extraordinary voyage of discovery for me. After my grandfather died young, my grandmother went into great grief. She
218 Flybyguy : I'd have to agree with you there. Californians did VOTE to ban gay marriage. If they wanted it they would have voted against Prop 8. How can we call
219 Johnboy : What a sad story. It's easy to demonize the gays and lesbians.....it's a different story when you put a face to the story. There's obviously a lot of
220 Dougloid : I guess I should preface this by saying that my mom had a similar experience to your grandmother. It took a little getting used to (well, a lot more
221 Mir : Which I'm not sure would be a bad thing. Why should people feel guilty about who they are? That debate is happening anyway with other genetic informa
222 Post contains links Tugger : Perhaps you should learn more about the governance and nature of your country. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of State defines the U.S. democra
223 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...tract There has never been a gene found that makes people gay. There have been many studies, n
224 Alias1024 : I don't understand why this conversation has turned to whether homosexuality is a choice or something you are born with. It doesn't change anything re
225 FruteBrute : Well you see religion is the ultimate taboo to seek to ban. But gays are an easy scapegoat. It's amusing to see how fast various posts get deleted on
226 ZOTAN : Government has an inherent role to protect the rights of a minority from a tyrannical majority. The will of the people does not matter, and if you we
227 Dougloid : Not restriction per se but some things are better not being known with certainty.
228 Mir : If people could know with certainty, but the government doesn't let them, how is that not restriction of information? -Mir
229 Mt99 : If a man marries a woman in the church, then gets a divorce, then he can legally marry another woman. Even though a Church would not recognize it as a
230 Ipodguy7 : THANK GOD prop 8 passed! It is ridiculous to say that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, seeing as the people of CA had a fair vote on the matt
231 EWRCabincrew : You mean, thank the voters. God had nothing to with it. If he truly did, he would want equality for all mankind. Not just some. Kind of like the Decl
232 Post contains links Tugger : You didn't read my earlier post did you? According to the rules of our republic, as represented to the rest of the world by our State Department: htt
233 IAirAllie : Not all churches or even most churches have that policy. In mine you can get a marriage cancellation (church divorce) as well as a civil divorce. It'
234 Vikkyvik : You could apply that logic to anything, really. Frankly, I'd rather make the knowledge available, and trust people to do with it what they will. You
235 IAirAllie : Not exactly I think we have annulments too and they are different. My church recognizes civil divorces. Many do. You can be married again within my c
236 Dougloid : What's the government got to do with it? Nobody really knows whether being gay is nature or nurture. Saying "I was born this way" or "I've always fel
237 Vikkyvik : It probably answers well enough for those to whom it matters (i.e. gay folks). That's good enough for me - I don't claim to understand why that's not
238 KC135TopBoom : Two things, first, the United States is not, nor has it ever been a democrocy. We have a Representitive Republic form of government. That means we hi
239 Tugger : The stupidest aspect of this whole thing is that NO ONE can explain why people fall in love with people in the first place. NO ONE understands really
240 Santosdumont : You honesly think that the meta-intellect of the universe operates on such a narrow paradigm?
241 Dougloid : With all due respect that wasn''t what I was talking about. It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg if people are gay or straight, and whether th
242 Mt99 : But that does not matter.If a religious group "cancels" or "annuls" a marriage or not, the second go around it is still called a "marriage" under the
243 IAirAllie : There are biological factors beyond genetics that account for anomalous behavior or traits. Yours is a pretty narrow view of biology. For example it'
244 Planecrazy2 : Actually they do.....have a look at Romer vs. Evans (1996)
245 EWRCabincrew : Really? Where does it say that? Whose God? I know my American History, the DOI was written for the new nation, where all men are created equal. A pri
246 EWRCabincrew : One common thing here is we all agree to disagree. Because we are not of the same religion, we cannot be held accountable for any one particular relig
247 Alias1024 : So your argument is that equal protection only applies to things you are born with and have no control over. How about religion?
248 Post contains links Slider : http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/17/gay-rights-gay-rage Interesting article on the reaction from Prop 8.
249 Vikkyvik : With all due respect, I think I understood your point, and to what I was responding. I still don't necessarily agree that it's best that we don't kno
250 Dougloid : Differences of opinion are cool. I'm a paranoid and cynical person-not as bad as Andrea of course, but I'm workin' on it. I don't trust insurance com
251 WunalaYann : Oh yes. I was about to ask those very questions but you beat me to it. A "god" who would want equality only for his "followers" (from where? where to
252 Vikkyvik : Indeed. Even if you are wrong Uh oh. I shall eagerly (or perhaps not so eagerly) await the day that you end a post of yours with "if I should have a
253 KC135TopBoom : Yes, I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. Well, until that is proven, then this will always be a political issue No, they don't.....see th
254 Santosdumont : So, what litmus test do you use to determine who follows God? Just one book?
255 Dougloid : Ummm, when it gets dark around here all you folks think it's the earth rotating on its axis. Howevah, I am reliahbly infawhmed by a person of unquest
256 EWRCabincrew : The version and interpretation you see fit to follow. Learned? Try inherent. Like heterosexuality. Again, the thing is we all agree to disagree,
257 Post contains links Tugger : Oh no, you miss the fact that MY God is better than yours. My guess is that he is referring to the "King James Version" or the "American Standard Ver
258 KC135TopBoom : I only have read the King James version, I know there are other versions, but King James is the one I use. Well said. I do not, nor would not ever sp
259 Post contains links Dougloid : here's a link to the court order. Nothing in it about reviewing the right of the voters to change the constitution, I don't think. http://www.courtin
260 EWRCabincrew : This from CNN today: "In its May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Pro
261 LAXintl : The Court is reviewing the voter proposition based on the urging of both side. Oral arguments to the court are tentatively scheduled for March 2009, w
262 Dougloid : You probably need to qualify that by noting that the right to marry has never been at issue here. What's at issue is the right to marry whomever one
263 EWRCabincrew : Doesn't that go with the right to marry, as stated in the ruling? Whatever?
264 Tugger : I would revise your comment to remove this as it is prejudicial and not involved with the argument at hand, which you otherwise stated so well: Tugg
265 Ual777 : Wrong. The DOI was written as a declaration of the colonies declaring independence from Britain. The thirteen colonies then functioned as a Confedera
266 Post contains links Tugger : True enough. However: http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/declaration-of-independence.aspx So while not "law", the DOI does provide guidance and st
267 AustinAllison : Here's why I support Proposition 8. I am in no way hateful towards gays, however marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. From a religious stan
268 Mt99 : So is divorce, masturbation and sex before marriage. And pray tell what kind of flood has happened since women where given the right to vote? are dog
269 Tugger : I agree and my religion fully supports same-sex and "traditional" marriage. In fact your comment is exactly why same-sex marriage should be legal, be
270 Mariner : So - one mo' time: If marriage is strictly a religious affair, how can heterosexual atheists get married? mariner
271 AustinAllison : They don't get "married" in my mind. And your point is?
272 Tugger : Belief in a "God" is not a requirement to have a religion. And not all religion's hold that belief in God is required. Tugg
273 Tugger : And "your mind" is based on what for this belief? That the religious concepts that you are basing your argument on support an awful lot of things tha
274 Mt99 : That those things are perfectly legal.. In "my mind" i am irresistible..
275 EWRCabincrew : This, still? Nice bandwagon. When trucks, diamond rings and animals can consent to anything, let me know. If marriage is so "sacred" then why divorce
276 Dougloid : This seems to have riled up a few people. You folks get a small mea culpa. Just a little one, mind you. No 'fense intended. Peace out, y'all. I'd cla
277 Mariner : They are legally married. They have a "civil union" - which is called marriage. They can - we can't. Any marriage is a civil union - that is recogniz
278 Post contains links Mariner : And here's a real paradox. 59% of Californians think that those same sex couples who married while it was "legal" should remain legally married. http:
279 Post contains links Flynavy : In related news... http://coloradoindependent.com/15287...s-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs A step in the right direction, for sure. Ironic, eh?
280 EWRCabincrew : Because it is easier to pick and choose than to follow all. I have said this once and I'll say it again; a person's favorite sin is the one they are
281 AustinAllison : You just proved my argument. The state has no right or business on what is recognized as a marriage. But the bible explicitly condemns homosexuality,
282 Mt99 : So then, why is Heterosexual Marriage recognized by the state?
283 Flynavy : So why, then, did we need Prop 8? Explain that to me.
284 Tugger : Absolutely no problem from me, I was just pointing out something that seemed out of content with your post. A few things: First your statement that "
285 AKiss20 : Here is my problem with this. We in America have a problem with definitions. In the US, Civil Union does not provide all the same legal rights as a "
286 Dougloid : couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. They asked for it and they're going to get what they wanted, good and hard.
287 Mariner : How did I do that? Marriage is entirely the state's business. It is the state that issues marriage licenses, not the church. Without that, we would s
288 Johnboy : Last time I checked, and have commented here before there are a few denominations that "officially" marry gays and lesbians....you know ,"church" mar
289 Mariner : It's been going on for years. Back in the mid-seventies, I was friends with a monk - the ordained order of Blessed Sacrament Fathers - who would offi
290 Tugger : Polygamy and same-sex marriage are not equatable. Marriage is a union of two equal, consenting adults, each with an equal voice in the relationship.
291 Mariner : That may be true of (old time) LDS or (present time) FLDS, but I have lived in several countries where polygamy - or polygyny, at least - is legal an
292 AustinAllison : Lets get some stuff straight: -Marriage is a religious term, not a governmental term. I don't care if the government issues marriage licenses, it is t
293 Dougloid : You're more or less....how do I put this kindly....wrong about that. If what you say was correct it wouldn't say "marriage license" now, would it? Th
294 Mariner : Only the state can issue marriage licenses, and for very good reason. I do accept it. I am not asking you (or any church) to change your beliefs. Yes
295 AustinAllison : How am I wrong about that? Just because you are intolerant of my religion makes me wrong? In my view their shouldn't be a marriage license, because m
296 Flynavy : You sure are proud of your proposition, aren't you? Do you sleep better at night now?
297 Dougloid : I'm not intolerant of your religion-I don't even know what it is much less care. I'm intolerant of your ignorance. Do not propose to lecture me on Co
298 EWRCabincrew : So marriages performed outside a religion, such as civil marriages, in your eyes are not marriages? If it is sacred, divorce shouldn't be so easy (or
299 Vikkyvik : So I assume, should you get married, you will not register with your local government and procure a marriage license? You'll just have the religious
300 Flynavy : Get 'em Vik, get 'em! AustinAllison = pwned.
301 KC135TopBoom : So, a marrage license should expire every four years, like your drivers license does? BTW, according to US statistics, about 30%-35% of all marrages
302 AustinAllison : And your's aren't prepacked from the "Elite-Left" standpoint? Under my views they are not "married" because marriage is religious and can't be carrie
303 Flynavy : *yawn* You know what else the Bible insists? - If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning im
304 KC135TopBoom : Correct, and that is exactly why the Massachusetts State Legislature voted in 2007 not to let the gay marrage issue be placed for public vote. The Su
305 Flynavy : Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.[Edited 2
306 Tugger : Ehh? Lets just say that this license can be good "till death do you part". Correct Actually I would offer that the most important aspect of marriage
307 Aaron747 : You're entitled to your views, but your views aren't entitled to rewrite the law. Judges can and do carry out marriages, and always will unless gover
308 Tugger : Key point, YOUR VIEWS, which as you noted religion based And as I have said several time before in this thread, my church will joyfully perform a sam
309 Mariner : Every marriage must have the "civil" (state) element to it. The marriage may also have a religious ceremony, but that is optional. Whether you choose
310 Flynavy : Because God said so. Or was that Pat Robertson? I sometimes loose track of who's who.
311 UAL777 : The same quote states that judges are reluctant to use it, and it is not applied in substantive law. Further, the author of the article states the Do
312 Tugger : Say, I just realized that the United States origin was a British colony which was lead by a King (and Queen at various other times). Is that the histo
313 Aaron747 : That is exactly what the current lobbying drive is after. We will put a stop to this ballot initiative nonsense on this issue once and for all.
314 IAirAllie : I am tired of this worn out argument. Marriage is sacred. Those who dishonor it through abuse, infidelity, abandonment of affection etc. thus instiga
315 UAL777 : I'm reading that the DOI is being over-ridden by Constitution and has no legal status, but was initially used when the country was young. Difference
316 Dougloid : Nonsense. What church? Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the police power to regulate for the public health, safety, welfare and morals. In fact t
317 Aaron747 : For starters, he's not old enough to purchase a firearm in many states. Kids these days
318 Mt99 : Your are going to have such a wake up call one of these days. No its not. Nobody is asking for a third line to be added where names go!! When that is
319 EWRCabincrew : They do as it is. Make it a lifetime contract. If contract seems ridiculous to you, now you see how civil unions, instead of marriage, seem to us. He
320 IAirAllie : That's not exactly true I can think of a few compounds in TX, UT, AZ and CO and Alberta there they would like this to happen. And I think they have e
321 AustinAllison : The United Methodist Church How is this relevant? Do you not understand the fundamentals of our government. WE ARE THE POLICE POWER. Citizens are the
322 Mt99 : "FEW".. Your words not mine. Prop 8 does not ask for multiple people to marry.. Again, that is not the question. We will welcome your opinion, when t
323 IAirAllie : A few is more than ... Your words not mine. Actually it does address polygamy as it seeks to constitutionaly define marriage as between 1 man and 1 w
324 Mariner : Not by Jesus, as in Mark,10/6-12. mariner
325 Mt99 : Again. Is that the question as hand? No. When women where given the right to vote, they were asking if dogs would be next. Has the question of lettin
326 Post contains links Mt99 : So you would much sooner approve polygamy than same sex marriage. Wow. Since when are new concepts bad? Not too new of a concept.... http://www.bible
327 Post contains links Dougloid : No you aren't. Can you not do a little reading before you bloviate? Do I have to spoon feed it to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power perh
328 IAirAllie : Yes, it is. It is completely related to the discussion. The question as I see it isn't really about gays at all it is about how the citizens of Calif
329 Mt99 : We are asking that marriage be defined by TWO (2 not 3 or 50) non-related consenting adult regardless of sex. The part of non-related and consenting
330 EWRCabincrew : If marriage is a basic human right (and it has been said as such my the courts, for one), why aren't gays privvy to that? I still would like (a) legal
331 Post contains links Tugger : No they can't be. Especially considering how polygamous marriage is currently practiced. In current situations girls entering puberty are "given" to
332 IAirAllie : Well you didn't And says who? The Muslims don't seem to think so. Nor do many tribal cultures. That is very ethnocentric of you. All you did was show
333 Tugger : Please, show any polygamous marriage where all the parties are equal. Seriously, try. I know what you are trying to say but the concept of polygamy,
334 Vikkyvik : Excuse my jumping in again.... Personally, I actually don't have anything against polygamy. Long as you're not affecting anyone else's life negatively
335 Post contains links Mariner : I doubt anyone can show it to you, because whatever the theory, you can easily say that it doesn't work like that in practice. However, to show willi
336 Dougloid : The issue of whether marriage is a fundamental right is not in doubt, but what is, is whether that right extends to people marrying people of the sam
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Day Of Fame Or Day Of Shame? UTA's Birthday posted Wed Jul 7 2004 09:50:09 by 707cmf
Most Shocking Day Of Your Life? posted Tue Jun 5 2007 22:11:19 by A320ajm
Warmest Day Of The Year So Far posted Sun Apr 15 2007 15:22:05 by 53Sqdn
First Day Of Winter. How's The Weather Where You Are? posted Thu Dec 21 2006 21:59:39 by Jetjack74
The Worst Day Of My Interior Life Today posted Sun Oct 22 2006 04:13:36 by Derico
Wall Of Shame posted Thu Sep 21 2006 21:49:18 by Rammstein
This Week's Hall Of Shame posted Mon Apr 17 2006 15:33:51 by Texan
Photo Essay On "Global Day Of Action" San Francisc posted Tue Mar 21 2006 13:40:34 by Mrmeangenes
Hall Of Shame Update. posted Mon Mar 13 2006 00:58:06 by YOWza
Hall Of Shame..for This Week posted Wed Mar 1 2006 05:24:47 by Greasespot