Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:29 am



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 299):

Get 'em Vik, get 'em!  Smile

AustinAllison = pwned.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:36 am



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 275):
To make it easy for all, why don't we just call marriage, "a contract". Most marriages end in divorce (mockery of the institution - maybe that's why we have divorce, who wants to live in an institution) as it is, why not just call it what it is. A contract.

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 in the US end in divorce. That means some 65%-70% of all marrages don't.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 277):
Any marriage is a civil union - that is recognized by the state. The church part is optional.



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 281):
You just proved my argument. The state has no right or business on what is recognized as a marriage.

No, civil unions and marriges have different legal definations. A marrage is not a civil union, and a civil union is not a marrage. If they were the same, there would have been no need for prop.8, the earlier rulings of the CA, MA, or CT Supreme Courts.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 278):
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.

Correct. That means that if the California Supreme Court upholds prop. 8 and does not address those who were married during the period it allowed these marrages and the passing of prop. 8, then the California State Ligislature will have to address it. The Governator will also have to step up and sign, or veto any legislation, too. I believe the Governator has already expressed support for gay marrages, but now that prop.8 passed, he may change his mind.

I would love to see the CSC kick this over to the legislature, which, I believe is where this issue should have always been addressed.

Since prop.8 has passed the voters, it will be interesting to see the California Politicians skurm and slither to try to get around this issue, and still try to get reelected from the voters.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 292):
Marriage is only a church issue

Much to the dismay of many, it is not. The government has long had their hand it that. 250+ years.

Actually, EWRCabincrew is correct, and you are not. The government is a relitively new comer to the marrage issue, at just 250+ years. As far back as 4,000 years marrage has been sanctioned by religion. The Egyptions were all married in a religious festval, and the government (Pharoh) had nothing to do with it.

Modern day governments really don't care who marries who, as all they want is the revenue generated by marrage licenses. OTOH, in the church, while giving the church money to perform the marrage, to help defray costs for lights, heat, a/c, etc. it is voluntary, not required.
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:41 am



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 297):
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 Constitutional law either by making specious prepackaged arguments that come off the rack at some sort of Holy Sears and Roebuck

And your's aren't prepacked from the "Elite-Left" standpoint?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 297):
your argument that a marriage license is a violation of the establishment clause is a case in point. If two atheists are married by a judge, how is that a religious exercise-unless you've decided that you're going to preempt the purview of government by your say-so?

Under my views they are not "married" because marriage is religious and can't be carried out by a judge. They are civily united which is fine, but they are not "married," because that can only be done by the church.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 297):
I will tell you that the great weight of authority does not agree with you, and for that all of us can be thankful.

Well, I disagree. Proposition 8 was passed easily in California, and California is a very liberal place. For this item to pass in one of the most liberal states in the union shows a lot about how the majority of Americans feel. Had this item been placed on the ballot in Texas, I guarantee that it would pass with at least 80% of the vote. So your argument that "the great weigt of authority" doesn't agree with me lacks evidence.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 297):
For your information regulation and thus licensing of marriage comes under the police power to regulate public health, safety welfare and morals, and it predates the constitution by about 600 years as a legal doctrine. You should research the police power. It would do you good.

Do you not understand my argument? Government should not be able to license marriage, becaue it is a church issue and the interference of the state in a church matter is a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, in my opinion. The government should be able to regulate the civil unity of two individuals because it deals with the government. You have yet to grasp my argument.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
So marriages performed outside a religion, such as civil marriages, in your eyes are not marriages?

In my opinion, yes, because marriage is a religious thing. Civil Unions are o.k. though because they give everyone equal rights.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
If it is sacred, divorce shouldn't be so easy (or annullment). Throwing the word sacred around does not give it any more special meaning. If it did, there would be no divorce and marriage would be taken seriously (given that the divorce rate is at least 50% and there is a lot of work to be done).

Exactly. Divorce is a leading factor in why there are so many problems in the U.S. Crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, ect. can all be attributed in some way to divorce. A loving heterosexual couple has proven to be the ultimate cure for a lot of these problems.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
Much to the dismay of many, it is not. The government has long had their hand it that. 250+ years.

Exactly. It shouldn't be.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
How so? The state doesn't sponsor a religion, part of what the Establishment Clause is about. It simply recognises that religious marriage as valid. Just as it recognises marriages not perfomed by the church. Given that marriage licenses have been given since the 14th century, it pre-dates the Establishment Clause.

The fact that the government is involved in any way with a religion violates this clauses. The government has no right what-so-ever to regulate marriage, which is a religious ceremony.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 298):
What of other churches and other views that support it? What makes your church above any other?

Paraphrased from the Bible:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Thankfully, we are not a theocracy that uses the Bible as a basis for all its laws. (I strongly emphasize "all"). But here's my argument, as a strong Christian. Churches that recognize gay marriages are not Christian at all, because the book, which the church is based on, clearly detests homosexuality many times. Homosexual people must abdicate their sexual preferences to become a Christian because it is impossible for homosexuals to be Christian. Sorry, but that's what the Bible insists.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:50 am



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

*yawn*  Yeah sure

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 immediately. (DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21)
- If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. (DEUTERONOMY 22:22)
- Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. (MARK 10:1-12)
- The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. (LEVITICUS 18:19)
- If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. (MARK 12:18-27)
- If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. (DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12)

Out of curiosity, are you stocked up on stones? I hear they're on sale this week at Lowes.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:54 am



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 297):
I will tell you that the great weight of authority does not agree with you, and for that all of us can be thankful.

Well, I disagree. Proposition 8 was passed easily in California, and California is a very liberal place. For this item to pass in one of the most liberal states in the union shows a lot about how the majority of Americans feel. Had this item been placed on the ballot in Texas, I guarantee that it would pass with at least 80% of the vote. So your argument that "the great weigt of authority" doesn't agree with me lacks evidence.

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 Supreme Court of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts got the ball rolling on gay marrage in Masssachusetts, then punt kicked it to the legislature, who passed it, but refused to let the people be heard on it.

Some have estimated that if the people of MA could vote of the issie in their state, the issue of approving gay marrages would fail there, too.
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:57 am



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):

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 2008-11-20 23:57:51]
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11577
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
So, a marrage license should expire every four years, like your drivers license does?

Ehh? Lets just say that this license can be good "till death do you part".  Silly

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
No, civil unions and marriges have different legal definations. A marrage is not a civil union, and a civil union is not a marrage. If they were the same, there would have been no need for prop.8, the earlier rulings of the CA, MA, or CT Supreme Courts.

Correct

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
Modern day governments really don't care who marries who, as all they want is the revenue generated by marrage licenses. OTOH, in the church, while giving the church money to perform the marrage, to help defray costs for lights, heat, a/c, etc. it is voluntary, not required.

Actually I would offer that the most important aspect of marriage is a strong and secure society. Marriage provides for a "back-up" if one or another of the couple get sick or otherwise can't function normally. If people did not or were not encouraged to "pair up" society (government) would have to bear more of the direct burden of supporting people who have nowhere else to turn and no one else to support them.

Throughout history "coupling" and marriage has been key to a societies survival, from security in the form of lookouts where one person is on while the other is resting, to the caregiver status of one person toward another when one is sick, to the wealth building aspects of two together being able to earn more as they can either both work and contribute monetarily or one staying home and caring for the home and family and domestic issues which allows the other to go out and focus solely on bringing home the requirements for survival (food, money, etc). By the natural desire in humans to bond with a partner of some type the human race has thrived. Marriage, or coupling before religion came along, secures a relationship to raise children through the very long time that human children need to be ready to survive in the world and all the other things that I have noted in this post.

Encouraging people to marry, or "unite", or partner is a good thing for governments and societies to do. No matter what the sex.

Tugg
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16797
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:04 am



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Under my views they are not "married" because marriage is religious and can't be carried out by a judge.

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 government does away with marriage recognition entirely, whether you like it or not.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Government should not be able to license marriage, becaue it is a church issue and the interference of the state in a church matter is a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, in my opinion.

It is a church matter only for serious churchgoers. There are millions of other citizens who do not share similar beliefs or views and the state is required by the Constitution to accommodate them in an equitable manner. If we adopted what you are proposing, it would be de Tocqueville's nightmare all over again.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Civil Unions are o.k. though because they give everyone equal rights.

A substantial number of people don't share the fervor of your religious views but still define their unions as marriage. To them, marriage is an affirmation of love and lifelong commitment. Your religious views do not entitle you to a precedence above all other points of view, particularly those that affect the police powers. Regardless of the extent to which your faith defines your worldview (and perception of what is and isn't law, by extention), your faith itself is not recognized before US law as powerful enough to change commonly-used definitions for binding contracts between citizens.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
A loving heterosexual couple has proven to be the ultimate cure for a lot of these problems.

Are you suggesting that a loving gay couple is somehow inferior even if they are able to raise children that are functional, well-adjusted, contributory members of society? 'Ultimate' is quite the finite term to be using. Thankfully most judges this question have been put to have disagreed with your limited view.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
The government has no right what-so-ever to regulate marriage, which is a religious ceremony.

It's only a religious ceremony by your ignorant and limited definition. Not a single US state or federal authority recognizes marriage as such and never will. That's the part you don't seem to get.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Homosexual people must abdicate their sexual preferences to become a Christian because it is impossible for homosexuals to be Christian. Sorry, but that's what the Bible insists.

What of homosexuals who have devoted their lives and studies to the clergy? As long as they're celibate, what difference does it make?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11577
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:24 am



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
my views

Key point, YOUR VIEWS, which as you noted religion based

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
they are not "married," because that can only be done by the church.

And as I have said several time before in this thread, my church will joyfully perform a same-sex marriage (as well as "traditional" marriage).

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
it is a church issue and the interference of the state in a church matter is a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, in my opinion.

I agree, let my church and religion perform and recognize same-sex marriages. Why is Prop 8 interfering with our right to freedom of religion?

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
You have yet to grasp my argument.

I greasp it completely and agree with several aspects of it. The part I don't agree with is where you extend your religious view to prevent other from exercising their religious beliefs.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
In my opinion, yes, because marriage is a religious thing.

No problems from me. But others here are right that at this point in time it has become an institution that is affected be government and it may be to late to change it.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
A loving heterosexual couple has proven to be the ultimate cure for a lot of these problems.

So are loving same-sex couples. I know many that have strong vibrant families, same sex couples love and expect just as much from their children and partners.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
The government has no right what-so-ever to regulate marriage, which is a religious ceremony.

OK then, allow my church to celebrate same sex relationships and perform same-sex marriages.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Paraphrased from the Bible:

The Bible you believe in is not my holy scripture.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Churches that recognize gay marriages are not Christian at all, because the book, which the church is based on, clearly detests homosexuality many times. Homosexual people must abdicate their sexual preferences to become a Christian because it is impossible for homosexuals to be Christian. Sorry, but that's what the Bible insists.

Just curious but where in Jesus Christs teachings (Contained in the New Testament) does He specifically forbid same sex marriage? Or even state that it is wrong, or state that it should be oppressed? Again I am just curious.

Tugg
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:24 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
No, civil unions and marriges have different legal definations.

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 to call the civil part a civil ceremony or a civil wedding or a civil uniting or a civil union, without that civil element, even if it only the issuance of the license, the marriage is not legal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
I would love to see the CSC kick this over to the legislature, which, I believe is where this issue should have always been addressed.

And there we agree.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Homosexual people must abdicate their sexual preferences to become a Christian because it is impossible for homosexuals to be Christian.

You are confusing homosexuality with the homosexual act. They may abdicate their sexual actions - they cannot abdicate their sexual preferences. Or - I could not.

The essential Catholic position (from which most stem) is that heaven is barred to practicing homosexuals who do not repent.

Some go further and maintain that (unrepentant, practicing) homosexuals are damned to hell.

That's fine by me. I accept all that. Since I have no desire to be part of any church or any religion, it is irrelevant to me.

So - what is the issue here? What is your point? Why should your beliefs impinge on my life?

mariner
 
flynavy
Posts: 2179
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 1:48 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:26 am



Quoting Mariner (Reply 309):
Why should your beliefs impinge on my life?

Because God said so. Or was that Pat Robertson?

I sometimes loose track of who's who.  Wink
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:36 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 266):

So while not "law", the DOI does provide guidance and structure for interpreting the Constitution and laws in general and is relevant in determining what the Constitution and the USA stands for.

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 DoI has "little if any legal binding effect". The DoI was created to separate the colonies from Great Britain; not to establish legal rights for the people in the colonies....which the author also agrees with.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 273):

Don't get me wrong, I am very supportive of religion and people faith in them. I just do not think that Jews should be required to follow Christian strictures, or that Christians should be required to follow Buddhist teachings, or Muslims be required to follow Humanist (atheist)
beliefs. Worship as you wish and believe but do not force that belief upon others, as I have said before: Please let people make their own choices on how they want to go to heaven or how they interpret the bible or if they even believe in it at all. God gave us all free will.

All those quotes are from the Old Testament. An integral part of the Bible is the New Testament in which God moves away from the "fire and brimstone".
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11577
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:37 am

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 historical origin of government being involved in marriage? The King was the the head of the government and ultimate authority and "next to God" and so would have to give his blessing to all marriages. I would think this could be true of any country with religious based leadership. So the government an church are one, fully intertwined.

Heck wasn't it custom in some places that the King, Duke, Lord, etc. had sex first with the wife-to-be to consecrate the marriage?

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 311):
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 DoI has "little if any legal binding effect". The DoI was created to separate the colonies from Great Britain; not to establish legal rights for the people in the colonies....which the author also agrees with.

I understand, that is why I posted all of that so as not to take it out of the context the author was intending. My comment was that the DOI is used like glassed sometimes, to bring what the Constitution means into greater clarity.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 311):
All those quotes are from the Old Testament. An integral part of the Bible is the New Testament in which God moves away from the "fire and brimstone".

Yes, I know. But many people love to quote those section to decry same-sex marriage. I posted earlier that I am curious what Jesus Christ's teaching were on the subject. Not that I follow His teachings per se but I do find his teachings to be far more caring of others who are not "favored" than many Christians seem to be.

Tugg

[Edited 2008-11-21 00:44:32]
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16797
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:39 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 304):
The Supreme Court of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts got the ball rolling on gay marrage in Masssachusetts, then punt kicked it to the legislature, who passed it, but refused to let the people be heard on it.

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.
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:13 am



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 275):
If marriage is so "sacred" then why divorce?

I am tired of this worn out argument.

Marriage is sacred. Those who dishonor it through abuse, infidelity, abandonment of affection etc. thus instigating a justifiable divorce will have to answer to a higher authority for their actions someday. Divorce exists so that the innocent party has a refuge.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 290):
Polygamy, by its very nature is not a union of equals

I completely disagree with your whole premise. Polygamy is a union between consenting adults. The equinamity of the relationship varies from union to union just as it does in any marriage. Some marriages are between equals others have a dominant partner.

I think the parallel between same-gender marriage and polygamous marriage are legitimate. The arguments for one can be fairly applied to the other.

The same can be said about an incestuous marriage between concenting adults. It is no less natural than a same gendered relationship. Some people are attracted to their blood relatives. Why let biology stand in the way?
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:19 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 312):

I understand, that is why I posted all of that so as not to take it out of the context the author was intending. My comment was that the DOI is used like glassed sometimes, to bring what the Constitution means into greater clarity.

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 of opinion I suppose.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 312):

Yes, I know. But many people love to quote those section to decry same-sex marriage. I posted earlier that I am curious what Jesus Christ's teaching were on the subject. Not that I follow His teachings per se but I do find his teachings to be far more caring of others who are not "favored" than many Christians seem to be.

Its funny because I can't recall a specific verse in regards to homosexuality, but I would assume its still a sin but forgiveness and love for fellow man is preached not death.

The Bible also says to respect the laws of the land in which you live. I am a God-fearing Christian who believes in Creationism (but who is to say that 6 days to God are the same as 6 to us, and evolution may certainly play a role in that), but I am not a gay-hater nor do I feel it as my need to impose my beliefs on anyone else. If someone wants my opinion or asks me a question directly I'm more than happy to answer, but I will not be in your apartment complex parking lot with pamphlets at 8am on a Saturday morning. Am I a perfect Christian? Far from it but I try. Just my .02.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:17 pm



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Under my views they are not "married" because marriage is religious and can't be carried out by a judge. They are civily united which is fine, but they are not "married," because that can only be done by the church.

Nonsense. What church?

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Well, I disagree. Proposition 8 was passed easily in California, and California is a very liberal place. For this item to pass in one of the most liberal states in the union shows a lot about how the majority of Americans feel. Had this item been placed on the ballot in Texas, I guarantee that it would pass with at least 80% of the vote. So your argument that "the great weigt of authority" doesn't agree with me lacks evidence.

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the police power to regulate for the public health, safety, welfare and morals. In fact that never was part of the discussion. You need to get back on task before you rant.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Do you not understand my argument? Government should not be able to license marriage, becaue it is a church issue and the interference of the state in a church matter is a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, in my opinion. The government should be able to regulate the civil unity of two individuals because it deals with the government. You have yet to grasp my argument.

It's not an argument-it's taking up a position. As such I do not spend a lot of time refuting the natterings of amateur and home baked Constitutionalists. If what you say is true, there ought to be a long line of supreme court decisions that support the principle.

No bullshit, now. The list. Give it up.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Homosexual people must abdicate their sexual preferences to become a Christian because it is impossible for homosexuals to be Christian.

Homosexual behavior may be a sin in some particularly intolerant churches, but Fr. Martin never once said that sinners weren't welcome in the church-and that was high church Episcopalian circa 1960.

You seem to be saying that people cannot be Christian because of "what they are" rather than "what they do". I don't know where you get your doctrine from, but you can't even recite traditional christian doctrine on the subject of sin and redemption. We don't punish people because of who they are. That leads to racial extermination and ethnic cleansing.

To take the argument further, why have you not picked up an AK47 at the God, Guts 'n' Guns pawnshop and taken out a few queers? Huh? That'd be doing Gawd's work in your view.

That does it. I'm finished with you.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16797
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 316):
To take the argument further, why have you not picked up an AK47 at the God, Guts 'n' Guns pawnshop and taken out a few queers? Huh?

For starters, he's not old enough to purchase a firearm in many states. Kids these days  Yeah sure
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:38 pm

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):
Divorce is a leading factor in why there are so many problems in the U.S. Crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, ect. can all be attributed in some way to divorce. A loving heterosexual couple has proven to be the ultimate cure for a lot of these problems.

Your are going to have such a wake up call one of these days.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):
I think the parallel between same-gender marriage and polygamous marriage are legitimate. The arguments for one can be fairly applied to the other.

No its not. Nobody is asking for a third line to be added where names go!! When that is the question, we will welcome your opinion on it. But for now, stick to the question at hand.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):

I am tired of this worn out argument.

Marriage is sacred. Those who dishonor it through abuse, infidelity, abandonment of affection etc. thus instigating a justifiable divorce will have to answer to a higher authority for their actions someday. Divorce exists so that the innocent party has a refuge.

But wait, according to the Bible its a sin.. so are you saying that the Bible is wrong? Are you saying that "modern" laws that allow Divorce are better than the Bible? Heathen!

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 315):
Am I a perfect Christian? Far from it but I try.

Typical. "Do not as I say, but how i pretend to act"

[Edited 2008-11-21 06:47:58]
 
EWRCabincrew
Posts: 4323
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:11 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 301):
So, a marrage license should expire every four years, like your drivers license does?

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.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):
I am tired of this worn out argument.

Heterosexuals are the one getting divorce. It has a lot of validity. If you are tired of it, then do something about it to change it back to being sacred. Get out there to change the laws and rules on divorce. Till then, it will always be there.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):
Divorce exists so that the innocent party has a refuge.

Maybe you shouldn't have taken that big step in the first place. Divorce shouldn't be an easy "get out of jail" free card.

Quoting Flynavy (Reply 303):
You know what else the Bible insists?

Beat me to it. Drat.
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:59 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 318):
Nobody is asking for a third line to be added where names go!!

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 every right to ask for the legitimization of their marriages (at least the ones between consenting adults) as long as same sex couples are.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 318):

But wait, according to the Bible its a sin.. so are you saying that the Bible is wrong? Are you saying that "modern" laws that allow Divorce are better than the Bible

I must be speaking some sort of language only I can understand. Did you not read what I wrote?

For one divorce is mentioned and permitted in the Bible.

Of course divorce is sinful if you have violated your marriage through abuse or infidelity. But your spouse doesn't need to suffer your sin. They should be free to find someone who respects their vows.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 319):
Heterosexuals are the one getting divorce. It has a lot of validity. If you are tired of it, then do something about it to change it back to being sacred. Get out there to change the laws and rules on divorce. Till then, it will always be there.

There is no need to change the laws on divorce. While marriage is sacred not everyone treats it that way.

I am not tired of divorce per se (wish more people honored their vows) I am tired of the sad argument that the fact that divorces exists some how justifies same gender marriage. I don't find it a logical argument or justification.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 319):
Maybe you shouldn't have taken that big step in the first place. Divorce shouldn't be an easy "get out of jail" free card.

1) I'm not married never have been ( I don't take it lightly)
2) That means I'm not divorced either
3) I agree divorce shouldn't be an easy get out of jail free card I wish more people honored their vows then it wouldn't be a necessity.
4) In many places it is not easy to obtain a divorce.
 
AustinAllison
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:15 pm



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 316):
Nonsense. What church?

The United Methodist Church

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 316):
Proposition 8 has nothing to do with the police power to regulate for the public health, safety, welfare and morals. In fact that never was part of the discussion. You need to get back on task before you rant.

How is this relevant? Do you not understand the fundamentals of our government. WE ARE THE POLICE POWER. Citizens are the police power. They voted for Prop. 8 in CA so they are regulating morals. Gay Marriage, under christian law is immoral. Your stupidity makes me cringe.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 316):
It's not an argument-it's taking up a position. As such I do not spend a lot of time refuting the natterings of amateur and home baked Constitutionalists. If what you say is true, there ought to be a long line of supreme court decisions that support the principle.

How am I amateur? From what I've seen you are the amateur. You are unable to hold a argument without resorting to personal attacks, which is a huge sign of ignorance.


[quote=Dougloid,reply=316]Homosexual behavior may be a sin in some particularly intolerant churches, but Fr. Martin never once said that sinners weren't welcome in the church-and that was high church Episcopalian circa 1960.

You seem to be saying that people cannot be Christian because of "what they are" rather than "what they do". I don't know where you get your doctrine from, but you can't even recite traditional christian doctrine on the subject of sin and redemption. We don't punish people because of who they are. That leads to racial extermination and ethnic cleansing.

To take the argument further, why have you not picked up an AK47 at the God, Guts 'n' Guns pawnshop and taken out a few queers? Huh? That'd be doing Gawd's work in your view.

That makes no sense what-so-ever, and is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 308):
Just curious but where in Jesus Christs teachings (Contained in the New Testament) does He specifically forbid same sex marriage? Or even state that it is wrong, or state that it should be oppressed? Again I am just curious.

I paraphrased a quote earlier. The bible does forbid same sex relations, the bible is the word of God.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 308):
The Bible you believe in is not my holy scripture.

Really? I would have a hard time believing you are a Christian because every Bible I've read says the same thing, every version.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 308):
I agree, let my church and religion perform and recognize same-sex marriages. Why is Prop 8 interfering with our right to freedom of religion?

No Christian church, under traditional Christian laws, can perform same-sex marriages. Same-sex relations are forbidden by the Bible.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 308):
So are loving same-sex couples. I know many that have strong vibrant families, same sex couples love and expect just as much from their children and partners.

That was a mistake on my part. I accidental added heterosexual to that statement, when I did not intend to. Same-Sex parents are fine and have proven to be just as good.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:49 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 320):
few compounds

"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 that question is being asked. Thank you

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 320):

For one divorce is mentioned and permitted in the Bible.

Care to share a passage?

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 320):
I don't find it a logical argument or justification.


Just like some of us do not find it logical and justifiable to have Religion dictate who is really married or not.

[Edited 2008-11-21 08:51:33]
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:14 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 322):
"FEW".. Your words not mine.

A few is more than ...

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 318):
Nobody

Your words not mine.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 322):
Prop 8 does not ask for multiple people to marry.. Again, that is not the question.

Actually it does address polygamy as it seeks to constitutionaly define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. That would leave polygamy out.

Additionally a redefinition of marriage opens the door to other possiblities.

Polygamy has more of a precedent that same sex marriage as polygamy has been practiced throughout the ages and is currently practiced in many parts of the world. Same sex marriage is a new concept.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 322):
We will welcome your opinion, when that question is being asked. Thank you

It is relevent to the debate at hand. The arguments used by the anti-prop 8 crowd can easily be applied to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:17 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 320):
For one divorce is mentioned and permitted in the Bible.

Not by Jesus, as in Mark,10/6-12.

mariner
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:56 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):
Additionally a redefinition of marriage opens the door to other possiblities.



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):
It is relevent to the debate at hand. The arguments used by the anti-prop 8 crowd can easily be applied to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy.

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 letting dogs vote risen since?

If and when the polygamist want to their question asked, we will encourage our opinion.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 322):
"FEW".. Your words not mine.

A few is more than ...

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 318):
Nobody

Your words not mine.

Quantify it then.. Is it a statistical relevant percentage of the population?

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):

Actually it does address polygamy as it seeks to constitutionaly define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. That would leave polygamy out.

So would 1 man and 1 man; or 1 woman and 1 women.

What was your point again?
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:59 pm

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):

Polygamy has more of a precedent that same sex marriage as polygamy has been practiced throughout the ages and is currently practiced in many parts of the world. Same sex marriage is a new concept.

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.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=18&version=31

"" 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.""

[Edited 2008-11-21 11:03:51]
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:25 pm



Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
How is this relevant? Do you not understand the fundamentals of our government. WE ARE THE POLICE POWER. Citizens are the police power. They voted for Prop. 8 in CA so they are regulating morals. Gay Marriage, under christian law is immoral. Your stupidity makes me cringe.

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

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
That makes no sense what-so-ever, and is completely irrelevant to the argument.

perhaps it makes no sense to you, but that would be because you don't understand it, and that's because you're not interested in learning anything-you'd rather spout doctrine that you don't even understand. I suspect you do not have the intellectual capability to.

But there's hope. Drop out of school, go to a library, sit down at a table, grab some books off the shelf and start reading. Spend a few years at it.
Do you think you can handle that?
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:49 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 325):
Again. Is that the question as hand? No.

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 California choose to define marriage.



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 325):
When women where given the right to vote, they were asking if dogs would be next. Has the question of letting dogs vote risen since?

And you call my posts irrelevant?

The analogy you present here does not hold water. You could really use a college level logic and argument course.

My analogies on the other hand do as I am comparing apples to apples.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 326):
So you would much sooner approve polygamy than same sex marriage. Wow.

I wouldn't approve either one. You'd miss the point even if it were attached to an Mt99 seeking missile.

Riddle me this? Why is polygamy wrong? I defy you to quantify it with logic. It's difficult to do, just as it is difficult for many of us to quantify why we disagree with gay marriage. Even though it is difficult to quantify internally you believe it to be wrong.

Let me reiterate in case you missed it I am not a proponent of polygamy.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:02 pm



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 328):
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 California choose to define marriage.

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 i would think is already defined or implied in the current definition. We want to go from:

1 man and 1 woman to
1 man and 1 man or
1 woman and 1 woman.

That is all the change we are asking for. All the other current "defined or implied" definitions can remain.

Lets try it once more - and let me sweeten up the deal for you: When and If those current "defined or implied" such asking the allowance of the multiple partners, marrying inanimate objects, marrying your sister, brother or daughter are being discussed and are being put for the consideration of the courts or put in the ballot. we will give you your own thread so you can talk all you want about that
 
EWRCabincrew
Posts: 4323
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 2:37 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:47 pm

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 reason(s) (not because the voters said so or your personal views (religious and otherwise), but legal reasons) as to why gay couples should not be given the right to marry.

Shouldn't basic human rights be lateral and given to all, not just some based on majority? Dictating what human rights should be alloted to whom is a slippery slope. Where else do we go from there?



On a side note, I just wanted to thank everyone here for making this a great discussion. The fact that this wasn't locked long ago is proof, regardless of side, we can have civil talks. Thanks again, all.

ECC

[Edited 2008-11-21 14:58:00]
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11577
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:54 am



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 290):
Polygamy, by its very nature is not a union of equals

I completely disagree with your whole premise. Polygamy is a union between consenting adults. The equinamity of the relationship varies from union to union just as it does in any marriage. Some marriages are between equals others have a dominant partner.

I think the parallel between same-gender marriage and polygamous marriage are legitimate. The arguments for one can be fairly applied to the other.

No they can't be. Especially considering how polygamous marriage is currently practiced. In current situations girls entering puberty are "given" to their husbands. These girls are taught that they are not the equal of the husband. They are taught that in order to be "saved" they must follow the directives of their husbands. And once in the "family" they must first follow the senior wives and essentially work for seniority in the family. There is always a "pecking order" in the families. It is not a union of equals, ever.

Additionally, the affect societally is damaging as the most senior and powerful men take the most desirable women (girls) and do not allow other males to have a chance. In fact the boys are kicked out of the group as they reach puberty and begin to challenge the elders for the girls attention. Also humans have not been pack animals for a looong time, and it is not in our nature at the basic level for the committed "unit", we discovered that pairing up worked the best and have "paired" in both same-sex and opposite-sex situation for thousands of years. This is because people always pick "sides" and if you have more that two people involved you may be on the loosing side and no family unit ultimately survives that with all three still being equal, so that went the way of the Dodo. Two people together, paired and bonded in union provides society with everything it needs to facilitate a secure community, with automatic caregivers if one becomes incapacitated. This may sound harsh but think about how any couple functions.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 314):
The same can be said about an incestuous marriage between concenting adults. It is no less natural than a same gendered relationship. Some people are attracted to their blood relatives. Why let biology stand in the way?

The problem is a physical problem, it causes physical deformity and genetic damage to any potential children in the marriage. This is not acceptable by society when the chance is too high.
Additionally siblings have equal standing in the law even if they are not married. One can visit the other in the hospital as they are family, one can speak for the other as they are family. There are limits to this if they are not directly related but then we don't have laws forbidding cousins from getting married.

Follow onto this, if the situation involves a mother and her son (or father and daughter) this is again not a union of equals, one is absolutely dominant and has unfair levels of power in the relationship. This is on top of the sibling reasons I gave. This is never a union of equals.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
paraphrased a quote earlier. The bible does forbid same sex relations, the bible is the word of God.

Actually the Bible doesn't. It forbids sex but the level to which that is forbidden is open to interpretation when you consider that many of the places in the Bible where it is directly condemned have all ready been discredited for other things that are addressed and not followed any more (see my earlier post of passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, etc).

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
Really? I would have a hard time believing you are a Christian because every Bible I've read says the same thing, every version.

I am not a Christian but I absolutely respect their right to follow their path to Heaven. I believe in God but I do not know what God is. I know (believe) there is more out there and that there is a loving force that binds us all. I do not believe in Hell but I do not discount that their could be a Heaven. I do not think that a loving Father would ever cast out any of his children for eternity. As to the Bible, it may be Divinely inspired but even so it was written/transcribed by Man and so must be imperfect (I always wonder how a man, a thousand years ago, would have interpreted or been told: "OK, life began when two amoeba were created by lightening in a swamp filled with the perfect elements and chemicals to sustain life. These amoeba split at cellular level, two amoeba appeared from one.... Uhh, you don't understand that? Hmmm... OK, once there was darkness, and then light was created and then a paradise was created where a Man was born and from this Man a part was taken and a woman was created...." I know, blasphemous! But you get my point, even if the Bible is divinely inspired how would God have explained the origins of life to people who had no concept of the earth's history, the universe, or cellular biology?) And while I do believe that Christ existed, and was a great person and teacher, I do not hold Him as the only path to God. So no, I am not Christian.

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
No Christian church, under traditional Christian laws, can perform same-sex marriages. Same-sex relations are forbidden by the Bible.

Again see my other posts, but not all Christian churches are "traditional" and they do not have to be. That is something that people miss, they becomes trapped by "groupthink" and other peoples interpretations of the Bible. God gave us all freewill with the hope that we would follow our own path based on the teachings given and the teachings are not something static as they were given to man in the past and can still be interpreted by man. I honor that you are following what you have been taught but religion and faith is a journey not a static end point to be achieved. Of course these are my my beliefs based on my church's teaching and I do not expect other to have to follow them or instantly "believe" them.

Quote:
Some faiths consider marriage an aid to religious instruction. Some call it an expression of committed love. Others say it is mainly for raising children. In some Christian faiths marriage is a sacrament, in others it is not. But whether one agrees with someone else's definition of marriage (or baptism, or sacrament, or communion) one must respect everyone's Constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.

The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.

The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.

The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate.

http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 321):
That was a mistake on my part. I accidental added heterosexual to that statement, when I did not intend to. Same-Sex parents are fine and have proven to be just as good.

Thank you for that. I like to find things that we can agree on. I think that more people have more that they agree on than disagree.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 315):
The Bible also says to respect the laws of the land in which you live. I am a God-fearing Christian who believes in Creationism (but who is to say that 6 days to God are the same as 6 to us, and evolution may certainly play a role in that), but I am not a gay-hater nor do I feel it as my need to impose my beliefs on anyone else. If someone wants my opinion or asks me a question directly I'm more than happy to answer, but I will not be in your apartment complex parking lot with pamphlets at 8am on a Saturday morning. Am I a perfect Christian? Far from it but I try. Just my .02.

ANd you are a normal human, imperfect and living life the best you can. That is all that can be expected.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 322):
Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 320):For one divorce is mentioned and permitted in the Bible.

Care to share a passage?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_bibl.htm

Quote:
There are relatively few Bible verses which deal with divorce. They have been interpreted by Jewish and Christian theologians down through the years as:
-- Allowing men to divorce their wives for various reasons.
-- Prohibiting divorce except for adultery, or desertion.
-- Forbidding divorce totally.

Other religious leaders promote non-Biblical grounds for divorce, including relationship breakdown as evidenced by separation for a defined period.



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):

Additionally a redefinition of marriage opens the door to other possiblities.

Polygamy has more of a precedent that same sex marriage as polygamy has been practiced throughout the ages and is currently practiced in many parts of the world. Same sex marriage is a new concept.



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 323):
It is relevent to the debate at hand. The arguments used by the anti-prop 8 crowd can easily be applied to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy.

See my above comment. Yes "redefinition" does open the door to other possibilities but it does not make them a fait accompli. There are strong reasons, as I have given, why polygamy, especially as practiced by groups that believe in it, is not equal to a monogamous relationship.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 325):
If and when the polygamist want to their question asked, we will encourage our opinion.

And that is what is happening with "Prop 8", everyone is bringing out their opinion and arguing their point. It is OK and that is the strength of our country, that we openly discuss very controversial topics and can make changes to our laws based on community input. And this changes are never actually final, they are always open to future change.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 326):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=18&version=31

"" 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.""

Same sex couples have existed forever and have been celebrated throughout history. They just have never (seldom?) been viewed as such or as marriages. Look at such things and men who are "best pals" and do things together throughout their lives, they are as brothers and will do anything for each and in fact love each other. Look at how often women who are not considered homosexual because at one time they had husbands live together and care for each other into old age. Just because people do not sleep in the same bed does not mean that they do not have a significantly similar relationship as those who are married (how many married couple don't sleep in the same bed or even room?). Same sex couples have always been OK, but homophobia has made it impossible for people to talk about it like this.

I am NOT equating all situations where two men (The Odd Couple?) or two women (Laverne & Shirley?) live together to the same-sex marriage issue but there are similarities. And also consider that most same-sex relationships do not revolve around sex just like most heterosexual relationships don't (once you get through puberty and often your 20's  Wink ). The whole thing about homosexuality is the fact that you are ATTRACTED TO and RELATE better with people of the same sex.

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 328):
Riddle me this? Why is polygamy wrong? I defy you to quantify it with logic. It's difficult to do, just as it is difficult for many of us to quantify why we disagree with gay marriage. Even though it is difficult to quantify internally you believe it to be wrong.

I have defied you. See my above comment in this post. Polygamy is not equal to monogamy.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 329):
1 man and 1 woman to
1 man and 1 man or
1 woman and 1 woman.

I think you missed something: We don't want it changed "to" what you said. We want it to INCLUDE what you said!  Silly Sorry to nit pick, just wanted to assuage the fears of some people out there.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 330):
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 reason(s) (not because the voters said so or your personal views (religious and otherwise), but legal reasons) as to why gay couples should not be given the right to marry.

Shouldn't basic human rights be lateral and given to all, not just some based on majority? Dictating what human rights should be alloted to whom is a slippery slope. Where else do we go from there?

By the way, I just want to point out that marriage is as much a religious rite as it is/has become a "right". In both instances it can be justified to allow same-sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages.

Tugg
 
iairallie
Posts: 2326
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 5:42 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:02 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 331):
I have defied you. See my above comment in this post. Polygamy is not equal to monogamy.

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.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 331):
Especially considering how polygamous marriage is currently practiced.

All you did was show how polygamy as practiced by SOME groups is not equal to monogamy. You did a fantastic job of showing how those groups are wrong but you did not demonstrate how polygamy is any more wrong or unatural than homosexuality.

Underage marriages are a issue seperate from polygamy.

Polygamy is just a marriage between more than two people. It doesn't have to be attatched to some sort of religious dogma and can be entered in to by a party of willing equal adults.


Your premise that polygamist relationships are inherently more inequitable monogamous relationships is simply not true.

Monogamous relationships have all sorts of inequities.

*disclaimer I am not advocating polygamy*
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11577
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:39 am



Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 332):
Well you didn't

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, in action, is not about equals.

Show me to be wrong.

Tugg
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12695
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:27 am

Excuse my jumping in again....

Quoting IAirAllie (Reply 328):
Riddle me this? Why is polygamy wrong? I defy you to quantify it with logic. It's difficult to do, just as it is difficult for many of us to quantify why we disagree with gay marriage. Even though it is difficult to quantify internally you believe it to be wrong.

Personally, I actually don't have anything against polygamy. Long as you're not affecting anyone else's life negatively (including your "extra" wives), and everyone has given his or her consent, have a freaking blast. It's not my thing, but I'm no one to judge you if it's your thing.

Shit, I'm scared enough of having ONE wife!

Quoting AustinAllison (Reply 302):

Not trying to pick on you, but I was actually interested in your answer to this question:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 299):
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 ceremony, correct?

 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:58 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 333):
Please, show any polygamous marriage where all the parties are equal.

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 willing:

http://www.jamaat.org/islam/WomanPolygamy.html

"And it is no secret that polygamy of a sort is widely carried on in Europe and America. The difference is that while the Western man has no legal obligations to his second, third or fourth mistresses and their children, the Muslim husband has complete legal obligations towards his second, third or fourth wife and their children.

Can the husband "love" all the wives equally? I don't know. I've been in love with two people at the same time - a man and a woman - and more than thirty years later they are still two of my closet friends.

But the polygamy debate (probably started by me) is a red herring. For more than fifty years of my life, people have been telling me that homosexuality is condemned by God and I am barred from heaven - because the Bible says so.

Okay, I accept that but it has nothing to do with me, because I don't believe in God or the Bible.

But when I suggest that the Bible also condones polygamy - the Patriarchs and Solomon's many wives, for example - I never get a very good answer, an excuse is always found, usually by jumping to the New Testament.

I am also quite startled that the Mormon Church took such a prominent role in the Prop 8 issue, given that their beliefs on marriage - polygamy v. monogamy - changed radically in 1890, as have their attitudes to the ordination of blacks.

I am not advocating polygamy - I take no position on it, except as a matter of free will. Mostly, the FLDS seem to me to be a bunch of lecherous men claiming religious beliefs to jump on scarcely pubescent girls and I think that is profoundly wrong.

If, as is claimed in Muslim countries, it can be a marriage of equals, each partner freely going into the arrangement, I shrug. It has nothing to do with me and does not affect my life. I have always been graciously received by polygamous families and on one occasion in Africa a black Muslim with four wives saved my life.

mariner
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Californias Day Of Shame - Prop 8 Passes (#2)

Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:57 pm



Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 330):
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 reason(s) (not because the voters said so or your personal views (religious and otherwise), but legal reasons) as to why gay couples should not be given the right to marry.

Shouldn't basic human rights be lateral and given to all, not just some based on majority? Dictating what human rights should be alloted to whom is a slippery slope. Where else do we go from there?

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 same gender. Just because it is a fundamental right does not mean it is limitless and unassailable, which is where, I think, the confusion comes in.

For example, the provisions against marrying close relatives are pretty well known. Mixed race marriages were prohibited for many years. Others have noted the existence of polygamous marriages in the LDS church, although those marriages were never accepted under national law and the LDS had to reveal their way out of that particular contretemps.

Here's my prediction. The California Supremes will say that Prop. 8 cannot stand because it violates equal protection under the Federal constitution. The Prop. 8 people will immediately appeal to the federal courts and the oft reversed 9th circuit will affirm the California Supreme Court. At that time the case will be cert to the Real Supremes in Washington.

At that point, it's anyone's guess but I think that the outcome will be in doubt if the court is constituted as it is today. I expect this case to end up there in the 2010 term.

If the decision goes against gay marriage, it won't be the end of the world. Gay people will continue to do what they have always done to meet their wants and need, some will have committed monogamous relationships ,and they will have to contract their way around the proscription against gay marriage to assure themselves of the rights that inhere to conventional marriage. If the relationship is worth anything to begin with they won't need the state's blessing to make it meaningful and enduring.

One thing that may prove problematic is the issue of adoption and foster parenting under state law. That will prove difficult for male gay couples.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: johnboy and 26 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos