Proposition 8 gets deep-sixed.
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=186412
Printed Date: 12 July 2025 at 2:16pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proposition 8 gets deep-sixed.
Posted By: agentwhale007
Subject: Proposition 8 gets deep-sixed.
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 5:35pm
|
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 - Judge makes ruling in constitutionality of California's Proposition 8. I'm sure this will end with God's judgement and anger flashing down upon the Earth in a rage from heaven. Or, I mean, gay people will just go back to being able to have marriage rights. The horror of it all.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 5:58pm
|
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?! ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 7:13pm
|
You know, people say that homosexuality occurs in nature, but you know what else occurs in nature? Sex between animals. This ruling will obviously lead to benefits for those who engage in bestiality. Then it's only a matter of time, logically speaking, before they start going after children. ------------- 
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 7:59pm
|
:) ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 9:22pm
I can just imagine a voter rally, with chris hanson showing up. "Folks, I need you all to please have a seat over here" |
Gatyr wrote:Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 10:10pm
Uh, maybe I didn't do too well in Biology at school, but what children? That would be quite a feat wouldn't it? Bad joke on a forum meme I know, but the anesthetic is still in my blood and I found it funny. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 10:28pm
First thing that popped into my head when I read that.
|
Posted By: Destruction
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 10:41pm
Simpson's reference. 
Coincidentally, that pic came from a site against Prop 8. ------------- u dont know what to do ur getting mottor boatted Men are from Magmar, women are from Venusaur. |
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 11:47pm
| hey gays can get married in california...ok moving along now |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 04 August 2010 at 11:56pm
Most iv laughed all day. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 4:45am
Can anyone point me to any US law, and not a court based decision, that states marriage is a right? Just playing devils advocate here... ------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 5:42am
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 7:48am
|
sarcasm on.
Boy, I sure am glad another judge disregarded the will, AND vote of the people... It is refreshing that we are no longer a republic but an oligarchy ruled by an ideological elite.
Tolerance is a one way street, as you now have to have the same liberal world view espoused in most colleges, while never admitting to the tenants of Christianity...
Way to go California, the voters agreed with the majority of Americans. But, the liberal elites... They know better.
More examples.
The student who was told she would be kicked out of college for her doctorate unless she denounced her Christian world view.
The professor who stated the Catholic position on homosexuality and promptly was fired... In his class ON Catholicism.
And Churches being shut down by cities because they don't bring in any revenue in taxes...
http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/08/christians-take-a-stand-for-religious-freedom/ - http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/08/christians-take-a-stand-for-religious-freedom/
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 8:38am
|
THIS IS A HUGE SLIPPERY SLOPE, GUYS -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 9:24am
| I love the automatic attachment of "liberal" to the judge's decision. I'd rather attach the word "correct" or "responsible." I could have cared less if the judge was liberal or conservative, sometimes voters are just wrong. That's why we have the courts. Especially when a majority of voters aren't effected by the law. When a large number of people voted "no" for religious reasons, I'm glad we have the courts system to correct the decision and actually base it on equality, which is what our country is supposed to be truly based on. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 9:38am
Yes, Prop 8 passed by voter referendum, but, if the people voted for something that is ultimately unconstitutional, how could such a law be upheld? Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but to me, the whole thing is the equivalent of the people of CA passing something banning the ownership of all firearms in the state. Sure, it passed (hypothetically), but is it constitutional? Supreme Court and 2nd Ammendment says no. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 9:48am
|
Again my problem with any of this Judicial override trend is again, the Bill was written by Lawyers, reviewed by Lawyers, Constitutionally Tested by Lawyers, voted on by the electorate, the desired response was not achieved, and one man now operturns it as unconstitutional.
The 'Will of the People' voting on a measure that on its face as written and reviewed by Lawyers met Constitutional Standards is overturned by the interpatation of Constitutionality of one man due to political need. Gays always had the right to marry, within the confines of the law as we all do, so there is and was no violation of thier Civil Rights. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 10:39am
Exactly . . . this is the judicial branch of our government interpreting the law (in this case the constitution) exactly as it was designed to do. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 10:44am
|
Only liberal judges believe the constitution is a "living breathing" document... Which it would have to be, in order to take a law on the books (sodomy) and ignore it to while claiming "civil rights violations"...
The public has spoken LOUD and clear every time this comes up... And yet, this judge knows better.
We can all bet how kagan and the wise latina will vote when it hits the supreme court.
because... They are liberal.
If the title fits... It confuses me why you wouldn't like it? ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 10:44am
|
SO how did it make it through committee prior to the ballot if 'lawyers' and more than likely a few judges reviwed it. Makes it to ballot, fails and then one man can change the outcome. A full Judicial review (multiple Judges)maybe, but just one man having the ability to overturn the 'Will of the People' is not how the system was actually designed to work. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 10:59am
I am now convinced you are a troll. You're belief that the constitution is going to apply in the exact same manner throughout the progression of history is ignorant. And your application of law to the belief that the government can actually rule on an issue like sodomy is even worse. Sodomy does not only effect the homosexual community. It is a private issue in which no person or group of people should be allowed into your home to judge. Sodomy is a blue law like so many other ridiculous "on the books" laws that have no place in our society. I am shocked it took me this long to realize your posts are just a way to label people and spout religious rhetoric.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:00am
|
personally, I am not worried. The supreme court will fix it... Unless Obama decides a conservative judge is a "terrorist" and kills them and replaces them with another liberal activist judge...
But, the tin foil needed to get to that point is more than I wear.
course I just read The Overton window... EXCELLENT book. very Clancy like, but with more truth mixed into the fictional story. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:03am
You make some excellent points OS, I'm glad the debate can keep going. I do not believe it's just one person that is making this decision. The decision was made in District Court, which may be made of up one judge, but is in place for a reason. It will eventually make its way to the panel of judges that you think is acceptable to rule on this, but it must first go through the channels. This issue is far from over.
Although these laws must first be overlooked by lawyers and possibly judges, it does not mean that through interpretation that flaws will not later be noticed. The D.C. gun ban was passed through similar channels and I'm sure that a District Court judge knocking this law down would receive praise from many people calling it unconstitutional. Laws get passed here and there that are often controversial...but they still pass.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:05am
|
What if the public voted loud and clear that they wanted a state religion? Or that the 2nd amendment was null and void? The will of the public can be wrong at times, and it's the responsibility of the system to ensure that all decisions, made by the people or not, line up with Constiutional values.
So while you can make the point that you disagree with the judge's ruling, or that you feel the SCOTUS will rule based on partisan politics, and you may be right or wrong about either, the idea that somehow the will of the people always over rules all else is invalid.
On topic-this is such a complicated issue. I really could care less if homosexuals marry, but I am concerned that ministers not be forced to marry a couple in a way that would violate their religious beliefs.
I don't know that that's an issue, I haven't spent much time studying this. Just my only real care. Otherwise, the whole issue just screams "who cares".
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:08am
Every post you will ever make just lost any shred of possible credibility. Ever. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:09am
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:09am
|
As an employer I care, if this passes, any business owner will now have to pay the addtional costs for "partners" in their healthcare costs.
One of a businesses largest expense is healthcare, and with Obamacare passing (which is unconstitutional btw, the government can't force you to buy something) this is just another way to give special rights instead of equal rights.
Nambla is excited about the possiblities... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:12am
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:14am
|
TRIFECTA!!!
Troll, Bigotry and now RACIST... Whoot, Dune wins! ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:15am
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:16am
|
As of now established religious 'ministers' can refuse to marry homosexuals with no consequence if it goes against the ministers established religious beliefs.
My contention is how do these Bills make it to the ballot after in today's information enviornment the bill makes it through the many committes consisting of Lawyers and lower court Judges. If the Bill passes, no review, if the bill fails immediate overturn. Seems to be the pattern of the more activist judges in this 'progressive' agenda. Again Gays have had the right to marry within the confines of established law, just as the rest of us, so there is NO Civil Rights violation. So if we ammend the Law for the homosexual community where is the line, beastality, pedophilia, each of these 'radical' beliefs we see today are just as apporant to society as homosexuality was 25 years ago, so when will society be forced by activist judges to 'accept' those tennants of 'marriage'. If Joe Bob wants to marry his goat, are we violating his Civil Rights if we as a society say no in the current 'progressive' agenda? If no, explain the differance. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:17am
|
eww, now the "I was just joking" card...
hahahhahahaha.
I'll report it all and let the mods decide! ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:19am
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:20am
Are you seriously equating the actions of two consenting adults to a grown man engaging in acts of pedophilia?
You have to be trolling with that statement. There's no way you could legitimately draw that comparison.
The question you have to ask isn't why it's right for gays to marry, but why it's legally wrong? I can't think of a reason.
I can think of lots of reasons why it's wrong for a man to marry an animal, or for a man to marry a little boy, but for a man to marry another man? That doesn't affect me or society at all.
This boils down to religion. All things else aside, the modern movement in Christianity and neoconservatism (not true conservatism, BTW, there's a difference) is to shape a government around their beliefs, while doing so under the guise of conservatism. They want a government that reflects and enforces their personal beliefs, which is, BTW, completely unConstitutional.
I am both conservative and of the Christian belief-but I understand that I live in a free country. If it's not illegal or unconstiutional, why should I object?
Besides, how many straight couples out there are swingers? Doesn't that violate lots of Biblical and moral principles? Where's the fight to keep them from marrying? Or furries? Furry lovers are un natural and should be shot on sight. I wonder how many married couples are into that crap?
We live in a fairly amoral society. Why discriminate against one culture that you find immoral while straight people commit acts of infidelity and immorality every day, and we just shrug it off.
We have some of the highest divorce rates out there. A good percentage of straight marriages should have never happened. Yet, we're worried that homosexuals are going to corrupt our "pure" system.
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:29am
Instead of letting simple trolling and tattling get me into trouble I'd rather acknowledge one of the best posts I've read in a while. Although we'd disagree on many political and religious ideas, partisan politics does not always have to be a factor. Plus...furries scare me.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:31am
|
well... lets look at who is arguing what.
Are "illegals" illegal?... And yet we don't punish them, or deport them in many cases (nun killed this week by a multiple CONVICTION illegal... why was he still here?)
Either they are breaking the law, or law doesn't matter...
What about Men marrying girls?... It isn't even frowned upon today... Shoot women now marry young guys too...
So why would you think Nambla wouldn't be thrilled about this precident?...
It is just an age thing...
Or abortion, everyone should be able to choose if they feel like killing their baby... it is just an age thing...
All of this is a moral decline, and yes, as Americans that is the problem. We either hold our own to a high standard, or we are lawless.
Based on the amount of people that have no problem NOT paying their taxes (nice boat btw, why dock it out of state... Oh, to save hundreds of thousands in taxes... Ok...) or giving illegals all the rights and benefits that citizens have...
Where does it end?...
Have you heard that the administration is considering "forgiving" home loans for the portion that is underwater through freddy and fannie...
Yeah, so people that were irresponsible, we let them buy whatever, and keep it, since they used their house to pay for it... Then we forgive the "underwater" loan amount...
Guess I should have lived irresponsibly instead... As those are the people we "reward"... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:38am
|
ITT: Dune meets FE. Dune, might as well just ignore FE's posts and try to continue an intelligent debate. No matter how many references, you cite, no matter how many times FE is proven wrong, he will either: a) Ignore your post b) Change the topic c) pull out some right wing blog or opinion page and use it to back up his claim d) accuse you of personal attacks e) all of the above ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:40am
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:43am
|
Also, taking FE's bait once again... This doesn't set any kind of precedent that Nambla would be interested in. I don't know how many times we have to say this, but: Two. Consenting. Adults. There are 2 key words there, consenting, and adults. Seriously, the slippery slope argument has to be one of the lamest logical fallacies ever. Also, I know I've said this before, but no one is going to force any religious organization to perform gay marriages. That's up to the religious organizations to control. They are after all, a private organization subject to their own rules. Not all marriages occur in a religious context, you know. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:46am
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:48am
Not sure what you're saying here? Just about this entire forum is in favor of stricter enforcement of immigrations laws along with a full reform of the system. The government is in the wrong on this issue, that doesn't affect this at all.
I'm not understanding this one either. I'm no marriage expert, but aren't there laws on the legal age of marriage consent, unless parents give permission? NAMBLA is an organizationn of pedos. Again, there's no way to draw the line between them and a 35 year old who marries an 18 year old. Odd and doomed to fail? Sure. Between two consenting adults? Yuppers.
I'm bypassing the abortion argument / thread jack.
Moral decline? I refer you to my previous post. Moral decline started with straight couples, and is continued by straight couples. Homosexuals are an extreme minority-I think around 5 or 6 percent of the population? That means we're blaming 5% for the actions of the 95%. Face it-the majority leads the tide. Straight folks have been immoral since time began, and we just kind accept them. They cheat on their spouses, gamble, abuse their children, abandon their families, do drugs, alcohol, engage in profane sexual acts, everything you can lay on a gay man and more. But we accept it. I have engaged and am engaging in several of those acts myself. Yet when I get married, no one will picket my wedding. So why should I feign some kind of moral outrage that a guy wants to take it from another guy? Or marry him?
What impacts children and animals is different. That's obvious by CONSENT LAWS.
My point is that, even on a discussion of morals, homosexual marriage isn't going to change anything. Abortion is different issue. Those who don't support abortion view it as murder, that's a valid moral standpoint. Pedophilia? That's just universally accepted as wrong. But gay people marrying? They're going to be gay regardless, and their homoseuxality isn't making a negative impact on those around them. As long as they stay within the law, just as straight people do, they don't affect anyone.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:51am
|
http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/ - http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/lawsuit-finds-church-discriminated-against-lesbian-couple/
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070819/ministry-sues-to-bar-same-sex-marriage-in-church-facilities/index.html - http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070819/ministry-sues-to-bar-same-sex-marriage-in-church-facilities/index.html
If you think that there won't be people "forced" to allow gay marriages in their church... you are very much mistaken. We already have examples where Catholics have been forced to participate in Abortions or lose their jobs... Even though it is against their religion...
Your arguement doesn't hold water. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:56am
|
You have to be kidding. Do you even read what you post?
An actual church is not in question here, it's publicly-rentable beachfront property that happens to be owned by the church. No way in hell is there ever going to be a gay marriage in a Catholic church. There just isn't going to be one. No one is asking for that. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 11:59am
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:00pm
|
^exactly If you're going to get tax breaks from public property, you have no right to discriminate who can use it on such grounds as sexuality. Hence, the term PUBLIC. edit- It's complete crap if you think a church can get a tax write-off for providing the public with land to use, but then setting limitations on who can use it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:02pm
|
point proven...
If this passes, priests will be sued because of it... Unless they check their convictions at the door.
I already posted in this thread about the girl who was told she would be kicked out of college if she didn't "change her world view" to accept homosexuality.
So it happens now. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:03pm
|
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:06pm
|
a prist can still refuse to do the service, they just cant refuse to allow them to use the building...huge difference. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:07pm
|
Let's review. Gays have the ability to marry within the confines of exsisting law. In that if a homosexual wants to marry the opposite sex as provided for within established law he has the ability, so he has the 'civil right' to marry within extablished law. If a homosexual wants to marry outside of parameters of established law he does not have that as a 'civil right' within the legal confines of that society. Again the farmer and the goat arguement, where is the line. Hypothetical agruement, a Man wants to marry a mentally handicapped individual, that mentally handicapped individual makes the statement that he/she agrees to this marriage, if the society states that even though the mentally handicapped individual made the decesion based on consenting adult, the society will not let the marriage happen based on medical evidense, has that society abridged the civil rights of either party? -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:12pm
Your world view needs a good overhaul... It is conflicting with itself.
So you discriminate based on age, huh?... Because every member of nambla doesn't see the issue you see... as 'universally' accepted as wrong...
so that isn't "universally" is it?...
How is "gay" marriage going to help anything? they can have civil unions but marriage is a religous thing, Clearly. It is held in a church... with vows... before GOD...
Civil unions are the vehicle for people who go against the church...
But, nooo, they have to degrade "marriage" into their immoral ideal...
typical "tolerance" at work. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:12pm
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:15pm
|
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:16pm
im getting married, theres no church theres nothing about god even going to be mentioned. so how is it a religous thing? we arent going to go get civil unioned, we are going to get married, with a license and a name change.
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:17pm
I thought the whole point of prop 8 was to ban gay marriage...so....
How this relates to gay marriage is beyond me. As far as I'm concerned, what happens between 2 consenting adults (that are mentally fit to consent) is nobody's business as long as no one else's rights are being infringed upon. Shouldn't the government stay out of the bedroom? It baffles me to no end that conservatives, being the champions of "small government", want to regulate the private lives of citizens. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:28pm
|
So, lets look at some facts.
did we all evolve as described in evolution?...
I would guess, most on this board agree...
So, what is the difference between man, and animal?... A few trillion years of evolution... right?...
Does an athiest belive in God?... Nope... Then does an atheist believe in absolute authority?...
Nope, the athiest viewpoint is that everyone should be able to choose whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm someone else...
Right?...
So man is just an animal, (evolved of course) and marriage (a concept that comes from Adam and Eve in the Bible, which was introduced to us as an example from God... you know THE absolute authority...)
Then, from your perspective on life, if man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there’s no absolute authority, then marriage is whatever you want to define it to be—if you can get away with it in the culture you live in.
It could be two men, two women or one man and ten women; in fact, it doesn’t even have to be a man with another human—it could be a man with an animal.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:28pm
|
The moral equivialant, even though they are consenting there is an exsisting law that puts perameters on the 'marriage' between the two used as an example.
Benji you need to read the whole concept, Gays can marry the oposite sex as prescribed by law just like everone else, so no Civil Right is being violated. Homosexuality is aborant to the 'rules' of nature and with the natural need for a specis to reproduce. Within nature there are a few asexual organisms, and a few that will perform same sex acts, but within the natural world many specis that sees same sex 'mating' will usually seperate those 'offenders' from the pack. The ape family has been seen to kill 'offenders', baboons have no tolerance within thier communities for 'homosexuals' within thier society. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:30pm
|
Funny, I don't recall those who are complaining about the reversal of Prop 8 via judgement complaining one single bit when it was about the Chicago handgun ban. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember the opposite. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:32pm
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:32pm
So we're basing our laws off of baboons now? Also, as has been asked a dozen times before, if you are using the "They cannot have children" point as a reason to outlaw homosexuals getting married, then do you also support the disallowance of marriages of folks who are steril?
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:33pm
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:35pm
| lol at the animal references. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:35pm
|
The point here has been hijacked and diluted, probably on purpose as a debate tactic, so why not bring it back around: What is a justifiable reason to ban homosexual marriage other than "Ewww it's icky!" ? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:45pm
And what justification is there to allow it, if they still have all the benefits of marriage, besides "I want to say I'm married"? Is this whole debate essentially over the use of a word? Yes. Is it silly to fight over it? Yes. But both sides are doing it.
Cool... but, "and not a court based decision" -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:48pm
This is incorrect. It is about the legalized benefits of a legalized marriage, for one. This is the major point of all of it. Secondly, it is about the precedent that is set in California for other states who don't allow any benefits or any title at all for homosexuals wishing to be married, or be civilly unionized, or whatever. Lastly, it's about social equality. And, really, if the battle truly was over just a word - which, to be clear, it's not - why be so hardheaded as not to just let homosexuals be "married?" What is in it for you to keep them from using the word?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:55pm
|
No, make no mistake, it is most certainly over the use of the word.
If it was simply over the benefits, they'd be pushing for legal unions and the such that allow the benefits. Both sides are fighting over the word. I haven't seen a single "anti-gay marriage" person want to refuse the rights that go with marriage. It's not about "keeping homosexuals down", it IS truly about the word. Both sides. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 12:57pm
|
I really think this entire debate stems off religion and knee-jerk reactions. I think a huge part of the problem is that humans try to make rational decisions with an irrational mind. This has bigger implications than just the topic of gay marriage, obviously, but it's something that I've been thinking about lately. It seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles to human advancement is the human mind and it's concept of society.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:05pm
|
This subject is one where I diverge from my conservative roots and say that I agree with the dumping of proposition 8. Not too long ago, I was in the camp "The people have spoken, let it lie. Overturning it is to piss in the cheerios of the people of California and force them to eat it." Now though....that line doesn't make sense. It's something that probably shouldn't have been given to the constituents to decide in the first place. Why? Because of misinformation, widespread bigotry and undeniable ignorance on the subject. Seriously- you may have well have asked the people of Ca. to vote on the banning of ray guns as used in ping pong matches played by tree people of Zambizi. Whatever happened to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?" Seems to me that upholding Prop 8 would kicking 2/3 of those ideals square in the jimmies....why don't you just vote for shooting the gays as well, just to hold a full house? And to read that employers don't like the idea of paying for benefits of 'partners' incenses me to no frigging end. THAT is bigotry. Pure and uncut homophobic bull crap......In fact, its a little bit sexist too. If you're going to bible thump on this subject, do it quietly. It should be completely apparent by now that not everybody has the same set of beliefs that you do. If you want to play the 'holier than thou' card, shut up, go home, and do it, and silently gloat over the fact that when you die, you can say "HAHA" when the dreaded sodomites are cast to hell. .....or will you be looking up for being an intolerant hate monger? I'm confused. Either way. I was raised a Catholic. My belief system has evolved on one basic principal that all Christian sects teach: "Love thy neighbor" it doesn't say "Love him as long as he's a fan of vaginas" And the slippery slope argument? Shut up. Its as dumb as assuming that every homosexual you meet has nothing on his mind but knocking you over the head and pulling 'surprise buttseks' on you. Man up, Grow up, Shut up. Live and let live. You don't have to like the idea of two men or women getting married to each other, but at least stop trying to deny something as basic as 'happiness' to people just because you're not a fan of their private lives. /rant. ------------- ? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:05pm
That's simply incorrect. You're either being purposefully disingenuous or you're just keeping your eyes closed. All it takes is a look at the website for the front-running civil rights groups, The Human Rights Campaign, to see that you are false. https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=245 - Link.
Yes, homosexuals want to be able to use the term "marriage." I'm not saying that it isn't part of the goal. Then again, equality is part of the goal here, and equality of legally binding terms is included. However, seeing as there is no rights for homosexual domestic partners, it is a HUGE part of the fight. It's hard for me to find a legitimate civil rights group that ISN'T pushing for even just basic legalized "Civil partner" benefits, the term "Marriage" be damned. The benefits of a legally recognized union are the first priority. Terms like "marriage" are second place in the argument for those in support of homosexuals being considered equal. I cannot speak on behalf of those who wish to remain on the wrong side of history. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:11pm
|
Oh, and I know online petitions are usually seen as being kinda milquetoast, but that link goes to the Human Rights Campaign petition, for anyone interested in signing it. If you've ever seen the stickers on people's cars or other places with the plain blue box and yellow equal sign, that's them.
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:13pm
|
I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all, just civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution, and there is no God. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:15pm
|
Well said, Reb. Really wasn't expecting that from you, but that's really what separates you and other rational people that consider themselves to be conservatives from the people like FE. Rational people can see across party lines and realize that not all is as black and white as many of us like to believe. There is no good reason for a ban on gay marriage. I have yet to see one solid argument against it that makes any sense. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:18pm
It's a point worthy of clarification. Thanks Skillet. What the push for legalized homosexual "Marriage" is for, is for the state to recognize them as a legalized civil union so they can live their lives as a heterosexual person would: Having the same benefits for being in a civil union. As I was attempting to explain to Linus, the term "Marriage" is simply a nomer given to the activity through time and tradition. It's just a term. It has no legal binding or weight. Being allowed to legally partake in a civil union is what people are fighting for. Using the term "Marriage" is a far, distant second argument that will have to take place after the initial barriers of bigotry are down.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:23pm
|
You're telling me if I flipped a switch tomorrow and gave gay unions the same exact rights as a heterosexual marriage, but they just couldn't call it a marriage, they'd pack up and go and be happy? No, they wouldn't. It IS over the word. They use the guise of wanting the benefits (and I make no mistake in knowing that they DO want the benefits greatly), but this fight in particular is over the word "marriage". If they want the benefits, get the benefits. If I want an apple, I don't demand to be called a farmer.
In the simplest way possible, the prop. defined marriage as a heterosexual event. No comment whatsoever on benefits. THIS particular battle was over the word. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:26pm
|
I'm sure they'd be happy, but that isn't the point. What I want to ask you Linus, is, why does it matter what it's called? It's a word. Words are human inventions. Meanings and words change over time. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:27pm
And the same question can be thrown back at the other side: What does it matter what it's called? Like I stated before-- both sides are doing a silly fight over a word. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:29pm
It's almost like people somehow think calling it "marriage" somehow makes traditional heterosexual marriage less meaningful or something. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:33pm
The proposition uses the term "Marriage" in place of the civil union that allows for partner benefits. As do most Americans when using the term. Again, if you really think this is over the term, you're being willingly ignorant. Even so, let's say that it IS just over a word - to clarify, it's not - then what exactly is to prove by NOT allowing homosexuals to use the word?
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:36pm
It's a purposeful dilution of the argument. Linus probably knows that it's not about the use of a word - that it's about allowing a group of people to be legally considered equal with the rest of us, about allowing civil rights to progress, etc. At least I hope he does. If not, that's a sad showing of cognitive ability. But, if you frame the debate as being about just the word, you get to put it on a carousel.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:56pm
|
unspoken facts are still facts. Businesses have to look at their costs.
fact.
Part of hiring an employee is their cost of healthcare. So employing joe no family is a good investment... As the employer will not have to pay for healthcare for an entire family, and they can pay him more instead.
Once that is gone, joe no family (surprise I'm gay, now put my "dudespouse" on the healthcare roll, and add him as my beneficiary... ) WHILE paying me more... will cause outrage, when that has to go back in line with everyone else. (or will they just sue?)
and costs just went up significantly.
Is that politically correct to say?... Clearly not, but it does go through the heads of employers, just like they don't want to hire a woman that is 5 months pregnant... As she will be on leave and unavailable very soon... While you pay her to stay home.
it must be nice to just ignore the economics of every situation... No wonder liberals spend so much, as they never worry about the costs. Good thing the government doesn't have a stock symbol... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:58pm
game, set, match. really is there anymore argument needed after that? i think not.
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 1:59pm
|
So now a person's worth and access to civil liberties are dependent on how much of an economic burden they are? That is a seriously disturbing worldview... ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:00pm
|
So what is keeping any of your heterosexual employees from getting married just for benefits as well? |
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:02pm
| FE...im not sure how you hire ppl but you do realize you cant ask someone if A. They are married or not and B. of they are homosexual or not. that is agiast the fair hiring practices. so an emplyer wouldnt know who they were hiring and how much benifits they would have to pay. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:04pm
|
What really bothers me about FE's arguments is that they all pretty much boil down to either money, or religion. Like corporatism is some kind of morality for him. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: nickman98
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:05pm
|
God=money?? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:26pm
Actually, this is just as dumb as Prop 8. If prop 8 is denying people the right to happiness based on their sexuality, how is refusing to recognize someone's right to be happy based on their religious beliefs any better? ------------- ? |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:28pm
I've attempted to refute three previous posts with no response. Is that what we're supposed to do these days on the forum? Skip ahead and come up with something else if we're wrong?
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:35pm
|
In the UK I'm pretty sure gay men and women can get married although it is called a civil partnership. Once you get one of these you are for all intents and purposes married. You can claim benefits as a couple and all the rest of it. Because of this I don't think the word marriage is the issue. The poofs and lezzers seem fine with this set up and I don't hear much moaning about it from them. I understand certain religions not permitting gay marriage they have a right to put criteria and standards on their ceremonies. FE's example was ridiculous as you could have replaced the word gay with fat, ginger, tall, short, religious zealot, conservative windbag or anything else. Just because a person may "putt from the rough" does not / should not interfere with them entering into an agreement of partnership with anyone they please. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:46pm
No no no, you misunderstand. Marriage is a religious ceremony that symbolizes two peoples dedication to each other. That is fine and dandy, but the government shouldn't recognize religious practices, just civil unions for everyone. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:50pm
That's because 'party lines' are arbitrary and idiotic. 100% adherence to every single piece of a political (or even religious) ideology makes you one step above being fitted for a helmet and drool cup. Its just not possible without being thought a fool by anyone with more than two brain cells that can bounce off each other and create friction. On another note: I want to touch once more on this "slippery slope" crap. If gay marriage is a direct threat to the institution of marriage and should be banned because....what's next, robosexual marriage? If you ban it......what's next? deportation? incarceration? eradication? "If you legitimize gay marriage, where does it stop?" could quickly become "If you ban gay marriage, where does it stop?" The very idea that we as a people are so weak that our moral fibers would deteriorate and rot before our very eyes because we allow two people regardless of their gender- to get married, is a problem. In fact, its that line of thinking that makes us vulnerable. Not to terrorist attacks or anything like that...but it makes us vulnerable to decaying from the inside out. ------------- ? |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:53pm
Isn't that basicly how it works anyway. You have a priest/minister do all his jiggery pokery and then you sign a register and some legal shizz. So everyone really gets the same deal in the governments eyes all that changes is the guy who marry's you might be in a dress and talk to himself for a large portion of the day. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:54pm
No, I got it, but you'd be denying governmental recognition of a practice that people have a right to. Having a government recognize your rights is pretty significant- in fact I'd go so far as to say that its everything- or else we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. A religious ceremony is a right that people have. The government of this country recognizes it no matter what your creed. Denying recognition of it would probably have a bigger backlash than the gay marriage debate. ------------- ? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 2:55pm
The church owns the land, therfore it is not "public" it is the church's and they can do whatever they want with it. Including not allowing things to happen there. Regardless of their tax status, they OWN the land.
Under a traditional definition of marriage... A marriage is between a man and a woman as a commitment to God and family.
Just because you chose to invent your own version, of marriage, that the government accepts doesn't mean that it is the same definition as "marriage" in my world view...
if "to each his own" were truth you would understand, but this is about forcing others to accept lifestyles even if they completely contradict their religious ideals.
or in other words, redefining marriage to accept a morally relative ideology.
At some point there is a breaking point to redefining everything.
between abortion, and this issue... It ain't gonna be pretty.
I also wonder why you guys are ignoring this...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/ - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/
"A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.
The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/KeetonComplaint.pdf - civil complaint filed last week." In other words, as a Christian, she is not fit to be a counselor...
Tolerance for some = persecution for others.
another example.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/hope-college-gay-policy-c_n_569729.html - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/hope-college-gay-policy-c_n_569729.html
in other words, if you hold a Christian worldview... You are a bigot, homophobic and intolerant... As has been espoused towards me in this thread...
When in fact it is forcing immorality and the acceptance as "not" immoral that is the issue... And push from the left on this. They want acceptance as if this isn't a moral issue....
When it is.
Just like abortion.
One is wrong, and a sin, the other kills a child. Both are pushed by the left as A-OK.
And you will be attacked if you speak out against either... As has been shown here.
so much for tolerance, and freedom of religion... Unless that religion is secular humanism I guess. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:00pm
Erm.
edit- that's fine FE. In that case, however, they should not be liable for a tax break. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:00pm
I can't believe I just read that. If irony were rain, you'd have just drowned. ------------- ? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:03pm
|
why? That is what the left tells us daily...
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of that statement. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:04pm
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:07pm
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:10pm
|
It looked to me like you were MAKING that statement, unless I missed something. If I did- I'm sorry. but it seems to fit your points like a tailored suit. You say that you don't want to be forced to accept something that goes against your religious beliefs. That's fine- except you're not the only person to have a set of beliefs, nor are those that share your ideals the only people out there. You're talking about a country who prides itself on acceptance. Acceptance and tolerance is built right into the foundation that this country stands on. And yet- because you interpret something written in a book that was scribed by human hand one way- that tolerance should be shelved so that you can be cozy in your religious blanket. Where I stand, accepting people for who they are is a much more pure demonstration of Christian values than screaming in the face of those that don't think the same way I do. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 05 August 2010 at 3:10pm
|