Prop 8: 7 Million Say Yes, 1 Judge Says No

[bigmack]

Gay marriage in California voted down back in '08 in Proposition 8. Today a judge ruled:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. :rolleyes:

So what's the point in us voting if the final say goes to some Judge.

Oh, & what about this judge?

On 4 August, 2010, University of Notre Dame legal scholar Gerard V. Bradley criticized Walker, for refusing to recuse himself, citing a July 21, 2010 L.A. Times article observing that the openly gay Walker is often seen at social events in the company of a companion, a physician."If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California.

What a world!

[TJDave]

Oh, & what about this judge?


On 4 August, 2010, University of Notre Dame legal scholar Gerard V. Bradley criticized Walker, for refusing to recuse himself, citing a July 21, 2010 L.A. Times article observing that the openly gay Walker is often seen at social events in the company of a companion, a physician."If (as The Times suggests) Judge Walker is in a stable same-sex relationship, then he might wish or even expect to wed should same-sex marriage become legally available in California.



And wouldn't a married heterosexual judge also have a perceived bias?

Using your logic the only judge qualified to hear this case would be single...and asexual.

Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

And wouldn't a married heterosexual judge also have a perceived bias?

Using your logic the only judge qualified to hear this case would be single...and asexual.
I believe you have me confused with University of Notre Dame legal scholar Gerard V. Bradley. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Prop 8: 7 Million Say Yes, 1 Judge Says No
So what's the point in us voting if the final say goes to some Judge.
Here is the correct headline:
7 Million say yes; 6.4 million say no; 1 judge rules on the Constitutionality of the law.
This is not a popularity contest. The judges decision was based on his reading of the law and the Constitution. Don't be too sure the Supremes will reverse this decision or even agree to hear the case. There is a libertarian lean to the conservatives on the court and they may feel this is none of the governments business.

[TJDave]

I believe you have me confused with University of Notre Dame legal scholar Gerard V. Bradley.

So you don't agree with his assessment? ;)

[jballscalls]

as someone who is pro gay marriage, i am concerned that anything that gets voted down can just be turned into court and be overturned

[ArlJim78]

why is it always called gay marriage? it has always been about gender, there is no sexual orientation test for marriage. two hetero men are also not allowed to marry each other as it stands now.

once men are free to marry men, it will also mean that two hetero men can marry each other, as well as two straight women.

[bigmack]

So you don't agree with his assessment? ;)
After further review I do, not simply because he is a homosexual but because he's wacko. :cool:

Federal law requires that, whenever a judge knows that he has “any other interest [ that is, besides a financial interest] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” at hand, or when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, he must recuse himself.


Walker should have recused himself from the case not because he is gay but because his entire course of conduct demonstrates his manifest inability to be impartial in this matter.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/230960/judge-walker-s-anti-prop-8-sham-trial/ed-whelan

[TJDave]

After further review I do, not simply because he is a homosexual but because he's wacko. :cool:


Then I wasn't confused. ;)

[mostpost]

why is it always called gay marriage? it has always been about gender, there is no sexual orientation test for marriage. two hetero men are also not allowed to marry each other as it stands now.

once men are free to marry men, it will also mean that two hetero men can marry each other, as well as two straight women.
You're messin' with us, right? What, in your bizarro world view, would be the motivation for two hetero men to marry each other? People marry because they feel an emotional/romantic attachment. Part of that emotional/romantic attachment involves sexual activity. What hetero man wants sexual activity with another man? Not this one.

[bigmack]

Then I wasn't confused. ;)
Sure you were, you presumed to know my logic. :p
What hetero man wants sexual activity with another man? Not this one.
Technically those that engage in homo-activity are 3 times more likely to be Dem. Just sayin'...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_4_10_16_35_59.jpg

[Mike at A+]

Sure you were, you presumed to know my logic. :p

Technically those that engage in homo-activity are 3 times more likely to be Dem. Just sayin'...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_4_10_16_35_59.jpg
No wonder Dems want to import all these illegal aliens and allow them to vote. If you extrapolate this chart through the Obama presidency there will be more gay male Democrats and procreation among Democrats will decrease. Note how the Bush years yielded a much smaller increase in gay Dems and gay Republicans actually declined. But then again, maybe I'm reading too much into this.

[newtothegame]

You're messin' with us, right? What, in your bizarro world view, would be the motivation for two hetero men to marry each other? People marry because they feel an emotional/romantic attachment. Part of that emotional/romantic attachment involves sexual activity. What hetero man wants sexual activity with another man? Not this one.

There are many incentives for TWO people to get married (whether hetero or not)...try looking at tax incentives :bang:

[jballscalls]

:1a: There are many incentives for TWO people to get married (whether hetero or not)...try looking at tax incentives :bang:

it's also nice to have full visitation rights in a hospital if your partner is injured. unfortunately, my aunt (who is lesbian) wasn't allowed in at certain times to be with her girlfriend of 9 years, when a husband would have been.

that sucked

[TJDave]

Technically those that engage in homo-activity are 3 times more likely to be Dem. Just sayin'...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_4_10_16_35_59.jpg

Maybe among those who honestly answered the question. :lol:

I've heard there are a bunch of closet queers in the Republican party. Maybe we could get Shepard Smith to investigate.

So to speak. ;)

[bigmack]

I've heard there are a bunch of closet queers in the Republican party. Maybe we could get Shepard Smith to investigate.
I heard only gays are allowed to use the colloquial 'queer' :rolleyes:

Do tell the skinny on S2 - From the HBO show Outrage? How censorious of you.

[mostpost]

There are many incentives for TWO people to get married (whether hetero or not)...try looking at tax incentives :bang:
Did you get married because of the tax incentives? Sometimes I am astounded by the things you guys come up with. Who would marry a person of the same sex in order to get a tax break? Who would do so knowing that thereby they would be abdicating the right to marry a person they loved. A person of the opposite sex.
Total nonsense.

[Mike at A+]

Here is the correct headline:
7 Million say yes; 6.4 million say no; 1 judge rules on the Constitutionality of the law.
Hey if that's the criteria I'm sure we can find a judge to overturn the 2008 presidential election and send this bum back to Chicago.

[GaryG]

I can't wait to see the stock footage of homosexuals kissing on the courthouse steps that get shown every time there is a "gay" victory in court.

[cj's dad]

Did you get married because of the tax incentives? Sometimes I am astounded by the things you guys come up with. Who would marry a person of the same sex in order to get a tax break? Who would do so knowing that thereby they would be abdicating the right to marry a person they loved. A person of the opposite sex.
Total nonsense.

What guy would marry or copulate with another guy so that he can put his d--- up his partners a-- ???

Perverted ?? Yes, in a big way !! Natural ?? I think not. Animals of the same sex, in the wild or in a domesticated environment do not attempt to procreate with one another. What do animals know that the human species cannot comprehend ??

[TJDave]

I heard only gays are allowed to use the colloquial 'queer' :rolleyes:

Homosexuals don't own the word 'queer'. Besides, the word has different meanings. For instance, I consider the existence of Republican homosexuals as very queer. :lol:


Do tell the skinny on S2 - From the HBO show Outrage? How censorious of you.

Why don't you ask him? Being the ethical journalist I'm sure he'd answer honestly. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Homosexuals don't own the word 'queer'.
Sure they do. Just like the rainbow logo. Would you go up to a gay person and call them queer? However, as they have scads of Queer Nation affiliates throughout the land they can use it and you can't. Just like rappers and the N-word.

Why don't you ask him? Being the ethical journalist I'm sure he'd answer honestly. :rolleyes:
My you're coy. Being you brought him up as potentially being gay and now insinuating he is not an ethical journalist can you provide any backing to your barking?
2

[TrifectaMike]

You're messin' with us, right? What, in your bizarro world view, would be the motivation for two hetero men to marry each other? People marry because they feel an emotional/romantic attachment. Part of that emotional/romantic attachment involves sexual activity. What hetero man wants sexual activity with another man? Not this one.

Two mob guys can marry to avoid testifying in court against their spouse.

Mike

[ArlJim78]

You're messin' with us, right? What, in your bizarro world view, would be the motivation for two hetero men to marry each other? People marry because they feel an emotional/romantic attachment. Part of that emotional/romantic attachment involves sexual activity. What hetero man wants sexual activity with another man? Not this one.
Where is the requirement that marriages must involve romantic attachment or sexual activity with each other? when you go get your license not much more is required other than having one man and one woman. My point is that its about gender, not your storybook idea of what a marriage should be. If marriage becomes open to same gender, you can't simply assume that the only same gender marriages will be gay couples.

[Tom]

Hey if that's the criteria I'm sure we can find a judge to overturn the 2008 presidential election and send this bum back to Chicago.

Should read:

[Light]

Natural ?? I think not. Animals of the same sex, in the wild or in a domesticated environment do not attempt to procreate with one another. What do animals know that the human species cannot comprehend ??
From article

sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.



http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/




Or you can check this partial list from animals displaying homosexual behavior:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


Selected mammals from the full list:

* African Elephant[16]
* Brown Bear[17]
* Brown Rat[18]
* Buffalo[19]



* Caribou[20]
* Cat (domestic)[21]
* Cheetah[22]
* Common Dolphin[23]



* Common Marmoset[24]
* Common Raccoon[25]
* Dog (domestic)[26]
* European Bison[27]
* Human
* Prea[28]

[edit] Birds
Main article: List of birds displaying homosexual behavior

Selected birds from the full list:

* Chicken (Domestic)[29]
* Common Gull[30]



* Emu[31]
* King Penguin[32]

[edit] Fish
Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) leaping for a fly fisherman's bait. Research going back to the 1950s has shown both male and female Graylings exhibit homosexual behavior.[33]

* Amazon molly[34]
* Blackstripe topminnow[35]
* Bluegill Sunfish[35]
* Char[36]
* Grayling[36]
* European Bitterling[37]
* Green swordtail[37]
* Guiana leaffish[38]
* Houting Whitefish[36]
* Jewel Fish[39]
* Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[40]
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[35]
* Salmon spp.[41]
* Southern platyfish[40]
* Ten-spined stickleback[40]
* Three-spined stickleback[40]
* Reef Triggerfish[42]


[edit] Reptiles

* Anole sp.[43]
* Bearded Dragon[44]
* Broad-headed Skink[40]
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Common Ameiva[44]
* Common Garter Snake[40]
* Cuban Green Anole[45]
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Desert Tortoise[46]
* Fence Lizard[44]
* Five-lined Skink[40]
* Gopher (Pine) Snake[35]
* Green Anole[45]
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard[44]



* Jamaican Giant Anole[45]
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Largehead Anole[45]
* Mourning Gecko[47]
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake[37]
* Red-tailed Skink[40]
* Side-blotched Lizard[44]
* Speckled Rattlesnake[37]
* Water Moccasin[37]
* Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[37]
* Western Banded Gecko[47]
* Whiptail Lizard spp.[44]
* Wood Turtle[43]

[edit] Amphibians

* Appalachian Woodland Salamander[48]
* Black-spotted Frog[49]
* Mountain Dusky Salamander[48]
* Tengger Desert Toad[43]

[edit] Insects and other invertebrates

* Acanthocephalan Worms[50]
* Alfalfa Weevil[51]
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[51]
* Bean weevil sp.[51]
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.[52][53]
* Blister Beetle spp.[54]
* Blood-flukes (Schistosoma)[55]
* Blowfly[54]
* Box Crab[56]
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[57]
* Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[58]
* Checkerspot Butterfly[58]
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Cockroach spp.[60]
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Creeping Water Bug sp.[61]
* Cutworm[62]
* Digger Bee[63]
* Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon (wasp)[64]
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[61]
* Field cricket sp.[65]
* Flour beetle[66]
* Fruit Fly spp.[67]
* Glasswing Butterfly[58]
* Grape Berry Moth[68]
* Grape Borer[61]
* Green Lacewing[69]



* Harvest Spider sp.[70]
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[70]
* Hen Flea[69]
* House Fly[71]
* Ichneumon wasp sp.[64]
* Incirrate Octopus spp.[56]
* Japanese Scarab Beetle[72]
* Jumping spider sp.[70]
* Larch Bud Moth[68]
* Large Milkweed Bug[53]
* Large White (Pieris brassicae)[53]
* Long-legged Fly spp.[73]
* Mazarine Blue[53]
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly[67]
* Mexican White[53]
* Midge sp.[73]
* Migratory locust[74]
* Mite sp.[73]
* Monarch Butterfly[58]
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[57]
* Parsnip Leaf Miner[73]
* Pomace fly[73]
* Queen Butterfly[58]
* Red Ant sp.[73]
* Red Flour Beetle[53]
* Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)[73]
* Rose Chafer[73]
* Rove Beetle spp.[53]


Male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in gay sex to practice mating as well as rid themselves of "old, less effective" sperm.[66]


* Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[75]
* Screwworm Fly[73]
* Silkworm Moth[68]
* Sociable Weaver[73]
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee[63]
* Southern Green Stink Bug[53]
* Southern Masked Chafer[73]
* Southern One-Year Canegrub[73]
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[57]
* Spruce Budworm Moth[68]
* Stable Fly sp.[73]
* Stag Beetle spp.[53]
* Tsetse Fly[73]
* Water Boatman Bug[53]
* Water Strider spp.[53]

[TitanSooner]

From article

sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.



http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/




Or you can check this partial list from animals displaying homosexual behavior:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


Selected mammals from the full list:

* African Elephant[16]
* Brown Bear[17]
* Brown Rat[18]
* Buffalo[19]



* Caribou[20]
* Cat (domestic)[21]
* Cheetah[22]
* Common Dolphin[23]



* Common Marmoset[24]
* Common Raccoon[25]
* Dog (domestic)[26]
* European Bison[27]
* Human
* Prea[28]

[edit] Birds
Main article: List of birds displaying homosexual behavior

Selected birds from the full list:

* Chicken (Domestic)[29]
* Common Gull[30]



* Emu[31]
* King Penguin[32]

[edit] Fish
Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) leaping for a fly fisherman's bait. Research going back to the 1950s has shown both male and female Graylings exhibit homosexual behavior.[33]

* Amazon molly[34]
* Blackstripe topminnow[35]
* Bluegill Sunfish[35]
* Char[36]
* Grayling[36]
* European Bitterling[37]
* Green swordtail[37]
* Guiana leaffish[38]
* Houting Whitefish[36]
* Jewel Fish[39]
* Least Darter (Microperca punctulata)[40]
* Mouthbreeding Fish sp.[35]
* Salmon spp.[41]
* Southern platyfish[40]
* Ten-spined stickleback[40]
* Three-spined stickleback[40]
* Reef Triggerfish[42]


[edit] Reptiles

* Anole sp.[43]
* Bearded Dragon[44]
* Broad-headed Skink[40]
* Checkered Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Common Ameiva[44]
* Common Garter Snake[40]
* Cuban Green Anole[45]
* Desert Grassland Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Desert Tortoise[46]
* Fence Lizard[44]
* Five-lined Skink[40]
* Gopher (Pine) Snake[35]
* Green Anole[45]
* Inagua Curlytail Lizard[44]



* Jamaican Giant Anole[45]
* Laredo Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Largehead Anole[45]
* Mourning Gecko[47]
* Plateau Striped Whiptail Lizard[44]
* Red Diamond Rattlesnake[37]
* Red-tailed Skink[40]
* Side-blotched Lizard[44]
* Speckled Rattlesnake[37]
* Water Moccasin[37]
* Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)[37]
* Western Banded Gecko[47]
* Whiptail Lizard spp.[44]
* Wood Turtle[43]

[edit] Amphibians

* Appalachian Woodland Salamander[48]
* Black-spotted Frog[49]
* Mountain Dusky Salamander[48]
* Tengger Desert Toad[43]

[edit] Insects and other invertebrates

* Acanthocephalan Worms[50]
* Alfalfa Weevil[51]
* Australian Parasitic Wasp sp.[51]
* Bean weevil sp.[51]
* Bedbug and other Bug spp.[52][53]
* Blister Beetle spp.[54]
* Blood-flukes (Schistosoma)[55]
* Blowfly[54]
* Box Crab[56]
* Broadwinged Damselfly sp.[57]
* Cabbage (Small) White (Butterfly)[58]
* Checkerspot Butterfly[58]
* Clubtail Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Cockroach spp.[60]
* Common Skimmer Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Creeping Water Bug sp.[61]
* Cutworm[62]
* Digger Bee[63]
* Dragonfly spp.[59]
* Eastern Giant Ichneumon (wasp)[64]
* Eucalyptus Longhorned Borer[61]
* Field cricket sp.[65]
* Flour beetle[66]
* Fruit Fly spp.[67]
* Glasswing Butterfly[58]
* Grape Berry Moth[68]
* Grape Borer[61]
* Green Lacewing[69]



* Harvest Spider sp.[70]
* Hawaiian Orb-Weaver (spider)[70]
* Hen Flea[69]
* House Fly[71]
* Ichneumon wasp sp.[64]
* Incirrate Octopus spp.[56]
* Japanese Scarab Beetle[72]
* Jumping spider sp.[70]
* Larch Bud Moth[68]
* Large Milkweed Bug[53]
* Large White (Pieris brassicae)[53]
* Long-legged Fly spp.[73]
* Mazarine Blue[53]
* Mediterranean Fruit Fly[67]
* Mexican White[53]
* Midge sp.[73]
* Migratory locust[74]
* Mite sp.[73]
* Monarch Butterfly[58]
* Narrow-winged Damselfly spp.[57]
* Parsnip Leaf Miner[73]
* Pomace fly[73]
* Queen Butterfly[58]
* Red Ant sp.[73]
* Red Flour Beetle[53]
* Reindeer Warble Fly (Hypoderma tarandi)[73]
* Rose Chafer[73]
* Rove Beetle spp.[53]


Male flour beetles are believed by scientists to engage in gay sex to practice mating as well as rid themselves of "old, less effective" sperm.[66]


* Scarab Beetle (Melolonthine)[75]
* Screwworm Fly[73]
* Silkworm Moth[68]
* Sociable Weaver[73]
* Southeastern Blueberry Bee[63]
* Southern Green Stink Bug[53]
* Southern Masked Chafer[73]
* Southern One-Year Canegrub[73]
* Spreadwinged Damselfly spp.[57]
* Spruce Budworm Moth[68]
* Stable Fly sp.[73]
* Stag Beetle spp.[53]
* Tsetse Fly[73]
* Water Boatman Bug[53]
* Water Strider spp.[53]
That's gay

[bigmack]

their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,”
Nice work, that was fascinatin'. :ThmbUp:

I've heard earthworms have orgies as well, any comment or reports on those? :D

Certainly in the running for L7Lib post of the month alongside '1 in 11.4' submitted by mostogusto.

[kenwoodall2]

Thanks!

[TJDave]

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called “homosexual societies.” They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males “effeminate.”

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in “penis fencing,” which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.


I could have lived the rest of my life not knowing these things...

But, noooo :rolleyes:

[TJDave]

My you're coy

You do know that 'coy' is a gay word, right? ;)

[JustRalph]

I will never look at a Pomace fly the same again

[bigmack]

You do know that 'coy' is a gay word, right? ;)
Why sure. I didn't want to use queer as you have a market on it, so I called you coy instead. :D

Tell us more of S2. You remember, bite/bark?

[GaryG]

They will not be walking down the aisle just yet. An appeal has the ruling in abeyance and it will likely end up in the SCOTUS. The Calif voters will prevail even with that new lesbo justice.

[delayjf]

sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species

So is a dog humping some man's leg natures way of endorsing bestiality?

[BlueShoe]

I can't wait to see the stock footage of homosexuals kissing on the courthouse steps that get shown every time there is a "gay" victory in court.
Just as bad are shots of smirking perverts going through a "marriage" ceremony. Here in California we get it shoved in our faces by the media. Now we are about to get much more of it soon. This thing is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the outcome is uncertain.

[Tom]

So, POTUS takes his TOTUS to the SCOTUS.
mmm mmm mmm

[BlueShoe]

Hey if that's the criteria I'm sure we can find a judge to overturn the 2008 presidential election and send this bum back to Chicago.
:jump: :jump: :jump: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Gay marriage in California voted down back in '08 in Proposition 8.

!

The Judge interpreted Proposition 8 as "Unconstitutional."

Surely there are enough legal beagles in Sacramento's legislature that
can rewrite an "air tight" Proposition that will be constitutional and accomplish the same purpose of no Gay Marriage.

Oh and this time call it Proposition 69. ;)

[slewis]

Where is the requirement that marriages must involve romantic attachment or sexual activity with each other? when you go get your license not much more is required other than having one man and one woman. My point is that its about gender, not your storybook idea of what a marriage should be. If marriage becomes open to same gender, you can't simply assume that the only same gender marriages will be gay couples.

In your usual quest to have a go at Mosty......as usual, you fall flat on your face.

Although there is no particular requirements that marriages involve romance and sexual activity, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPLIED.

If you dont believe that, go look up case law in divorce cases in virtually every state in the union.

Try having your defense attorney tell the court that one is not reasonably expected to engage in such activity in a marriage because it's not officially written in a marriage license,and ask the judge not to grant a divorce on that basis and see if you dont lose the case.

Not only is Mosty's "storybook" idea not "storybook" at all, it is actually implied as reasonable and expected behaviour in our society.

As far as your suggestion (and NEWTOTHEGAME's as well:lol: ) that not only "gay" couples might engage in same sex marriage for reasons other than what marriage is supposed to stand for.....I'll remind both of you that this happens with heterosexual couples (marrying for a green card, citizenship, etc) and is often investigated with action taken by authorities.
But realistically, the numbers would be so small that you cant use it as an arguement against same sex marriages.

And just to set the record straight...I am 1000% against same sex marriage..but yours and Newby's arguements against are absurd.

[jballscalls]

my favorite line is when folks will say "we must keep the sanctity of marriage"

1) half of marriages dissolve anyways, most people dont value the sanctity of the institution.

2) how does two dudes getting married affect your marriage? oh yeah it doesnt

[boxcar]

my favorite line is when folks will say "we must keep the sanctity of marriage"

1) half of marriages dissolve anyways, most people dont value the sanctity of the institution.

2) how does two dudes getting married affect your marriage? oh yeah it doesnt

You suffer from mental myopia. It does affect the moral fabric of a society. So much so, that two "societies" were wiped out in the O.T. in judgment. You might remember them? They were called Sodom and Gomorrah.

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

You suffer from mental myopia. It does affect the moral fabric of a society. So much so, that two "societies" were wiped out in the O.T. in judgment. You might remember them? They were called Sodom and Gomorrah.

Boxcar

OT? overtime? oh nevermind:rolleyes:

[newtothegame]

Did you get married because of the tax incentives? Sometimes I am astounded by the things you guys come up with. Who would marry a person of the same sex in order to get a tax break? Who would do so knowing that thereby they would be abdicating the right to marry a person they loved. A person of the opposite sex.
Total nonsense.

Actually it is very far from non sense oh mosty-less.....
When I got Married, First and foremost it was about the love we had for each other. But please do NOT assume that taxes were not also discussed as the disucussions progressed towards marriage.

[newtothegame]

In your usual quest to have a go at Mosty......as usual, you fall flat on your face.

Although there is no particular requirements that marriages involve romance and sexual activity, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPLIED.

If you dont believe that, go look up case law in divorce cases in virtually every state in the union.

Try having your defense attorney tell the court that one is not reasonably expected to engage in such activity in a marriage because it's not officially written in a marriage license,and ask the judge not to grant a divorce on that basis and see if you dont lose the case.

Not only is Mosty's "storybook" idea not "storybook" at all, it is actually implied as reasonable and expected behaviour in our society.

As far as your suggestion (and NEWTOTHEGAME's as well:lol: ) that not only "gay" couples might engage in same sex marriage for reasons other than what marriage is supposed to stand for.....I'll remind both of you that this happens with heterosexual couples (marrying for a green card, citizenship, etc) and is often investigated with action taken by authorities.
But realistically, the numbers would be so small that you cant use it as an arguement against same sex marriages.

And just to set the record straight...I am 1000% against same sex marriage..but yours and Newby's arguements against are absurd.

Check this mosty's cheerleader....my arguements are very sound. Tax ramifications are a part of most people's discussions. I never once said it was the SOLE reason. I said it is a factor. And if you think not, then obviously, one of us here is truly blind.

As for the investigations you mentioned, do you know how hard it is to prove a persons intent and thought process as to why they got married??? Now you want to tallk about absurd...well there ya have it!

If taxes were not meant to be a part of the discussions, then why does YOUR government make different tax laws for those that are married???

:lol:

[Greyfox]

my favorite line is when folks will say "we must keep the sanctity of marriage"



Marriage? For most of us it's a once in a lifetime commitment.
For whatever reason, that bond seems harder to maintain for many as the electronic age advances.
For me marriage is between a male and a female.

Gays? That's their business, as long as they don't approach me with offers.
The stats on gays and sex are enlightening.
Both men and women usually have far more partners than heterosexuals.
It is not unusual for gay men to have between 100 to 500 or more partners.
Lesbian relationships generally are more lasting.

Personally, I believe that some gays form meaningful and lasting relationships
that go on for decades.
They may live together, purchase homes, and common goods.
They need some type of protection that married couples have with respect to death and inheritances.
That protection could come in the form of "A Civil Union" legislation.
But don't violate what we accept as "Marriage."
Marriage should be between a man and woman.

[GaryG]

Oh and this time call it Proposition 69. ;) You da Fox!! That one caused me to snort coffee out of my nose....

[PhantomOnTour]

What guy would marry or copulate with another guy so that he can put his d--- up his partners a-- ???

Perverted ?? Yes, in a big way !! Natural ?? I think not. Animals of the same sex, in the wild or in a domesticated environment do not attempt to procreate with one another. What do animals know that the human species cannot comprehend ??
Since when was sex all about procreation? Show me someone who says they want a baby to be the result of every sexual encounter they have and I will show you a deluded liar.
The bottom line here is that some folks cannot get the sexual image (and how they do it) out of their heads. Ooooooooh, anal sex...nasty. Men and women engage in anal sex together all the time. Seems the way gay women have sex doesn't disgust folks the same way gay male sex does.
As an owner/manager in the restaurant industry (and working in New Orleans for 6yrs) I have been exposed to gay people a lot. They cry and hurt, laugh and celebrate, have bills and mortgages, deadlines and pressures...just like the rest of us. Get over the fact that their acts of pleasure/sex disgust you. They are real people at the end of the day.

However, there are two big stereotypes that follow gay men, and I can't say they aren't deserved. Those would be promiscuity and drug use. I work in the service industry where those two (lotsa sex and drugs) are abundant, so my window into the gay world is limited to service workers.

So what's my take on gay marriage? I think it should be legal.
To those opposed to homosexuality I ask: what would be your response to a family member or someone very close to you revealing that they are gay?

[Greyfox]

You da Fox!! That one caused me to snort coffee out of my nose....

Well if Proposition 69 gets the "bums rush," they could try Proposition 88.
They're the same and they both "8." (He ate, he ate or She ate, She ate.)

[bigmack]

So what's my take on gay marriage? I think it should be legal.
Getting back to the point of the thread, it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter how you vote. A judge or judges will decide for us. We're out of the loop on this.

Then again, what's the count now on states that have all voted down GMarriage, 34-35? How odd.

[boxcar]

OT? overtime? oh nevermind:rolleyes:

You'll figure it all out someday -- perhaps too late. But how does it go: "Better late than never"? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

my favorite line is when folks will say "we must keep the sanctity of marriage"



Want to protect the "sanctity" of your marriage?

Simple. Have the ceremony officiated by a member of the clergy.

There is no law requiring any religious institution to sanctify gay marriage.

[boxcar]

Want to protect the "sanctity" of your marriage?

Simple. Have the ceremony officiated by a member of the clergy.

There is no law requiring any religious institution to sanctify gay marriage.

Wrong! Divine Law (decree) does! It should go without saying, of course, that the godless don't recognize this.

Boxcar

[PhantomOnTour]

Wrong! Divine Law (decree) does! It should go without saying, of course, that the godless don't recognize this.

Boxcar
Divine law and courtrooms don't mix; nor should they.

[TJDave]

OT? overtime?

Old Testament.

There's nothing 'old' about it. Millions believe the Hebrew Testament to be the sole source of their inspiration and of G-d's authority...and consider the term pejorative.

[TJDave]

Wrong! Divine Law (decree) does! It should go without saying, of course, that the godless don't recognize this.

Boxcar

Jesus understood the separation of church and state.

Apparently, some here don't. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

And just to set the record straight...I am 1000% against same sex marriage..but yours and Newby's arguements against are absurd.

so you admit you just stuck your nose into this thread just to start or participate in an argument ............interesting........par for the course

[Light]

A judge or judges will decide for us. We're out of the loop on this.


This judge was appointed by Reagan in 1987 and reappointed by Bush in 1989. Don't blame the libs.

For those that say that marriage based on the Bible is between a man and a woman,you should consider the hypocracy of those priests who enforce this illusion while masturbating and sodomizing with little boys.

[BlueShoe]

2) how does two dudes getting married affect your marriage? oh yeah it doesnt
In the pocketbook, something that seems to be forgotten. Set aside, briefly for now, the moral, social, and religious implications of this issue and think about money. Depending on whose numbers are used, gays have a life expectancy estimated to be 8-12 years less than straights due to their lifestyle, and are far more likely to have a number of health issues that require medical treatment. If gays marry, they will insure their "wife" or "husband", both for life and health care. Think your premiums are high now? Just wait for Obamacare and insuring gay spouses. Next, you think the divorce rate is high now? Just wait until the gays flood the courts with divorce petitions. Since in virtually all gay couples either one or both partners are unfaithful, stand by for the influx of gay spouses wanting a divorce charging adultery. Court costs going up, paid for by the taxpayer. Want a cant miss get wealthy occupation? Be a divorce lawyer specializing in gay couples. Sorry, but I prefer to keep things the way they are, the way things have always been in every civilization in history.

[TJDave]

Depending on whose numbers are used, gays have a life expectancy estimated to be 8-12 years less than straights due to their lifestyle,... Since in virtually all gay couples either one or both partners are unfaithful...

Typically, does marriage promote more, or less promiscuity?

[jballscalls]

In the pocketbook, something that seems to be forgotten. Set aside, briefly for now, the moral, social, and religious implications of this issue and think about money. Depending on whose numbers are used, gays have a life expectancy estimated to be 8-12 years less than straights due to their lifestyle, and are far more likely to have a number of health issues that require medical treatment. If gays marry, they will insure their "wife" or "husband", both for life and health care. Think your premiums are high now? Just wait for Obamacare and insuring gay spouses. Next, you think the divorce rate is high now? Just wait until the gays flood the courts with divorce petitions. Since in virtually all gay couples either one or both partners are unfaithful, stand by for the influx of gay spouses wanting a divorce charging adultery. Court costs going up, paid for by the taxpayer. Want a cant miss get wealthy occupation? Be a divorce lawyer specializing in gay couples. Sorry, but I prefer to keep things the way they are, the way things have always been in every civilization in history.

i'm sure gay marriages will result in probably the same amount of divorces, a little over 50%

your acting as though all gay couples are going to go get married just because they can.

and i'm glad gay spouses will be able to have insurance to cover their spouses, that is a good thing. people having insurance is a good thing

[Tom]

For those that say that marriage based on the Bible is between a man and a woman,you should consider the hypocracy of those priests who enforce this illusion while masturbating and sodomizing with little boys.

Nonsense. Name me one person who accepts this criminal behavior. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. Do we blame God for the actions of his priests? The failings of one group is no lcense for abandoning the rest of the religious beliefs.

Should ALL muslims abandon peaceful living because a few hypocrites knocked down our towers?

[mostpost]

Check this mosty's cheerleader....my arguements are very sound. Tax ramifications are a part of most people's discussions. I never once said it was the SOLE reason. I said it is a factor. And if you think not, then obviously, one of us here is truly blind.

As for the investigations you mentioned, do you know how hard it is to prove a persons intent and thought process as to why they got married??? Now you want to tallk about absurd...well there ya have it!

If taxes were not meant to be a part of the discussions, then why does YOUR government make different tax laws for those that are married???

:lol:
People who are getting married would be foolish if they did not discuss finances, including taxes. But that is not the reason they get married. And if it is, I would not bet on that marriage lasting.
Your argument that two hetero men or two hetero women would marry just to save a few percentage points on taxes, is the argument of someone who is obsessed with taxes. Which, come to think of it, is what you Republicans are.

[toetoe]

One of the geniuses from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Perverts, or some darn group, effused:

"It's a major victor for L.G.B.T."

Now, am I to believe that a bisexual is capable of anything above bigamy ? And the T. --- are they telling me a tranny goes from male to female ... to be able to marry a female ?



And speaking of bigamy, shouldn't that be legal right about now ?

Well, I'm sure the "winners" are performing victory laps all around. How sweet it must be. :rolleyes: .

[mostpost]

As for the investigations you mentioned, do you know how hard it is to prove a persons intent and thought process as to why they got married??? Now you want to tallk about absurd...well there ya have it!You don't have to prove intent. You have to prove actions. If a person marries another person, it can be expected that they will have sexual relations. If either one fails to fulfill that expectation the other person has the right to seek a divorce or an anullment. In the Catholic Church, failure to consumate the marriage is a very strong grounds for anullment. It is not necesary to prove that the person came into the marriage with a mental reservation against engaging in sexual activity. The fact that the marriage was not consumated is prime facie evidence of that.

[boxcar]

Divine law and courtrooms don't mix; nor should they.

This is precisely why this godless world is in such chaos and confusion. MAN is big enough, bold enough, smart enough and arrogant enough to make it on his own -- except when it comes to the plebes of the world.

Moreover, moral issues should not be decided by unrighteous, godless judges. How is it fair that one judge can overrule what --- 7,000 million voters' decision on the matter? Any moron can call anything he wants "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" to suit his political agenda. Moral issues should be decided by the people and by the people's elected representatives -- not by appointed judges.

Boxcar

[PhantomOnTour]

This is precisely why this godless world is in such chaos and confusion. MAN is big enough, bold enough, smart enough and arrogant enough to make it on his own -- except when it comes to the plebes of the world.

Moreover, moral issues should not be decided by unrighteous, godless judges. How is it fair that one judge can overrule what --- 7,000 million voters' decision on the matter? Any moron can call anything he wants "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" to suit his political agenda. Moral issues should be decided by the people and by the people's elected representatives -- not by appointed judges.

Boxcar
Perhaps you would prefer a country where church is state...? Say, Iran maybe? That is what you get when church runs state.

And how much exactly is seven thousand million (7,000 million)???

[johnhannibalsmith]

... people having insurance is a good thing

There may never be a statement that I will ever agree with less than this one.

[newtothegame]

People who are getting married would be foolish if they did not discuss finances, including taxes. But that is not the reason they get married. And if it is, I would not bet on that marriage lasting.
Your argument that two hetero men or two hetero women would marry just to save a few percentage points on taxes, is the argument of someone who is obsessed with taxes. Which, come to think of it, is what you Republicans are.

Whats the marriage / divorce rate again???? answer their own question everytime :lol:

[jballscalls]

There may never be a statement that I will ever agree with less than this one.

you'd rather see people uninsured and unable to find affordable care? please explain

[letswastemoney]

Why the F*** does it matter so much to people if gays want to get married or not??

If they want to get married, let them! They don't affect anyone's lives. Churches stay the same, as gays will have to be married through the government. No one's forcing you to be gay.

Even if you didn't agree that public schools teach gay marriage as okay, put your kid in a Christian school then.

I just don't see why people who think gay marriage is wrong are WASTING all this money and effort trying to prevent gay marriage when it doesn't affect their lives.

[letswastemoney]

This is precisely why this godless world is in such chaos and confusion. MAN is big enough, bold enough, smart enough and arrogant enough to make it on his own -- except when it comes to the plebes of the world.

Moreover, moral issues should not be decided by unrighteous, godless judges. How is it fair that one judge can overrule what --- 7,000 million voters' decision on the matter? Any moron can call anything he wants "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" to suit his political agenda. Moral issues should be decided by the people and by the people's elected representatives -- not by appointed judges.

Boxcar
Why even keep the Constitution or Bill of Rights by that logic? Those documents are there to protect people.

Not everyone believes in God, so you shouldn't enforce God's will on people that don't believe.

In this case, letting gays marry would affect absolutely no one, so why enforce God's will on them? Let God decide what to do when the time comes.

[lsbets]

Some interesting reads in this thread. I think the federal government has no role in marriage - that is a civil, states issue. Personally, if a state wants to allow gay marriage go for it, I could care less. The one thing I have not seen on here is a well reasoned, factual argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. I'm not sure there is one. I'd really appreciate it if one of the opponents of gay marriage could come up with a reason that is not based primarily on thinking that the gay lifestyle is kind of gross.

[Tom]

Exactly, ls. What they decide in California is their business, not mine.
They voted to change their constitution and to ban gay marriage. The Fed has zero business getting involved. It is NOT in their constitutional powers.

The real issue here is not gay marriage, it is government intrusion.

[ArlJim78]

Marriage is a longstanding traditional institution, defined as a union between a man and a woman, so by definition it is not really something you'd think gays would be interested in getting in on.

Gays want the definition changed so as to feel more accepted by society. They ask not merely for tolerance and equal rights, which they already have, but they ask for everyone else to accomodate them. I'm just tired of every group with grievances demanding that others accomodate them or make reparations, or set asides or whatever. Yes there is even a guy now calling for repartions for gays.
Everyone's got their grievances and sob stories about how life is so unfair to them and how they are oppressed, and on and on. get over yourselves.

[jballscalls]

. They ask not merely for tolerance and equal rights, which they already have, but they ask for everyone else to accomodate them..

equal rights are definately getting closer thanks to Obama passing the hospital visitation legislation last April. For me that was the biggest one on the list of equal rights for gays.

[lsbets]

Marriage is a longstanding traditional institution, defined as a union between a man and a woman, so by definition it is not really something you'd think gays would be interested in getting in on.

Gays want the definition changed so as to feel more accepted by society. They ask not merely for tolerance and equal rights, which they already have, but they ask for everyone else to accomodate them. I'm just tired of every group with grievances demanding that others accomodate them or make reparations, or set asides or whatever. Yes there is even a guy now calling for repartions for gays.
Everyone's got their grievances and sob stories about how life is so unfair to them and how they are oppressed, and on and on. get over yourselves.

While to many people marriage has a religious component, civilly it is a contract between two people which allows them certain benefits under the law, for both tax purposes and the joint ownership of property without having to enter into further contracts. I don't see how wanting to be able to enter into a civil contract just like heterosexual couples do is asking for special rights. Seems to be the same rights to me.

[rastajenk]

So then why not marry your sister, daughter, and/or several of your daughter's friends. They're just civil contracts, right? It's not really relevant if you love them, are just boinking them, or just want to share some employer-related benefits. What's the diff?

[Fred]

I believe in gay marriage. Why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us?

Freddy

[boxcar]

Why even keep the Constitution or Bill of Rights by that logic? Those documents are there to protect people.

Not everyone believes in God, so you shouldn't enforce God's will on people that don't believe.

In this case, letting gays marry would affect absolutely no one, so why enforce God's will on them? Let God decide what to do when the time comes.

Of course not. It's far better to enforce one godless judge's will upon the majority of the nation, generally, and upon the voters in California, specifically. You evidently missed my point altogether. Here it is again: MORAL ISSUES should be decided by the people and the peoples elected representatives in various legislatures, not judges who can nilly willy pronounce something either constitutional or unconstitutional in order to promote their political agenda.

Again, you're dead wrong about this moral issue not affecting anyone. None of us live in a moral vacuum. Our culture is the larger environment that greatly influences a nation's morality. Destroy the moral fabric of a culture, and you will destroy the society. History has proven this conclusively.

Again, I'd refer you back to those two "great" cities of old -- Sodom and Gomorrah. God didn't judge those cities because their moral fabric was exactly in great shape.

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

So then why not marry your sister, daughter, and/or several of your daughter's friends. They're just civil contracts, right? It's not really relevant if you love them, are just boinking them, or just want to share some employer-related benefits. What's the diff?

your comparing marrying your sister or daughter to marrying a gay partner?

[rastajenk]

Not really; just asking Isbets how far this civil contract thing could go? What would be the rationale for prohibiting marrying your kinfolk?

[boxcar]

Not really; just asking Isbets how far this civil contract thing could go? What would be the rationale for prohibiting marrying your kinfolk?

Excellent question! "Civil contracts" can be for good or for evil. In this case, the institution of marriage was not invented by man. It was ordained by God in the very beginning. Therefore, man should (denoting moral duty) subject himself to God's will on this matter. But of course, the godless won't, so society will ultimately suffer.

I guess unbelievers think that an anything-goes-kinda-morality is what exalts a nation, and that the people will suffer no consequences for their actions. But I tell you a truth, folks: Since God finds the "mere" practice of cross-dressing detestable (Deut 22:5), how much more perverted sexual acts?

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

Not really; just asking Isbets how far this civil contract thing could go? What would be the rationale for prohibiting marrying your kinfolk?

i guess i personally see having sex and marital relations with your kinfolk as different than having sexual or marital relations with a same sex partner.

[rastajenk]

To paraphrase Tina Turner, what's sex got to do with it? We've been sold the idea that it's all about true love. :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

While to many people marriage has a religious component, civilly it is a contract between two people which allows them certain benefits under the law, for both tax purposes and the joint ownership of property without having to enter into further contracts. I don't see how wanting to be able to enter into a civil contract just like heterosexual couples do is asking for special rights. Seems to be the same rights to me.
who is stopping them from civil unions or domestic partnerships? I believe there are a fair number of locales which recognize them and offer some of the benefits of marriage while maybe not all of them.

The particular civil union called marriage has always been known and defined as a one man and one woman type of contract. I just don't see why they feel it necessary to force their preferences on others who believe in traditional marriage type contracts. It's about more than having a partnership with someone though, its about forcing society to accept and recognize and define their partnerships as marriages when they are not.

[lsbets]

who is stopping them from civil unions or domestic partnerships? I believe there are a fair number of locales which recognize them and offer some of the benefits of marriage while maybe not all of them.

The particular civil union called marriage has always been known and defined as a one man and one woman type of contract. I just don't see why they feel it necessary to force their preferences on others who believe in traditional marriage type contracts. It's about more than having a partnership with someone though, its about forcing society to accept and recognize and define their partnerships as marriages when they are not.

So would you be okay with two dudes or two chicks living together like they are married, acting like they are married, and doing all the things married people do as long as they don't say they are married? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A civil union is nothing but a marriage that's not called a marriage. Let em say they are married, who cares, it doesn't affect your marriage in any way, shape, or form.

[lsbets]

your comparing marrying your sister or daughter to marrying a gay partner?

That goes back to what I think most people's objections are based on - the feeling that homosexuality is icky.

[boxcar]

That goes back to what I think most people's objections are based on - the feeling that homosexuality is icky.

Actually, it's sick(y).

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Actually, it's sick(y).

Boxcar

I think its both, but what I think doesn't really matter. When we allow the majority to take away the rights of the minority when they are doing no harm to anyone, we have lost our liberties. Statism does not exist solely among the left, as evidenced in this thread. You either believe in liberty or you don't.

[boxcar]

So would you be okay with two dudes or two chicks living together like they are married, acting like they are married, and doing all the things married people do as long as they don't say they are married? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A civil union is nothing but a marriage that's not called a marriage. Let em say they are married, who cares, it doesn't affect your marriage in any way, shape, or form.

I'm surprised you can't see the difference. The diff is this: If we, as a society, legalize lesbian and homosexual marriages, we are putting our official stamp of approval and support upon the perverted acts in which these couples engage. A couple of analogies might be helpful: When the SC legalized abortion, we as a society, endorsed and approved of the murders of the innocents. We have (whether you personally agree with the practice or not), as a collective, stamped our approval on abortions.

Here's another: When a school hands out condoms to your 10-year old daughter, for example, in the name of "safe sex", they are sending the message with these actions (regardless of their words) that premarital sex is fine, even at the ripe old age of 10 years old, etc.. They are in fact sending the message of tacit approval of promiscuity to the kids.

These are the kinds of things that shred the moral fabric of societies.

Boxcar

[Jay Trotter]

I think you should worry about your own "moral fabric" and less about everyone else's! Why do you need to judge others? What should you care whom other adults choose to love!

Personally, I think the church should be forced to cough up more money than BP to compensate the many innocents they have violated directly or though cover-up! A fine bunch to morally judge others!



These are the kinds of things that shred the moral fabric of societies.

[Tom]

your comparing marrying your sister or daughter to marrying a gay partner?

Who are you to decide?
The law does not mention "gay" marriage, it mentions same sex marriage.
Why can't a brother/sister marry for financial reasons?

[Tom]

i guess i personally see having sex and marital relations with your kinfolk as different than having sexual or marital relations with a same sex partner.

Who says sex is involved?
Many hetero couples have no sex already.

[Light]

Nonsense. Name me one person who accepts this criminal behavior

Um, ever hear of the Catholic church? Yes they have a history of coveting their criminal clergy who say homosexuality is not God's law while practicing it on unwilling underage boys. The point is (besides the obvious criminal misconduct),that these priests don't even believe the crap they spout.Nor do politicians who talk of "family values" while getting caught red handed with their mistresses. This is not a few bad apples in the church or political arena. How many have not been caught? And how many more have secret desires like this? It's time to grow up and open up and not try to live up to outdated superstitious standards.Some people still believe you go blind if you masturbate. That's about as valid as prop 8 supporters idea of losing the "moral fabric of society" with gay marriage.

[PhantomOnTour]

Still no one has answered the question of what your response would be if a family member or very close friend revealed to you that he/she is gay.

[lsbets]

I'm surprised you can't see the difference. The diff is this: If we, as a society, legalize lesbian and homosexual marriages, we are putting our official stamp of approval and support upon the perverted acts in which these couples engage. A couple of analogies might be helpful: When the SC legalized abortion, we as a society, endorsed and approved of the murders of the innocents. We have (whether you personally agree with the practice or not), as a collective, stamped our approval on abortions.

Here's another: When a school hands out condoms to your 10-year old daughter, for example, in the name of "safe sex", they are sending the message with these actions (regardless of their words) that premarital sex is fine, even at the ripe old age of 10 years old, etc.. They are in fact sending the message of tacit approval of promiscuity to the kids.

These are the kinds of things that shred the moral fabric of societies.

Boxcar

Very poor examples - in the abortion example, a life is clearly being ended. Some will argue that since that life is not viable on its own it doesn't matter, others will say it is clearly murder, but no reasonable person would disagree that abortion ends a life.

Second - a 10 year old is not an adult and cannot make informed decisions on their own. In that case the state is clearly infringing on the rights of the parents.

With gay marriage you have two consenting adults whose activities are harming no one. The implicit endorsement of homosexuality doesn't hold water - homosexuality is not illegal. By your reasoning we should declare homosexuality illegal and lock em all up (or would stoning work better?). Other than biblical references, you have not shown how homosexuality degrades the "moral fabric" of society. If it does, it should be illegal. I doubt you can make that case.

[Jay Trotter]

My response would be unequivocal acceptance!

It would make absolutely no difference to me, and if anything, I would likely find a new level of respect for this friend/family member for having the courage to share such an intimate secret with. Nothing about this person has changed other than one's perception -- they are the same person you knew and loved before finding out.

End of story!


Still no one has answered the question of what your response would be if a family member or very close friend revealed to you that he/she is gay.

[PhantomOnTour]

My response would be unequivocal acceptance!

It would make absolutely no difference to me, and if anything, I would likely find a new level of respect for this friend/family member for having the courage to share such an intimate secret with. Nothing about this person has changed other than one's perception -- they are the same person you knew and loved before finding out.

End of story!
Mine too. My nephew came out about 3wks ago (we ALL knew anyway). Hell, as a kid, his favorite movie was 'The Little Mermaid'...ya know what I'm sayin!? He is a freer person now that he lives his life openly, and I am happy for that.

[ceejay]

So would you be okay with two dudes or two chicks living together like they are married, acting like they are married, and doing all the things married people do as long as they don't say they are married? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A civil union is nothing but a marriage that's not called a marriage. Let em say they are married, who cares, it doesn't affect your marriage in any way, shape, or form.
Interesting point. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage the word "marriage" was not invented until the 14th century. I couldn't be further from an English scholar (or biblical scholar for that matter), but it seems like some people are arguing about vocabulary.

[boxcar]

Very poor examples - in the abortion example, a life is clearly being ended. Some will argue that since that life is not viable on its own it doesn't matter, others will say it is clearly murder, but no reasonable person would disagree that abortion ends a life.

Second - a 10 year old is not an adult and cannot make informed decisions on their own. In that case the state is clearly infringing on the rights of the parents.

With gay marriage you have two consenting adults whose activities are harming no one. The implicit endorsement of homosexuality doesn't hold water - homosexuality is not illegal. By your reasoning we should declare homosexuality illegal and lock em all up (or would stoning work better?). Other than biblical references, you have not shown how homosexuality degrades the "moral fabric" of society. If it does, it should be illegal. I doubt you can make that case.

It's "illegal" by divine law! And divine law and divine rights always trump those of the godless -- except to the godless.

My analogies are all valid because the common thread that binds them is morality. At the heart of each of these issues are issues of morality. Homosexuality is a moral issue and God has condemned the practice. You say I haven't shown how it degrades the "moral fabric". I don't know how old you are but when I was growing up, homosexuals pretty much kept their sexual preferences and practices to themselves. They didn't publicize them for political reasons and for political and economic gain. All homosexuals want to do today is try to legitimatize perverse sexual practices and lifestyles. Their sexually- liberated philosophy is infectious and will eventually contaminate a society's sexual mores. Why do you think so many schools are pushing a homosexual agenda onto kids of very young age? They clearly want to convey to these children that the practices are normal and that kids should just follow their instincts or impulses. They should not be afraid to experiment either. And above all, these kids should never be judgmental of these perverse acts, even if they personally find them to be repulsive and unnatural. They must have a PC attitude toward these decadent practices. While liberals downplay individual liberties because these are antithetical to their collectivist agenda

The moral fabric of Sodom and Gomorrah became so tattered that God judged these two cities. These perverse practices became so pervasive in those societies that God judged the people and destroyed them in his righteous anger.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Push comes to shove and I don't give a rats ass if gay marry however...

When a Proposition is approved for a voter ballet they have to show that it's constitutional, etc... Why are we voting on things that have no effect?

For those in favor of GM they say you're a hater or you simply find their lifestyle seamy if you vote against it, yet 30-some states have voted against it. You can call all those who've voted against it anything you wish but last I checked people are able to vote anyway they see fit.

If we the people can't make a decision that legal scholars don't like then stop asking us. The whole Prop 8 vote & debate & cost is all just a joke after all this.

Let the legislatures and judges tell us the way it's going to be.

We're again the haters of the world when the only countries that currently have legal GM are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden. That makes for a whole pile of countries being haters.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_5_10_16_04_38.jpg

[boxcar]

Interesting point. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage the word "marriage" was not invented until the 14th century. I couldn't be further from an English scholar (or biblical scholar for that matter), but it seems like some people are arguing about vocabulary.

Really, you might want to check out these passages in the bible and how many times in the Hebrew, Arabic of Greek language their respective terms were translated "marriage":

Gen 34:8,12,21; Lev 21:4; Jdg 12:9; 21:1,7; 1Ki 3:1; 11:19; 2Ki 14:9; 1Ch 2:35; 2Ch 18:1; 25:18; Mat 22:30; 24:38; Mk 12:25; Lk 2:36; 17:27; 20:34,35; 1Cor 7:38; 1Tim 4:3; Heb 13:4; Rev 19:7,9.

The concept of marriage is hardly new. It is truly a God-ordained institution.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

It's "illegal" by divine law! And divine law and divine rights always trump those of the godless.


But...Not in this country. No way, no how.

When those who defy divine law meet their maker, there will be divine retribution. ;)

[lsbets]

It's "illegal" by divine law! And divine law and divine rights always trump those of the godless -- except to the godless.



So since divine law trumps our laws, do you pull homosexuals and adulterers out back and stone them to death? After all, they are degrading the moral fabric of society, and that is the biblical punishment for those sins.

Divine law as defined by you or anyone else is not the law of the land. I've been a lot of places in this world and seen a lot of people put their divine laws into action, and the end result is it pretty much sucks for those who are forced to comply.

[delayjf]

Still no one has answered the question of what your response would be if a family member or very close friend revealed to you that he/she is gay.
Simple, the bible tell us to hate the sin, not the sinner. Most Parents / relatives would continue to love their children even if they robbed banks for a living - that doesn't mean they, as christians, should endorse their acts.

[boxcar]

So since divine law trumps our laws, do you pull homosexuals and adulterers out back and stone them to death? After all, they are degrading the moral fabric of society, and that is the biblical punishment for those sins.

Fair question, LS. The short form answer is NO! We don't stone people or put them to death under this New Covenant economy. The prescribed penalties under the Old Covenant don't apply because the Old Covenant (or Mosaic Covenant) was established between God and Moses to administer a theocratic form of government to a physical state -- to a nation with physical borders. Conversely, the New Covenant, which Christ instituted at the Last Supper, was established between the "invisible nation" of God, i.e. his Church which is scattered around the world.

For example, consider these passages:

Rom 10:19-20
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? At the first Moses says,

"I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you."

20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

"I was found by those who sought Me not,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me."
NASB

The Rom 10 passage at first blush may seem confusing because Paul in quoting the OT prophet, the prophet in one breath predicted that the nation of Israel would be made jealous by that which isn't a nation; but then in the next breath said that a nation without understanding would anger Israel. A clever play on words. What did the OT prophet mean? He cryptically prophesied the eventual establishment of the NT church -- an institution that would at once embrace Jews and Gentiles alike. The Universal Church, in one sense, is not a nation with physical boundaries. But in another, the Church is a nation in the spiritual sense. That theocracy which was once the form of government of a physical nation has now been transformed into a theocracy over a spiritual nation -- Christ's Invisible Church. Christ's Universal/Invisible Church is located in numerous nations around the world.

Look at another NT passage:

1 Peter 2:9-10
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
NASB

Who is the "you" in this passage? Peter is addressing the NT church. And he calls the church a "holy nation" because it is this spiritual nation that has supplanted the physical, theocratic nation of Israel.

More evidence? How about this NT passage?

Rom 2:28-3:1
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
NASB

The church in Rome had a large contingency of Jewish believers -- Jews who converted to Christianity. And this is a wake up call to any of the Jews that might think that they're part of this church just by mere bloodlines -- just because their father was Abraham. Paul squashed that silly notion in a hurry. The definition of a Jew, under this New Covenant economy, has also changed. It's been greatly expanded to accommodate this New Covenant economy. A real Jew today (whether he be a physical Jew or a Gentile) is one who has actually converted to Christianity. A real Jew today is any believer in Christ, regardless of heritage.

Finally, here is the last piece of evidence in order to fully answer your question. How does the Church and God deal today, under this New Covenant economy, with fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, etc? Well, for one thing, you'd be very hard-pressed to find any instructions to the Church for implementing capital punishment for such offenses -- or for any offenses for that matter. Consider this passage, as an example:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
NASB

And one more time:

1 Tim 1:5-11
6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
NASB

As you can see the warnings or threats of "capital punishment" all have to do with the next age. Christ will judge all the godless, unlawful and immoral people and sentence will be pronounced at that time. This doesn't mean the Church doesn't have any responsibility to keep herself pure. She does! But those are strictly ecclesiastical concerns. The Church has been given instructions on how to purge the evil from within.

I hope these passages have answered your questions adequately.

Divine law as defined by you or anyone else is not the law of the land. I've been a lot of places in this world and seen a lot of people put their divine laws into action, and the end result is it pretty much sucks for those who are forced to comply.

Actually, most people don't like to comply with anything that is disagreeable to them. Do you look forward to complying with all the many requirements of ObamaCare? :)

But you have no reason to be concerned about the Church rising up to force a theocratic form of government on all Americans. The Muslims have their sights set squarely on America, anyway. :) However, true Christians will continue the struggle for righteous laws and public policies, which can only find their ground in biblical teachings and principles.

[TJDave]

Simple, the bible tell us to hate the sin, not the sinner.

Show me. ;)

[delayjf]

Your are correct, the Bible never said hate the sin, love the sinner. But studying the life of Jesus, that’s the example He lived. He was frequently accused of fraternizing with sinners, and in fact spent most of His time with them. With the woman caught in the act of adultery, He refused to condemn her but told her to stop sinning. (John 8:11) Same with the crippled man the He healed. (John 5:14) He never condoned the sin, but He never condemned the sinner. His goal in dealing with them was always reconciliation

[lsbets]

The definition of a Jew, under this New Covenant economy, has also changed. It's been greatly expanded to accommodate this New Covenant economy. A real Jew today (whether he be a physical Jew or a Gentile) is one who has actually converted to Christianity. A real Jew today is any believer in Christ, regardless of heritage.



I'm pretty sure that actual Jews would disagree with your assertion.

[NJ Stinks]

Isbets, I'm sure you don't consider this to be a particularly good sign but I am really enjoying reading your responses in this thread. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[lsbets]

Isbets, I'm sure you don't consider this to be a particularly good sign but I am really enjoying reading your responses in this thread. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I take it as a good sign. Maybe one day you'll realize that economic statism is just as bad as moral statism. :jump: I'm one of the few people who says they believe in smaller, less intrusive government and actually does.

[bigmack]

So would you be okay with two dudes or two chicks living together like they are married, acting like they are married, and doing all the things married people do as long as they don't say they are married? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A civil union is nothing but a marriage that's not called a marriage. Let em say they are married, who cares, it doesn't affect your marriage in any way, shape, or form.
What do you suppose is the problem with all the votes that have been logged that disfavor GM; are they not enlightened?

The racial mix of no's is particularly strong amongst Hispanics & Blacks. Why would they say yes to disallowing GM and no to 1070?

[boxcar]

I'm pretty sure that actual Jews would disagree with your assertion.

Of course, they would. In fact, it might interest you to know that they basically reject the entire NT revelation. But what would you expect from unbelievers?

Boxcar

[lsbets]

BM - I already said why I think a majority of people oppose gm. Since you quoted me, answer the question. Are you okay with them acting like they are married as long as they don't say they are married?

Boxcar - you throw around the term unbeliever a lot. Fortunately I think Christianity has evolved to the point where there aren't many who would fit your definition of a believer.

[boxcar]

Boxcar - you throw around the term unbeliever a lot. Fortunately I think Christianity has evolved to the point where there aren't many who would fit your definition of a believer.

No...but there are many who wouldn't fit the biblical definition. But why would you object to the term "unbeliever"? Are you not one?

Boxcar

[bigmack]

BM - I already said why I think a majority of people oppose gm. Since you quoted me, answer the question. Are you okay with them acting like they are married as long as they don't say they are married?
Acting like their married? Does that mean any couple living together is acting? If we could just re-educate people and let them know it's just about love, as KO says, I think we might have a chance to ram this through and bring yet another social injustice to the side of justice.

People are just ignorant and they need to be educated.

It has less to do with people thinking other people are being 'icky' and more to do with people trying to adhere to some semblance of a tradition they have thought to be intact.

1HpTBF6EfxY

[lsbets]

I don't object, you can use any words you want. I'm poitning out your penchant for using it, and when you do, you sound an awful lot like the Muslims you are so worried about. History has shown a need to be wary of those who feel they know the only path to righteousness and salvation.

[lsbets]

Bm - are you okay with civil unions and domestic partnerships, and if you are, why not marriage? It's a simple question. If you are not okay with the other two, why not? How does it affect you if two gay dudes shack up? Other than boxcar, no one has ventured to give a reasoned answer.

[TJDave]

Of course, they would. In fact, it might interest you to know that they basically reject the entire NT revelation.

No. We categorically, unquestionably reject it... For us.

Most all Jews respect and support Christianity, support Christian proselytizing to non-believers and believe that the more Christians...indeed, the more reverent of all faiths, the better the world.


But what would you expect from unbelievers?


We would expect that those Christians who currently disrespect us as unbelievers, would come to exhibit the same tolerance and respect.

[bigmack]

Bm - are you okay with civil unions and domestic partnerships, and if you are, why not marriage? It's a simple question. If you are not okay with the other two, why not? How does it affect you if two gay dudes shack up? Other than boxcar, no one has ventured to give a reasoned answer.
As previously mentioned, I don't care one way or the other. Truth be told I know a pile of queens, I find 'em a hoot.

While a mildly engaging debate, I think it of import to have the folk have some say. They might be 'anti-icky' as you put it, but why is this up for a voting decision if we're unwilling to accept the want of folk?

[lsbets]

As previously mentioned, I don't care one way or the other. Truth be told I know a pile of queens, I find 'em a hoot.

While a mildly engaging debate, I think it of import to have the folk have some say. They might be 'anti-icky' as you put it, but why is this up for a voting decision if we're unwilling to accept the want of folk?

because the tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny. Would you be okay with a ballot prop that says you have to give up all your assets over 100k to the poor? Of course not. But what if something like that passed? You'd be hunting for a judge to overrule it.

My point is simply I could give a crap what two consenting adults do. Marriage confers certain benefits, all of which I am in favor of for everyone anyway. Tax benefits, estate tax benefits, property rights. So if two dudes or chicks want to get married, let em. The other thing marriage comes with is nagging and honey dos. Why should straight folk have a monopoly on misery?

[boxcar]

I don't object, you can use any words you want. I'm poitning out your penchant for using it, and when you do, you sound an awful lot like the Muslims you are so worried about. History has shown a need to be wary of those who feel they know the only path to righteousness and salvation.

From the divine perspective there are only two kinds of people in the world. The Sheep and the Goats. The Wheat and the Chaff. Good Trees and Bad Trees. Faithful Stewards and Unfaithful Stewards. The Righteous and Unrighteous. Believers and Unbelievers. God the Father keeps it really simple. In fact, so did his Son (Jn 14:6).

Boxcar
P.S. No need to be wary of me. I don't bite, nor do I pack explosives. ;)

[TJDave]

For those that say that marriage based on the Bible is between a man and a woman,you should consider the hypocracy of those priests who enforce this illusion while masturbating and sodomizing with little boys.



Nonsense. Name me one person who accepts this criminal behavior. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Everyone Outraged Catholic Priest Did That Thing Everyone Jokes About

WASHINGTON—Following revelations last week that priests in Wisconsin and Italy were responsible for molesting more than 250 young deaf boys, millions around the country expressed shock and outrage over the very thing they had been endlessly milking as a source of humor for the past 10 years. "I am stunned and disgusted that this incredibly abhorrent thing that I was just joking with a coworker about the other day has actually occurred," Seattle resident Jess Voigt said. "Even though I have been humorously referring to this particular subject almost nonstop for the past decade, I am absolutely blindsided by this unexpected and disturbing news." Members of the American populace vowed to shake their heads and drop the subject from their ribald office banter for at least two weeks before drawing on these unfortunate events to make approximately 13 million more jokes about choirboys

[Tom]

From the divine perspective there are only two kinds of people in the world. The Sheep and the Goats.


Is that just islam?

[bigmack]

The other thing marriage comes with is nagging and honey dos. Why should straight folk have a monopoly on misery?
Touché, Issy, and yet another reason why Mack The Hoople remains unfettered.