Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 113

Thread: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

  1. #31
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Do you have some statistics to back this up? I've found quite a few sites in a reasonable amount of time that either say otherwise or state that there just isn't enough data yet to get a good figure.

    http://community.beliefnet.com/go/th...Hetero_Divorce
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/07/2523
    http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/...ics/index.html
    I might have misunderstood wherever I was reading about it, so you got me on that one.(For now in terms of around the world). However, states info I will back you on stating there is not enough information because it hasn't been legal for that long here stateside.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Right...but you guys are comparing gay marriage (which harms no one) to killing people or stealing property (harmful crimes). Don't you understand the difference between the two? Wouldn't you think the courts should have to step in and do something if some town or state decided to legalize murder or theft? Or would you just let majority rule there as well? You can't use that as an example of passing a law that bans something that hurts no one.
    Yes in that occasion I would agree with you. It's morally wrong(and that's not just to those who are of a religious group either).

    Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  2. #32
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JonM229 View Post
    I never understood this argument. I especially can't stand those that say "Next thing is they'll allow people to marry horses." Go on www.freerepublic.com (actually, don't go there) and every time gay marriage is brought up, somebody mentions legalized beastiality. First of all, homosexuality and beastiality are two very different things. Secondly, I don't know why they're so obssessed with the idea of marrying horses(wishful thinking maybe.)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    I'm with you on that. Not to mention that in Scandinavian countries (like Denmark) where it's been legalized for over 20 years now...nobody is clamoring for polygamy rights, or beastiality rights, or pedophile's rights. It's just more rhetoric to make people scared.
    To some degree if you're going to accept those marriages, you would have to accept polygamy and other related marriages in order for someone to not want to consider your arguement hypocritical. Not to mention Pedophilia would have to be accepted as well. That's what I am thinking is their logic at least.

    One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  3. #33
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post

    Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.
    This doesn't make sense. Gay people aren't going to reproduce whether they're married or not....they're gay. Gay people are not both...you're one or the other. You're thinking of people who experiment. I've experimented...I'm not gay. People who say they are Bi are kidding themselves. I have quite a few gay friends...they have never "switched in and out" and are very comfortable with who they are. They could never think of themselves any other way. They are gay by default. It is natural for them. It's as natural as you being with a woman or me being with a man.

    As far as world population goes...I don't think gays are going to extinct the human race. For example, there are so many people in China that they have restrictions on how many babies a couple can have and forces abortions on couples who exceed that limit.

  4. #34
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    To some degree if you're going to accept those marriages, you would have to accept polygamy and other related marriages in order for someone to not want to consider your arguement hypocritical. Not to mention Pedophilia would have to be accepted as well. That's what I am thinking is their logic at least.
    I accept polygamy. If a bunch of women (or men) agree to marry one man (or woman) and are happy with it...more power to them. Pedophilia is a crime, a harmful one. It's a disgrace to even mention it in the same argument as gay marriage (a relationship between two consenting ADULTS). It's not right to keep comparing consensual relationships to harmful crimes.

  5. #35
    Tiger Lion and Steel Array title="SteelCityMan786 will become famous soon enough"> SteelCityMan786's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Where the lands are a mix of Black and Gold with some Blue and White
    Posts
    1,349

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    This doesn't make sense. Gay people aren't going to reproduce whether they're married or not....they're gay. Gay people are not both...you're one or the other. You're thinking of people who experiment. I've experimented...I'm not gay. People who say they are Bi are kidding themselves. I have quite a few gay friends...they have never "switched in and out" and are very comfortable with who they are. They could never think of themselves any other way. They are gay by default. It is natural for them. It's as natural as you being with a woman or me being with a man.

    As far as world population goes...I don't think gays are going to extinct the human race. For example, there are so many people in China that they have restrictions on how many babies a couple can have and forces abortions on couples who exceed that limit.
    That I will agree with you. They know they can't reproduce. Ehhh, not necessarily considering there hasn't been evidence to show that being gay is genetic. Can you tell just by looking at someone whether or not they're gay? I sure can't. It's acted upon.

    That is also one more reason why I am more times then not against abortion (Rape, Incest, and Complications to the mom are about the only times that their is that much of a reason to do so.). People will use it as a reason to not have kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    I accept polygamy. If a bunch of women (or men) agree to marry one man (or woman) and are happy with it...more power to them. Pedophilia is a crime, a harmful one. It's a disgrace to even mention it in the same argument as gay marriage (a relationship between two consenting ADULTS). It's not right to keep comparing consensual relationships to harmful crimes.
    This one I will respond in two

    If someone can put up with Polygamy, they must have a shit load of patience.

    As for Pedo:

    From a Crime Standpoint, absolutely. In terms of it being a disgrace to mention it there, not completely when people want to argue morals if they present their facts right.
    786 Ways to score touchdowns

  6. #36
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post

    One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.
    Yes, this is true today. Gays are afforded many of the same basic rights as other human beings. BUT, they did not for a long, long time. It was just easier to pretend to be straight and be gay than it was to pretend to not be black, you know what I mean. Even today, you cannot be openly gay and be in the military. You can fight and die for your country if you're gay...you just can't admit it.

  7. #37
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post

    This one I will respond in two

    If someone can put up with Polygamy, they must have a shit load of patience.
    I do. I've got patience out the wazoo (normally). It's not something I'd do...but who the hell am I to stop someone else from doing it? Ya know? Nobody seems to want to ban pornos with a dude doing a bunch of women (or vice versa), so why not let a bunch of them get married and do it? Doesn't bother my life any.

    As for Pedo:

    From a Crime Standpoint, absolutely. In terms of it being a disgrace to mention it there, not completely when people want to argue morals if they present their facts right.


    First off, let me say that me saying "legislating morality" is a wrong phrase to use. Morals are different among different groups of people. Some people think rock music and porn are morally wrong. Some do not. Listening to rock or watching porn are not hurting anyone though...like two men or two women having sex or having a relationship are not hurting anyone, not physically at least. Pedophilia is grown adults hurting children. It's not in the same category as having sex before marriage, being gay, smoking pot, masturbating, listening to KISS or swearing. It just isn't. Anyone who says it is, is just trying to stretch their point to meet their argument. They just aren't the same and should not be argued as such.

  8. #38
    ??? Array title="Mattsme is an unknown quantity at this point"> Mattsme's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    What day is it?
    Posts
    168

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    smoking pot, masturbating, listening to KISS
    Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

    I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...

  9. #39
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattsme View Post
    Shit, did I leave my webcam on again?

    I thought that feeling of being watched was just from the pot...
    You're so going to hell. I hear they have good wings there though.

  10. #40
    ??? Array title="Mattsme is an unknown quantity at this point"> Mattsme's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    What day is it?
    Posts
    168

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    You're so going to hell. I hear they have good wings there though.
    Haha. Truth is I never really liked pot. And only liked KISS when I was stoned. So that wasn't often.

    And masturbation, well I've decided to save that for marriage, when I'll actually need it.
    My married friends tell me it's a good skill to have.

  11. #41
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattsme View Post
    Haha. Truth is I never really liked pot. And only liked KISS when I was stoned. So that wasn't often.

    And masturbation, well I've decided to save that for marriage, when I'll actually need it.
    My married friends tell me it's a good skill to have.
    Blasphemy...KISS is great ALL the time.

  12. #42

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Sigh.

    As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

    As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

    I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

    My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

    Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.


  13. #43
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Sigh.

    Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money).
    Everything else aside (because I know I cannot change your religious aspects on this), this is a false statement. They are offered very few of the same rights under civil unions. They may dissolve their unions like married couples get divorced...but that's about it. Like I stated before, a couple examples of this (besides the tax code laws) are...If one partner of a gay couple is arrested, the other partner (even in a civil union) can be forced to testify against them. Carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude one partner from a funeral or deny them the right to visit a partner's grave or hospital bed. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that the partner's may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick the other with the remaining debt on a property they no longer own. If this seems equal to you...ok, our arguments are clearly at an impasse. They do not seem equal to me though.

  14. #44
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights.
    This same argument could have been used to justify keeping interracial marriages illegal.

    Every one person had the same right to marry a person of the same skin color. Whether a person wants to use that right or not is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry out of their race. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal.

  15. #45
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.
    You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.

  16. #46
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    Divorce rates are higher in gay couples.

    However when it comes to morals and for the children to be good productive people in society, it varies. I was fortunate enough to have good parents growing up(and I'm glad they have tried to allow me to be my own person while delivering their two cents on how to become a better man if need be).

    This won't be closed until it goes in front of the Supreme Court, even if the 9th Circuit Court over rules it. Plus this was a vote of the people and therefore should not be able to be overturned. The Majority of California spoke in favor of it. That might have been the case, but there is always a chance the judge was nominated.

    I have no problem with that. It's the title of Marriage that I have an issue with. Although I feel the lifestyle is immoral, I am not going to stop someone else from living it. Especially when Opposites are a part of life. And well, you need a member of the opposite sex to produce offspring. If gays want their own union, that's fine. It must be a Civil Union in my book.

    Exactly, nothing says that morality(Whether it is produced by Religion or not) can not be taken into consideration for the creation of certain laws such as the ones mentioned about stealing, killing , hurting, etc. We have the chance to vote on certain laws for a reason and the rights of the people should be respected unless beyond a reasonable doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't have enough of a reason to believe that Prop 8 is not.
    You should read the decision, link is my 2nd post in this thread. It blows all those anti-gay marriage stats out of the water.

    Quote Originally Posted by cheezheadsteeler View Post
    i think gay people should be able to live with whoever they choose, but marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. Gays can have civil unions or some other legal arrangement.
    As far as "legislating morality", that's what or whole legal system is based on. "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't hurt others" and so on.
    Separate but equal, huh?


    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    I might have misunderstood wherever I was reading about it, so you got me on that one.(For now in terms of around the world). However, states info I will back you on stating there is not enough information because it hasn't been legal for that long here stateside.

    Yes in that occasion I would agree with you. It's morally wrong(and that's not just to those who are of a religious group either).

    Gay Marriage hurts the human race in terms of the human population's reproduction or growth. Because if there enough people not giving birth to children, then the human race in turn runs the risk of being extinct. Plus, you have more then enough people who switch in and out of that life style. No gay is gay by default. There is no evidence that suggests it's a natural lifestyle either.
    Again, read the decision, they tried all the arguments you are making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Sigh.

    As a Christian, and a pastor, I could care less about the actions of those who do not confess the same belief that I do. It is only those who claim to be Christian and that they believe God within the Christian belief condones their actions that I have a problem with... because we have a common foundation. I believe the biblical text on this matter is 1 Cor. 5:12-13. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside." My only care about those outside the church is that I get the opportunity to share, "Come, and meet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

    As far as protecting the church, it is simple. I am going to lead the church to state in their bylaws that only members in good standing are to be married in the church. Problem solved.

    I do however, shiver at what I consider the activist courts. Everyone person had the same right, to marry a person of the opposite sex. Whether a person wants to use that right or not, is their personal decision. No person had a right to marry the same sex. Whether a person wanted or didn't want to do that, was a personal decision. Thus, it was equal. This is not, in any way, shape, or form, an issue of civil rights. Gay couples are offered all the of the same civil protection in a civil union. The tax code should also be amended for civil unions (though it won't be, because the gov't wants more and more of your tax money). Therefore, there is no denial of civil rights, IMO. Sadly however, White American Christendom (as opposed to actual Christians) have brought this on, and especially the "white christian south". When elected officials, police, etc. were actually violating civil rights (anyone remember blacks sitting at the back of the bus, drinking from small, corroded drinking fountains, get food at the back of a restaurant- those ACTUAL civil rights that were violated), the american public, the American church, and the senate and house, all turned a blind eye until the courts were forced to rule on the issue. Give the courts an inch of authority, and they'll take a mile. After all, just look at how the interstate commerce clause has been completely abused.

    My problem however, is as an American citizen. Not as a Christian. It will only become my problem as a Christian if the courts 1. force me to officiate ceremonies of gay couples, 2. Force me to open the doors to the church building for gay weddings, 3. Try to control what I say from the pulpit on the issue, or 4. if my church, my association, or my denomination moves to legitimating homosexual marriage within the church.

    Oh yeah, a word of warning to all those who are cheering this decision as a strike against the church-- In the 20th century, the homosexual community and the Christian community were linked quite intimately in one way: Whenever persecution began on one group, it quickly went to the other. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, etc. etc. Be careful what you celebrate, because there is a reason these two communities are linked as such. The very victories you are celebrating today, may be the foundation of the very things you are most fearful of in the future. And if the courts gain more and more of the authority- there is no one to stop it.
    You're right it has nothing to do with civil rights. It has everything to do with the due process clause of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the same. Marriage is a fundamental right. The litany of court cases are unwavering on this. When the government restricts a fundamental right from ANYONE they absolutely must pass a strict scrutiny standard. This can't even pass a rational basis standard. This is basic due process. There is a denial of a fundamental right and denial of equal protection. Marriage and civil unions are not the same thing not matter how much one wishes them to be. If they are so equal, would you be comfortable granting only civil unions to your congregation?

    This is not in direct response to Preacher from here on:

    Loving v. Virginia & Griswold v. Connecticut soundly states that the right to marry is protected by the Due Process Clause. Here this is a non issue since the proponents of Prop 8 did not dispute marriage is a fundamental right.

    Under the Equal protection clause the decision dovetails the DPC nicely; it analyzes the historical foundation for marriage in our society, noting the state has never once inquired into the potential for procreation before granting a marriage license. The overriding themes in the historical evidence about marriage were liberty and choice. Again, see Loving which, anecdotally, was the case to remove race restrictions on marriage because they stood in contrast to choice and liberty.

    When race restrictions were lifted, marriage didn't change.

    The states also eased their gender biases on marriage and removed laws like coverture, etc. Marriage was changed from a male dominated institution to a gender equal one.

    When gender restrictions were lifted, marriage didn't change.

    What is it about the historical meaning of marriage that heterosexuals perform that cannot be performed by homosexuals? The procreation argument is null and void unless you want to limit marriage only to couples who can procreate.

    I am with Preacher on one thing and I've said this before and I'll say it again: I believe gay marriage is wrong, but I base that on my faith. My country does not follow the same religious doctrine I follow nor should it. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but from a legal perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

  17. #47

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post

    I am with Preacher on one thing and I've said this before and I'll say it again: I believe gay marriage is wrong, but I base that on my faith. My country does not follow the same religious doctrine I follow nor should it. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but from a legal perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
    I am somewhat in line with you here. I think that legally, there is neither anything right OR wrong about it. I agree with you that it is a fundamental right... and each and everyone person has the same right to marry the opposite sex. There is no right taking away from them, as there was with race restrictions. That is where I am completely hung up. Neither they, nor I, have the same right to marry the same sex. It is of no consequence whether one wants to or does not want to, we both have the same right. That is equality. When rights begin to be weighed based on individual desire, we enter a period of anarchy. Who is to tell me that MY right to act on THIS desire is wrong?

    And, BTW, it IS quite similar to sex with a minor-- (at least an older minor). How? Because the age of 18 is a random law. It is considered the age of consent simply because enough laws have been passed that identify that age as the age of consent, whereby you are now an adult under the law. However, some laws, put it at 21 (drinking), and others put it at 22 (if you are a military child and in college). Why therefore, must the age of consent be 18 for a sexual encounter? Why not 17? Why not 16? Why not 20? or 21? It is simply a random law which is accepted not based on morality, but on what the majority of society BELIEVES is a good age, for the betterment of all. In the SAME way, homosexuality is limited by law to one man and one woman (for now) because it is considered, by the majority of society, the best way for marriage to be. It is actually less random than the age of consent, as one man, one woman, has been the standard for 7000 years or more. 18 has been the age of consent for what, 30 years? It does stand to reason therefore, that if the definition of marriage is changed in the law by the court system, with 7000 years of standardization, that the age of consent may also be changed just as easily, even against the will of the people.

    Once again, THAT is why this scares me, because IMO, the courts are taking way too much authority. IMO, I can't see it falling under Due Process, simply because the right to marry is still available... (back to my argument above).

    In truth, the entire reason I voted for Prop 8, was to smack down the courts. Had this issue simply been put before the voters in the very beginning "Should we redefine marriage in the law as two adults, regardless of race," I really don't know how I would have voted. Probably, I would have skipped the question all together. I also believe, that this issue would have passed.


  18. #48
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Well, I think the court disagrees with your definition of the right of marriage. You say between a man and a woman and they have that right so it's equal. They looked at what marriage has traditionally been defined as; foundation for the household, sharing of assets and debts, lifelong commitment, etc. A same sex couple does not have the right to enjoy those things as you or I have. Even though I'm against it, I certainly get that definition of the right of marriage. If I honestly defined marriage, marrying a woman wouldn't even be in my definition, it would be much more in line with the court's conclusion.

    I see what you are saying, I just approach it from what has traditionally defined the institution and to be quite frank, I could care less what someone else does as long as my house is in order.

    As an aside, I think the activist judge thing gets over-sensationalized by the media. This is exactly what the courts were designed to do. This is their role in our system. Ours is not a majority rules system.

  19. #49

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    You are speaking of persecution though. Nobody here has persecuted the church. I for one just want churches to do what they do and the government to do what it does...separately. Gay marriage has been legal in other countries for some time now, and it hasn't destroyed the church in the slightest. All decisions were made through the courts there as well. Denmark would be the biggest hotbed for persecution if this were true. It's not though...it's just Denmark.
    Denmark? Let's see, along with them the UK, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all allow gay marriage... interesting, because those are the same 5 nations that that refused to allow persecuted Christians from Iraq into their country, and repatriated them to Iraq ? Interesting thing. Some others were also refused asylum- gays... and now, 25 gay men and 8 Christians were killed in Iraq for those very reasons (see amnesty international).

    My point is... when Christianity is persecuted, so is homosexuality, and when homosexuality is persecuted, so is Christianity. Neither are persecuted in this country... yet. But be careful... because when one IS persecuted, the other is sure to follow quickly.

    By the way... would you consider blocking buses from getting to a prayer rally legal? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=3545%2C677511

    How about Jews, Christians, and Buddhists all having their religions services disrupted in the 1993-4... even to the point that the human rights commission of the fed. govt. was called in to investigate. Also quoted in that article is this example, "in Septebmber Homsexual activists in San Francisco blocked access to Hamilton Square Baptist Church shoved churchgoers and pelted some with eggs and stones... . (Washington Times article, April 2, 1994).

    Interrupting meetings of the general conference.. by both blocking access and by entering the meeting and causing disruption. (2000). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-26490043.html

    Blocking entrances to a episcopal meeting in the same year... simply because in that meeting, "former gays" were giving testimony of how they felt God had helped them change. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63114739.html

    Jun 13, 2000, 200 gay activists stormed a Southern Baptist convention in protest. The SBC convention actually voted to allow them to stay for the duration of the discussion. However, when the vote came, gay activists blocked the stage and vowed not to leave until they were arrested (Orlando Sentinel - Orlando, Fla. Jun 13, 2000, Esmond Hilton, author.


    I can go on and on about how Christians have been blocked from entering their worship services, meetings, etc. here in the united states, mainly by gays. Does that mean I think all gays are for this, or even a majority? Absolutely not. Do I think there is a vocal minority that has done this? Yep. Is there also a vocal minority of heterosexuals who just LOVE IT when the church is struck down in any way shape or form? Yep.

    It is to those that my OP was directed. Those who see this decision and others like it as a strike against Christianity. Those who truly can't see the forest for the trees. That historically, when Christians become persecuted (which we are not...yet, though there have been isolated cases of actual violation of human rights, that is, freedom of religion)... or are open game for persecution by others, so are gays and lesbians.

    Funny thing, when I was a college minister, the two groups that worked the hardest together to make sure both were protected at my school, was the Gay and Lesbian Student Alliance, and the Baptist Student Union... because there, both leaders understood the very point I am making.


  20. #50

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    As an aside, I think the activist judge thing gets over-sensationalized by the media. This is exactly what the courts were designed to do. This is their role in our system. Ours is not a majority rules system.
    I am not sure that is at all what the courts were designed to do. It IS however, a power which the courts assumed in Marbury vs. Madison. It is a power that was never given to them.. the courts took it, and that power was never checked.


  21. #51

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelersinCA View Post
    I see what you are saying, I just approach it from what has traditionally defined the institution and to be quite frank, I could care less what someone else does as long as my house is in order.
    Which is exactly in agreement with the verse I posted in my OP. I totally agree with you. As you can see, my issue is not "homosexuality" here, but rather, what I would consider judicial abuse of the system. This could very well be any other issue, and I would feel the same way. If the people of California voted to have a 60 percent tax, and the courts overturned it based on rights found in the "penumbra" of the constitution (yeah, I know, a different issue, I just couldn't find another word to use here!), I would be just as upset, though I would be very much against those taxes (and would probably move out of Cal. if the Lord let me!)


  22. #52
    Senior Member Array title="steeldawg is a jewel in the rough">

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,533

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786 View Post
    To some degree if you're going to accept those marriages, you would have to accept polygamy and other related marriages in order for someone to not want to consider your arguement hypocritical. Not to mention Pedophilia would have to be accepted as well. That's what I am thinking is their logic at least.

    One thing though people do argue and it really pisses me off is that gays do not have many of the same rights blacks did during the Civil Rights movement(Such as Voting, being able to hold a managerial position, go to a separate public school, etc). That is the biggest pile of crap I have ever heard. Blacks weren't even accepted let alone tolerated. One thing people need to get through their heads much like people want to say acceptance is a necessary component of tolerance need to read the dictonary definition.
    How would pedophilia have to be excepted both people have to be of legal age to marry. Minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as marriage. And by that arguement what would be the difference from marriage now to pedophillia if a man wanted to marry a 12 yr old girl? Gay marriage is following all of the other laws governing marriage except the fact that its two people of the same sex.

  23. #53
    Freakin Amazing! Array title="JonM229 will become famous soon enough"> JonM229's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Geneva, WI
    Gender
    Posts
    976

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by steeldawg View Post
    How would pedophilia have to be excepted both people have to be of legal age to marry. Minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts such as marriage. And by that arguement what would be the difference from marriage now to pedophillia if a man wanted to marry a 12 yr old girl? Gay marriage is following all of the other laws governing marriage except the fact that its two people of the same sex.
    That's probably the best response to the whole pedophile/bestiality counter-argument over gay marriage I've read so far.

  24. #54
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelCityMom View Post
    Look...I'm ordained. All I have to do is take it to the courthouse, pay a few bucks, and make it official!

    How dare you tarnish our good name.

    I'm an ordained minister too and I think it's about time I demand you call me Reverend.



    In FL I can legally marry folks.

  25. #55
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Appeal of ruling could delay gay weddings in CA

    SAN FRANCISCO – A judge struck down California's same-sex marriage ban as an unconstitutional violation of gay couples' civil rights, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent gay weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.

    Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

    "Rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same," Walker wrote in an unequivocal and strongly worded 136-page ruling. "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

    While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. The outcome there eventually could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...72510&srvc=rss

    -----------

    unintended consequences?

  26. #56
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    The fun begins




    Defenders of marriage in Calif. will appeal dangerous federal ruling

    SAN FRANCISCO — Attorneys representing ProtectMarriage.com will appeal a federal judge’s decision Wednesday that declared California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are litigating the lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, together with lead counsel Charles J. Cooper and ADF-allied attorney Andrew Pugno, who represent the official proponents and campaign committee of California’s Proposition 8.

    “In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

    “We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it.

    What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”


    http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3618

  27. #57
    Senior Member Array title="SteelersinCA is an unknown quantity at this point">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    300

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    I don't know why they will appeal it, they put on the shittiest case I've seen.

  28. #58
    MST Junkie Array title="SteelCityMom is on a distinguished road">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    660

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Preacher View Post
    Denmark? Let's see, along with them the UK, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all allow gay marriage... interesting, because those are the same 5 nations that that refused to allow persecuted Christians from Iraq into their country, and repatriated them to Iraq ? Interesting thing. Some others were also refused asylum- gays... and now, 25 gay men and 8 Christians were killed in Iraq for those very reasons (see amnesty international).

    My point is... when Christianity is persecuted, so is homosexuality, and when homosexuality is persecuted, so is Christianity. Neither are persecuted in this country... yet. But be careful... because when one IS persecuted, the other is sure to follow quickly.

    By the way... would you consider blocking buses from getting to a prayer rally legal? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=3545%2C677511

    How about Jews, Christians, and Buddhists all having their religions services disrupted in the 1993-4... even to the point that the human rights commission of the fed. govt. was called in to investigate. Also quoted in that article is this example, "in Septebmber Homsexual activists in San Francisco blocked access to Hamilton Square Baptist Church shoved churchgoers and pelted some with eggs and stones... . (Washington Times article, April 2, 1994).

    Interrupting meetings of the general conference.. by both blocking access and by entering the meeting and causing disruption. (2000). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-26490043.html

    Blocking entrances to a episcopal meeting in the same year... simply because in that meeting, "former gays" were giving testimony of how they felt God had helped them change. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63114739.html

    Jun 13, 2000, 200 gay activists stormed a Southern Baptist convention in protest. The SBC convention actually voted to allow them to stay for the duration of the discussion. However, when the vote came, gay activists blocked the stage and vowed not to leave until they were arrested (Orlando Sentinel - Orlando, Fla. Jun 13, 2000, Esmond Hilton, author.


    I can go on and on about how Christians have been blocked from entering their worship services, meetings, etc. here in the united states, mainly by gays. Does that mean I think all gays are for this, or even a majority? Absolutely not. Do I think there is a vocal minority that has done this? Yep. Is there also a vocal minority of heterosexuals who just LOVE IT when the church is struck down in any way shape or form? Yep.

    It is to those that my OP was directed. Those who see this decision and others like it as a strike against Christianity. Those who truly can't see the forest for the trees. That historically, when Christians become persecuted (which we are not...yet, though there have been isolated cases of actual violation of human rights, that is, freedom of religion)... or are open game for persecution by others, so are gays and lesbians.

    Funny thing, when I was a college minister, the two groups that worked the hardest together to make sure both were protected at my school, was the Gay and Lesbian Student Alliance, and the Baptist Student Union... because there, both leaders understood the very point I am making.
    Preacher...I respect you a lot. This just feels like reaching to me though. I understand your worry to a point, but I just can't get behind it. I'm sorry that some refugees were refused asylum and that some gay people have been harassing church services, but it's a real stretch to start comparing it to the beginnings of persecution of Christians.

    I can understand how you think that gays and Christians being persecuted correlates alone...but realize this, when these kind of EXTREME persecutions take place (and you'll know when they take place), I would think it would be hard to say one way or the other what kind of persecution started it...and I doubt it would begin and end with the persecution of gays and Christians. I doubt as members of the human race, whoever was doing the persecution would limit themselves so.

  29. #59
    Do no harm - take no shit Array title="Killer is on a distinguished road"> Killer's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Gulf coast pimp
    Gender
    Posts
    992

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is now a legal institution, not a religious one. It’s a legal one because we have to go down to the courthouse to get a marriage license. The courthouse is a government building of the judicial branch of government. Ever wonder how athiests get married? They don’t go to church. They dont ask a priest. They go to the courthouse and get married by a judge or a Justice of the Peace.


    So now that God has created AIDS to kill the homosexuals they want you to pay for it.

    and they want marriage benefits for their AIDS and insurance claims to be paid by the taxpayers too. I bet that's a lot what this is all about.

  30. #60
    Senior Member Array title="BnG_Hevn has much to be proud of"> BnG_Hevn's Avatar
    Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,070

    Re: California's Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

    I don't think people oppose it just for morals. When it comes to morals, who gives a rat's arse about who marries who.

    I think the kicker is in health care and how costs will go up. Homosexuals will get married "for the insurance" which is what affects the general public, or at least those that pay for health insurance.

    This country is failing faster and faster every day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •