PDA

View Full Version : Proposition 8 Trial


Pages : [1] 2 3

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:32 AM
Anybody following this? They have turned this thing into a 3 ring circus. I am all for being allowed to present your case but the judge Vaughn Walker has let the questioning go into unpresidented territory. This whole trial has made a mockery of our legal system. What a joke. Wonder how much our bankrupt state has spent on this fiasco.

KC native
01-27-2010, 09:33 AM
DC in 3,2,1...

Pestilence
01-27-2010, 09:34 AM
Making a mockery of our legal system? That's funny. Our legal system has sucked for years now.

Crush
01-27-2010, 09:34 AM
Anybody following this? They have turned this thing into a 3 ring circus. I am all for being allowed to present your case but the judge Vaughn Walker has let the questioning go into unpresidented territory. This whole trial has made a mockery of our legal system. What a joke. Wonder how much our bankrupt state has spent on this fiasco.


This sounds like a case for the simple caveman lawyer.

Pushead2
01-27-2010, 09:34 AM
what the hell is it about...more info please..

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:35 AM
what the hell is it about...more info please..

You don't know what proposition 8 is?

Demonpenz
01-27-2010, 09:36 AM
I've been watching it with a keen eye (obviously because what line of work I am) I have been studying with my co workers and it makes us nervous so we had a roundtable and came up with these questions. What makes proposition 8 good for the people? This is what is wrong in America, everyone gets caught up in agenda's and they don't understand that THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT
JUST
CAN'T
MAKE
IT

Mr. Laz
01-27-2010, 09:36 AM
you know if BD is pissed off about it then has to do wit teh gheys.

Brock
01-27-2010, 09:37 AM
I don't live in California, so I don't care.

beach tribe
01-27-2010, 09:43 AM
You don't know what proposition 8 is?

I just looked it up, and I would imagine that most guys who aren't trying to marry another guy wouldn't know what it is.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:44 AM
Making a mockery of our legal system? That's funny. Our legal system has sucked for years now.

This is true, we are just reaching a new low. Usually my problem is the opposite when it comes to what evidence/testimony is allowed. Often times in criminal cases there is so much pressure on the judge to prosecute that he doesn't even allow the defense to present their case. Timothy McVeigh was a great example of that. This judge is allowing the gay marriage proponents to follow any line of questioning they want even when it is completely irrelevant in an attempt to color those that put the legislation together in an unfavorable light. If they overturn this after voters have passed it twice now I am going to LMAO.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 09:46 AM
what the hell is it about...more info please..

Prop 8 is something that Californian bigots voted yes on.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:46 AM
you know if BD is pissed off about it then has to do wit teh gheys.

Speaking of coloring people. ROFL I wasn't for Timothy McVeigh either but I certainly disagreed with how he was prosecuted. I think I am pretty on the record on this one. I am am for civil unions and all gay rights other than adoption. If that makes me a gay hater in your eyes then so be it.

Mr. Laz
01-27-2010, 09:51 AM
Speaking of coloring people

racist ...

Pushead2
01-27-2010, 09:52 AM
Prop 8 is something that Californian bigots voted yes on.

I see......

Fish
01-27-2010, 09:53 AM
This thread is gay...

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:53 AM
I see...... ROFL

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 09:54 AM
This thread is gay...

NTTAWWT ;)

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 09:54 AM
Speaking of coloring people. ROFL I wasn't for Timothy McVeigh either but I certainly disagreed with how he was prosecuted. I think I am pretty on the record on this one. I am am for civil unions and all gay rights other than adoption. If that makes me a gay hater in your eyes then so be it.

McVeigh would've lost with a fair trial.

But his prosecution was a huge miscarriage of justice. It's a textbook example of poor judging.

Ultimately you can make a claim of 'harmless error'; but the fact remains that the prosecutors did just about anything they wanted throughout that trial.

UteChief
01-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Speaking of coloring people. ROFL I wasn't for Timothy McVeigh either but I certainly disagreed with how he was prosecuted. I think I am pretty on the record on this one. I am am for civil unions and all gay rights other than adoption. If that makes me a gay hater in your eyes then so be it.

Curious on your position on adoption. Care to say why?

Bane
01-27-2010, 09:56 AM
This thread is gay...

ROFL

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
McVeigh would've lost with a fair trial.

But his prosecution was a huge miscarriage of justice. It's a textbook example of poor judging.

Ultimately you can make a claim of 'harmless error'; but the fact remains that the prosecutors did just about anything they wanted throughout that trial.

I agree. I remember when the defense presented the judge with their case and he said they were not allowed to speak about any of that. The defense attorney was what do mean I am not allowed to talk about any of this it's our entire case.

Demonpenz
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
interesting they call it proposition 8 because of Kobe Bryant affair with Bo outlaw

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 10:15 AM
Curious on your position on adoption. Care to say why?

Sure. I think kids need a male and female influence in their life. They both bring very different qualities Does that make all heterosexual couples better, of course not but it's a start. The biggest problem with adoption in this country and kids without homes is not that there are not enough heterosexual couples out there to address it. The problem is the adoption agencies themself because they are bureaucracies make if very difficult for good couples to adopt.

UteChief
01-27-2010, 10:23 AM
Sure. I think kids need a male and female influence in their life. They both bring very different qualities Does that make all heterosexual couples better, of course not but it's a start. The biggest problem with adoption in this country and kids without homes is not that there are not enough heterosexual couples out there to address it. The problem is the adoption agencies themself because they are bureaucracies make if very difficult for good couples to adopt.

Sounds reasonable enough. I'd disagree just a bit. I believe there are some gay couples I know that would be fantastic parents. And I'd rather a child have a home with one of them, than to live in a group home all of their life. I don't know anything about adoption though. So I have no idea how hard it is to adopt. If good couples are being turned away, that's pretty shitty.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:24 AM
Sure. I think kids need a male and female influence in their life. They both bring very different qualities Does that make all heterosexual couples better, of course not but it's a start. The biggest problem with adoption in this country and kids without homes is not that there are not enough heterosexual couples out there to address it. The problem is the adoption agencies themself because they are bureaucracies make if very difficult for good couples to adopt.

So are you also against single-parent adoption?

Cave Johnson
01-27-2010, 10:27 AM
So are you also against single-parent adoption?

Or reversing the adoption if the parents divorce?

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 10:29 AM
Prop 8 is something that Californian bigots voted yes on.

Typical.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:34 AM
Typical.

..and accurate.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 10:37 AM
..and accurate.

So every state has a majority of bigots then?

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 10:38 AM
So every state has a majority of bigots then?
Yes. Duh.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 10:39 AM
Yes. Duh.

:thumb:

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 10:41 AM
Sounds reasonable enough. I'd disagree just a bit. I believe there are some gay couples I know that would be fantastic parents. And I'd rather a child have a home with one of them, than to live in a group home all of their life. I don't know anything about adoption though. So I have no idea how hard it is to adopt. If good couples are being turned away, that's pretty shitty.

They put my sister through 5 years of hell. She has been happily married forever. She is in NCIS and has about as high of a security clearance as you can get even doing security for Rumsfeld. Unfriggenbelievable. I wanted to adopt a child so my son would have a sibling but there is not way I am going to go through all of that.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:41 AM
So every state has a majority of bigots then?

Noun
bigot
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Yes.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 10:41 AM
Prop 8 is something that Californian bigots voted yes on.

I'm one of them, and I'm proud of it.

I really wish we could afford to divide up California. Central Cali is a conservative area, but our votes never seem to count in the bigger elections because liberal higher population cities like San Fran, LA, San Jose carry the vote. In the case of prop 8, it wasn't a matter of politics so much as cultural ethics. A lot of our African-American folks are Democrats, but they sided with the conservatives on this one because of their beliefs. I believe I saw a post-election stat for Kern County that more than 80% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8, and the protection of Marrige. I say good for them.

I really feel like there is too much apathy by Christian Conservatives in this country. We're letting every little misguided intrerst group push us around and we're not pushing back. If there really are as many of us as the stats say there are it's time for us to take back our Freedom before it's too late.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 10:43 AM
Noun
bigot
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Yes.

So those who use intimidation tactics against business owners and use violence on people who don't agree with them would fit that category as well, right?

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:44 AM
I'm one of them, and I'm proud of it.

I really wish we could afford to divide up California. Central Cali is a conservative area, but our votes never seem to count in the bigger elections because liberal higher population cities like San Fran, LA, San Jose carry the vote. In the case of prop 8, it wasn't a matter of politics so much as cultural ethics. A lot of our African-American folks are Democrats, but they sided with the conservatives on this one because of their beliefs. I believe I saw a post-election stat for Kern County that more than 80% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8, and the protection of Marrige. I say good for them.

I really feel like there is too much apathy by Christian Conservatives in this country. We're letting every little misguided intrerst group push us around and we're not pushing back. If there really are as many of us as the stats say there are it's time for us to take back our Freedom before it's too late.

Take back your freedom? How are you being repressed?

And, yeah, applaud the African-American groups who want equal rights for themselves but then want to deny equal rights to another minority. Brilliant!

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Typical.

Anyone who doesn't believe the same things DaKCMan does is a bigot, get used to it. It's his default sizzle post. Lots of posters on here like that.

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 10:44 AM
I'm one of them, and I'm proud of it.

I really wish we could afford to divide up California. Central Cali is a conservative area, but our votes never seem to count in the bigger elections because liberal higher population cities like San Fran, LA, San Jose carry the vote. In the case of prop 8, it wasn't a matter of politics so much as cultural ethics. A lot of our African-American folks are Democrats, but they sided with the conservatives on this one because of their beliefs. I believe I saw a post-election stat for Kern County that more than 80% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8, and the protection of Marrige. I say good for them.

I really feel like there is too much apathy by Christian Conservatives in this country. We're letting every little misguided intrerst group push us around and we're not pushing back. If there really are as many of us as the stats say there are it's time for us to take back our Freedom before it's too late.
Your Freedom? Putting aside any qualms I may have with your religious beliefs does taking back your capital-F-Freedom necessitate making others less Free?

KC native
01-27-2010, 10:46 AM
I'm one of them, and I'm proud of it.

I really wish we could afford to divide up California. Central Cali is a conservative area, but our votes never seem to count in the bigger elections because liberal higher population cities like San Fran, LA, San Jose carry the vote. In the case of prop 8, it wasn't a matter of politics so much as cultural ethics. A lot of our African-American folks are Democrats, but they sided with the conservatives on this one because of their beliefs. I believe I saw a post-election stat for Kern County that more than 80% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8, and the protection of Marrige. I say good for them.

I really feel like there is too much apathy by Christian Conservatives in this country. We're letting every little misguided intrerst group push us around and we're not pushing back. If there really are as many of us as the stats say there are it's time for us to take back our Freedom before it's too late.

Actually it was more along generational lines than race.

Nate Silver covered this on his site

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Prop 8 Myths
by Nate Silver @ 3:47 PM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content

Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:47 AM
So those who use intimidation tactics against business owners and use violence on people who don't agree with them would fit that category as well, right?

Intimidation tactics and violence does not directly correlate to bigotry. They aren't mutually exclusive, either.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 10:49 AM
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Yes.

That does sound a lot like you. Doesn't matter what the majority want. It only matters what your opinion is and you are intolerant of what the majority of not only California wants but the entire United States.

There is nothing wrong with legalizing civil unions. The intolerance is coming from your side of the isle.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 10:51 AM
Noun
bigot
1. one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
2. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Yes.

I think intolerance is the key word there. Holding true to your beliefs and expressing them is not the same as intolerance. I think the threats of litigation by liberal gay rights activists against pastors, teachers and citizens for expressing their beliefs is just bigoted as the reverse.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 10:51 AM
Your Freedom? Putting aside any qualms I may have with your religious beliefs does taking back your capital-F-Freedom necessitate making others less Free?

Civil union gives them their freedom. You are just deflecting.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:52 AM
That does sound a lot like you. Doesn't matter what the majority want. It only matters what your opinion is and you are intolerant of what the majority of not only California wants but the entire United States.

There is nothing wrong with legalizing civil unions. The intolerance is coming from your side of the isle.

This country is founded upon the rights of the minority, not the majority.

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 10:52 AM
I really feel like there is too much apathy by Christian Conservatives in this country. We're letting every little misguided intrerst group push us around and we're not pushing back. If there really are as many of us as the stats say there are it's time for us to take back our Freedom before it's too late.

What "Freedom" has been taken from you?

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 10:56 AM
I think intolerance is the key word there. Holding true to your beliefs and expressing them is not the same as intolerance. I think the threats of litigation by liberal gay rights activists against pastors, teachers and citizens for expressing their beliefs is just bigoted as the reverse.

Whatever.

If people of the same sex want to get married, let them get married.

Seriously, I just do not understand the big deal.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 10:57 AM
This is not a matter of freedom for me. But if I'm a business owner who conscientiously disagrees with homosexual marriage and my business gets "blacklisted" or picketed, my freedom to earn a living is being impinged upon.

If I'm Scott Eckern, and I believe in a certain definition of marriage and I get fired because I donated to Prop. 8, my freedom is being taken away.

If someone wants to express their right to protest and gets physically assaulted at a rally, their freedom is being challenged.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 10:58 AM
Whatever.

If people of the same sex want to get married, let them get married.

Seriously, I just do not understand the big deal.

Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)," that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_%28government_funded%29) teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay," and that gay people would "redefine marriage for everyone else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)


WTF?

I would love for someone to explain to me how a same-sex marriage "redefines" his or her own marriage.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 10:58 AM
Your Freedom? Putting aside any qualms I may have with your religious beliefs does taking back your capital-F-Freedom necessitate making others less Free?

Well, that's the truth of what politics isn't? It's the process of who wins and who loses. If you don't see that allowing gays to marry also leads laws that will cause Christians to lose some of their freedom of expression, then you're being niave.

Also look at the Schools and the battle we have against teaching our children Darwin? We've certainly had more losses than wins in that category.

Fish
01-27-2010, 11:00 AM
What "Freedom" has been taken from you?

The "Freedom" of not letting those damn homos get married.... duh...

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 11:01 AM
And if a state votes on the issue in the 1990's and it gets overturned and then they vote on it again in 2008 and it gets challenged, how many times will we have to vote on this?

Oh yes, of course. Until someone gets their way.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:01 AM
This is not a matter of freedom for me. But if I'm a business owner who conscientiously disagrees with homosexual marriage and my business gets "blacklisted" or picketed, my freedom to earn a living is being impinged upon.

If I'm Scott Eckern, and I believe in a certain definition of marriage and I get fired because I donated to Prop. 8, my freedom is being taken away.

If someone wants to express their right to protest and gets physically assaulted at a rally, their freedom is being challenged.

Except for the final example where physical harm is caused, and is wrong, I don't see how the previous two examples restrict upon that person's 'freedom'.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
Well, that's the truth of what politics isn't? It's the process of who wins and who loses. If you don't see that allowing gays to marry also leads laws that will cause Christians to lose some of their freedom of expression, then you're being niave.

Also look at the Schools and the battle we have against teaching our children Darwin? We've certainly had more losses than wins in that category.

You haven't given a single example of how you've lost your 'freedom'.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
This country is founded upon the rights of the minority, not the majority.

You still are not addressing the issue. Maybe you have some more names you can throw around seeing as you are the true bigot here.

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 11:02 AM
Well, that's the truth of what politics isn't? It's the process of who wins and who loses. If you don't see that allowing gays to marry also leads laws that will cause Christians to lose some of their freedom of expression, then you're being niave.

Also look at the Schools and the battle we have against teaching our children Darwin? We've certainly had more losses than wins in that category.
*since this is headed to D.C. anyway*

Why would you need to battle against the teaching of Darwinian theory and evolutionary theory in science classes? That seems like an utterly appropriate subject to put on the curriculum. If you're afraid of your kids being corrupted or whatever by what they're taught in school then you are underestimating your own influence as a parent.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:04 AM
And if a state votes on the issue in the 1990's and it gets overturned and then they vote on it again in 2008 and it gets challenged, how many times will we have to vote on this?

Oh yes, of course. Until someone gets their way.

So once the 18th amendment was passed, you feel as though it never should have been challenged and, ultimately, repealed?

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:04 AM
You still are not addressing the issue. Maybe you have some more names you can throw around seeing as you are the true bigot here.

What issue am I not addressing?

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:05 AM
Whatever.

If people of the same sex want to get married, let them get married.

Seriously, I just do not understand the big deal.

You would if you were getting prosecuted with a hate crime for expressing your beliefs.

Honestly, sinners will do what sinners do. But we need to protect religious freedom without the fear of some liberal law restricting us from saying what we believe. If gays want to marry, so be it, but If that happens we also need to make sure there are also laws that are passed to protect the church.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:05 AM
*since this is headed to D.C. anyway*

Why would you need to battle against the teaching of Darwinian theory and evolutionary theory in science classes? That seems like an utterly appropriate subject to put on the curriculum. If you're afraid of your kids being corrupted or whatever by what they're taught in school then you are underestimating your own influence as a parent.

And he's also not taking advantage of his 'freedom' to enroll his children in private school.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:06 AM
You haven't given a single example of how you've lost your 'freedom'.

He used to have the freedom to vote and be counted. That until you bigots came along and knew what was best for everyone.

Once again why won't a civil union address any freedom issues you may have when it comes to the gay community?

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 11:06 AM
Except for the final example where physical harm is caused, and is wrong, I don't see how the previous two examples restrict upon that person's 'freedom'.

Political donations are a part of our exercise of free speech. If someone uses intimidation or makes threats against me or my business because of a particular donation, that is getting in the way of freedom. Workers don't want to show up, and customers are harassed on their way in. If I love my job but don't agree with co-workers on a political issue, why should I get fired because I believe a certain thing? Does that get in the way of his ability to perform his job?

I have no problem with boycotts, or making lists online or whatnot. Evangelicals do that all the time. Let people vote with their dollars (or lack thereof), but physical interference does interfere, IMO.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:07 AM
You would if you were getting prosecuted with a hate crime for expressing your beliefs.

Honestly, sinners will do what sinners do. But we need to protect religious freedom without the fear of some liberal law restricting us from saying what we believe. If gays want to marry, so be it, but If that happens we also need to make sure there are also laws that are passed to protect the church.

Please stop speaking in empty generalizations and give a specific example. No one is prosecuting a church or religious denomination because they refuse to marry a same-sex couple.

How is your religious freedom being infringed upon?

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 11:08 AM
Whatever.

If people of the same sex want to get married, let them get married.

Seriously, I just do not understand the big deal.

I think there's a strong contingent of people that see it as "just wrong" and they don't like it so they don't want it. They're entitled to that opinion.

There are others (strong Christians) that view it as wrong...

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 11:08 AM
You still are not addressing the issue. Maybe you have some more names you can throw around seeing as you are the true bigot here.

Hmmm. I'm not getting any bigotry from his posts.

How can one be a "bigot" if they're for the minority?

Unless you're implying that DaKCMan AP is bigoted towards heterosexuals and white people.

I don't believe that to be the case because he's far too awesome.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 11:09 AM
So once the 18th amendment was passed, you feel as though it never should have been challenged and, ultimately, repealed?

Ultimately this is headed to the Supreme Court. I don't think there's any doubt about that. But the issue of gay marriage was given to the voters as a Constitutional amendment and the voters passed it. The court upheld the constitutionality of it.

That's the procedure we have to work these things out.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:09 AM
He used to have the freedom to vote and be counted. That until you bigots came along and knew what was best for everyone.

Once again why won't a civil union address any freedom issues you may have when it comes to the gay community?

It's all about equal rights. Civil union and marriage are not equal.

We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:


The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:13 AM
It's all about equal rights. Civil union and marriage are not equal.

The 3rd one is total horseshit and of course states can't pass Federal law. If you looked at civil unions from a Federal perspective they would be the same. Gays want to piss on Christianity, period. Obviously you do too. I am all for passing civil unions on a national level making it the same as marriage it just won't be called marriage.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:15 AM
BTW if voters in this country decided not to allow civil unions I would honor that. I would vote for it however, if that makes sense.

Fish
01-27-2010, 11:15 AM
You would if you were getting prosecuted with a hate crime for expressing your beliefs.

Honestly, sinners will do what sinners do. But we need to protect religious freedom without the fear of some liberal law restricting us from saying what we believe. If gays want to marry, so be it, but If that happens we also need to make sure there are also laws that are passed to protect the church.

Protect the church from what?

How is religious freedom being threatened? Were this passed, you would still have every single legal freedom you had before. Nothing at all would be taken from you.

If you want to teach your children that marriage should be hetero, then that's your right. The passing of this bill wouldn't change that.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:17 AM
Political donations are a part of our exercise of free speech. If someone uses intimidation or makes threats against me or my business because of a particular donation, that is getting in the way of freedom. Workers don't want to show up, and customers are harassed on their way in. If I love my job but don't agree with co-workers on a political issue, why should I get fired because I believe a certain thing? Does that get in the way of his ability to perform his job?

I have no problem with boycotts, or making lists online or whatnot. Evangelicals do that all the time. Let people vote with their dollars (or lack thereof), but physical interference does interfere, IMO.

People have a right to demonstrate. Mind you, it should be peaceful. If a business owner chooses to be vocal about something, people have a right to boycott, demonstrate, blacklist, etc just as that business owner has the right to his or her vocality.

As far as losing your job: racists, white supremacists, active members of the ku klux klan, etc. are all legitimate causes of termination. An employees involvement in something, even outside of work, can negatively tarnish the image of the organization and may be cause for termination.

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
The 3rd one is total horseshit and of course states can't pass Federal law. If you looked at civil unions from a Federal perspective they would be the same. Gays want to piss on Christianity, period. Obviously you do too. I am all for passing civil unions on a national level making it the same as marriage it just won't be called marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this notion be applied to any religion, not just Christianity?

And for the record, the gays that I know that consider themselves to be married are also Christian.

So there goes that theory.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
*since this is headed to D.C. anyway*

Why would you need to battle against the teaching of Darwinian theory and evolutionary theory in science classes? That seems like an utterly appropriate subject to put on the curriculum. If you're afraid of your kids being corrupted or whatever by what they're taught in school then you are underestimating your own influence as a parent.

Because evolution is a well funded lie that I don't want my children to be taught as "fact." Most Scientists that even look into the theory of Intelligent Design are blacklisted and fired. There are a lot holes in Evolution. None of the evolution Scientists can tell you how life really began. In fact, "seeding" is a pretty popular theory. Yep, the head Scientist of Evolution would rather have believe that Aliens created the world. That's a lot of work just to deny the exsistence of God.

The argument of my influence as a parent... Yadda....yadda... Is a weak one. If you don't believe in Creation, are you going to send your kid a school that teaches that? It's a choice, and one that I'd like to have...

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
The 3rd one is total horseshit and of course states can't pass Federal law. If you looked at civil unions from a Federal perspective they would be the same. Gays want to piss on Christianity, period. Obviously you do too. I am all for passing civil unions on a national level making it the same as marriage it just won't be called marriage.

Christianity invented marriage?

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:19 AM
I really don't understand why people have an issue with this. LIVE AND LET LIVE. Gay marriage hurts absolutely NO ONE. Just because something goes against your BELIEFS, doesn't mean it's wrong. And even if you consider it wrong, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, you should probably be a good, caring person and allow your fellow human beings to be happy and equal to you.

What if there was a group of people that BELIEVED marriage, in itself, was a sin? It wouldn't be valid because it's a freaking belief! No legislature should ever be based on belief (no matter if that belief is shared by the majority), because it leads to nothing but persecution and oppression. Look at Islamic states that base ALL their laws on Koran. There are so many things wrong with that, it's much too much to talk about.

A good Christian should let people do what they want (once again, as long as it's not harming anyone) and let God judge.

Seriously. This just blows my mind.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:20 AM
The 3rd one is total horseshit and of course states can't pass Federal law. If you looked at civil unions from a Federal perspective they would be the same. Gays want to piss on Christianity, period. Obviously you do too. I am all for passing civil unions on a national level making it the same as marriage it just won't be called marriage.

In other words, you want to restrict who can and cannot be married, thereby discriminating based upon sexual orientation. That doesn't sound like equal rights to me.

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:21 AM
In other words, you want to restrict who can and cannot be married, thereby discriminating based upon sexual orientation. That doesn't sound like equal rights to me.

Equal but separate, brah.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:22 AM
BTW if voters in this country decided not to allow civil unions I would honor that. I would vote for it however, if that makes sense.

If voters in this country decided that all black people have to ride in the back of the bus, use separate water fountains and bathrooms and cannot vote, would you honor that?

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 11:25 AM
People have a right to demonstrate. Mind you, it should be peaceful. If a business owner chooses to be vocal about something, people have a right to boycott, demonstrate, blacklist, etc just as that business owner has the right to his or her vocality.

As far as losing your job: racists, white supremacists, active members of the ku klux klan, etc. are all legitimate causes of termination. An employees involvement in something, even outside of work, can negatively tarnish the image of the organization and may be cause for termination.

So you're saying that because I'm opposed to gay marriage I'm on par with the ku klux klan, white supremacists, etc?

First of all, if this truly was a rights issue, then why did advocates of gay rights not begin fighting for gay marriage from the beginning? If marriage truly falls under the banner of inalienable rights, why were we sold civil unions as the groundbreaking threshold? I remember the civil unions discussion where those with reservations (not over rights but over the possibility of coming to this) were told that marriage wasn't in the discussion.

The other issue at stake is voter disenfranchisement. As I said before, you have 2 elections where Californians have addressed this issue. The first one was overturned because it didn't change the constitution. This last one did. If we come to a point where the majority is consistently ignored by a court that allowed the measure to go on the ballot in the first place, we have much bigger problems.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:26 AM
Hmmm. I'm not getting any bigotry from his posts.

How can one be a "bigot" if they're for the minority?

Unless you're implying that DaKCMan AP is bigoted towards heterosexuals and white people.

I don't believe that to be the case because he's far too awesome.

Well, your view of "minority" is far different than mine. True Christians are the minority these days. The issue isn't Hetro vs Homo, it's simply an Anti-Christian with a lot money to spend on PR. Immoral churches are the norm these days. Good Christian people who want the freedom to express heir beliefs are in the minority. And that's something that crosses all racial and gender categories.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:28 AM
In other words, you want to restrict who can and cannot be married, thereby discriminating based upon sexual orientation. That doesn't sound like equal rights to me.

ROFL I don't believe you even wrote that. This type of bigotry just isn't acceptable to me.

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:28 AM
So you're saying that because I'm opposed to gay marriage I'm on par with the ku klux klan, white supremacists, etc?

First of all, if this truly was a rights issue, then why did advocates of gay rights not begin fighting for gay marriage from the beginning? If marriage truly falls under the banner of inalienable rights, why were we sold civil unions as the groundbreaking threshold? I remember the civil unions discussion where those with reservations (not over rights but over the possibility of coming to this) were told that marriage wasn't in the discussion.

The other issue at stake is voter disenfranchisement. As I said before, you have 2 elections where Californians have addressed this issue. The first one was overturned because it didn't change the constitution. This last one did. If we come to a point where the majority is consistently ignored by a court that allowed the measure to go on the ballot in the first place, we have much bigger problems.

Dude, what a horrible argument. Have you heard of the civil rights movement? Was it decided by the majority? JFC. This will go to the Supreme Court like the rest of the "rights" cases. Sometimes, the majority is wrong.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:29 AM
Well, your view of "minority" is far different than mine. True Christians are the minority these days. The issue isn't Hetro vs Homo, it's simply an Anti-Christian with a lot money to spend on PR. Immoral churches are the norm these days. Good Christian people who want the freedom to express heir beliefs are in the minority. And that's something that crosses all racial and gender categories.

More generalities, no specifics and mostly unintelligible rambling.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:29 AM
If voters in this country decided that all black people have to ride in the back of the bus, use separate water fountains and bathrooms and cannot vote, would you honor that?

That's a ridiculous metaphore but I am sure in your mind it justifies your position.

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:32 AM
Well, your view of "minority" is far different than mine. True Christians are the minority these days. The issue isn't Hetro vs Homo, it's simply an Anti-Christian with a lot money to spend on PR. Immoral churches are the norm these days. Good Christian people who want the freedom to express heir beliefs are in the minority. And that's something that crosses all racial and gender categories.

Who is denying you the right to be Christian, go to church and hold whatever beliefs you want? Who and where? How do you not see the difference? Just because you BELIEVE something, doesn't mean it has to be the LAW in the country ESPECIALLY if it impedes on others' rights. That is such hypocrisy, it makes me want to cry.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:32 AM
That's a ridiculous metaphore but I am sure in your mind it justifies your position.

How is it ridiculous? You stated that if the majority of the country voted to discriminate against homosexuals by disallowing marriage and/or civil union, you would honor that. It seems that you are fine with discrimination based upon sexual orientation, but not ok with discrimination based upon race. Is that accurate?

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:32 AM
In other words, you want to restrict who can and cannot be married, thereby discriminating based upon sexual orientation. That doesn't sound like equal rights to me.

Who says Gays can't married? A gay man still has every right to marry the woman of his choice. What are talking about? They absolutely have equal rights.

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 11:33 AM
Because evolution is a well funded lie that I don't want my children to be taught as "fact." Most Scientists that even look into the theory of Intelligent Design are blacklisted and fired. There are a lot holes in Evolution. None of the evolution Scientists can tell you how life really began. In fact, "seeding" is a pretty popular theory. Yep, the head Scientist of Evolution would rather have believe that Aliens created the world. That's a lot of work just to deny the exsistence of God.

Um. What? 1.) Why would Intelligent Design be taught? It isn't scientifically observable. Intelligent Design is a good subject for philosophy classes, not science classes. 2.) Of course no evolution scientist can definitively say how life began. No one can, period. Not right now anyway. 3.) The "head scientist of evolution?" There is such a person and such a position? To whom are you referring?

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 11:33 AM
Who says Gays can't married? A gay man still has every right to marry the woman of his choice. What are talking about? They absolutely have equal rights.

:rolleyes:

So if a law/amendment/proposition was passed saying that a white man and white woman cannot be married, white men and women would still have equal rights as others because they could marry an African-American or Latino-American or Asian-American?

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 11:34 AM
Who says Gays can't married? A gay man still has every right to marry the woman of his choice. What are talking about? They absolutely have equal rights.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e57/Thereaper16/Residentfalcon-1.gif

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:34 AM
That's a ridiculous metaphore but I am sure in your mind it justifies your position.

It's not a metaphor, it's an analogy and it is valid. At its core, it's the same thing - denying people rights. The only difference is that this one is going against your religion which is a BELIEF, just like it was a belief that, somehow, black people are magically inferior to white people.

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 11:36 AM
Well, your view of "minority" is far different than mine.

Faith is far different than ethnicity and skin color and should not be treated the same.

You could change your faith any day of the week.

You can't magically change your skin color (unless you're Michael Jackson).

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:39 AM
Who is denying you the right to be Christian, go to church and hold whatever beliefs you want? Who and where? How do you not see the difference? Just because you BELIEVE something, doesn't mean it has to be the LAW in the country ESPECIALLY if it impedes on others' rights. That is such hypocrisy, it makes me want to cry.

Ug! C'mon man. Pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for speaking he truth of their belief. Do you ever see that happening to gays? Wake up. They are trying to impede on our rights of expression- no prayer in schools, no Intelligent Design, and any pastor who speaks the truth about homosexuality is committing a crime? The rights of Christians are Being infringed upon. You underestimate the importance of people BELIEVE... It is that above all else that determines who you are.

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Ug! C'mon man. Pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for speaking he truth of their belief. Do you ever see that happening to gays? Wake up. They are trying to impede on our rights of expression- no prayer in schools, no Intelligent Design, and any pastor who speaks the truth about homosexuality is committing a crime? The rights of Christians are Being infringed upon. You underestimate the importance of people BELIEVE... It is that above all else that determines who you are.
Multiple pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for talking about homosexuality? Do you have any links for the things you bring up in this thread?

Fish
01-27-2010, 11:44 AM
Ug! C'mon man. Pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for speaking he truth of their belief. Do you ever see that happening to gays? Wake up. They are trying to impede on our rights of expression- no prayer in schools, no Intelligent Design, and any pastor who speaks the truth about homosexuality is committing a crime? The rights of Christians are Being infringed upon. You underestimate the importance of people BELIEVE... It is that above all else that determines who you are.

I've never heard of a pastor arrested for preaching Christian beliefs. You have a link for that?

However, quite a few gay rights protesters have been arrested. Here's a bunch who were arrested for protesting this very subject...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html

DaneMcCloud
01-27-2010, 11:45 AM
Ug! C'mon man. Pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for speaking he truth of their belief.

Huh?

When has a police force ever arrested a pastor for preaching at church in the United States of America?

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:50 AM
Faith is far different than ethnicity and skin color and should not be treated the same.

You could change your faith any day of the week.

You can't magically change your skin color (unless you're Michael Jackson).

That to me is a very racist comment. The color of your skin is not the determining factor of who you are, however, what you believe makes a huge impact. Being white does not stop people from being Jihad terrorists. I know that the world is a racist place, and the color of your skin does affect your oppurtunities. But those things can be overcome if your beliefs drive you into positive action. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Is a good example of that.

The idea of changing religions on a weekly basis is something truly wrong with this world, but you have to look at the people who are doing that. Did they truly believe in those religions or were they just following the herd?

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:50 AM
Ug! C'mon man. Pastors have been arrested at the pulpit for speaking he truth of their belief. Do you ever see that happening to gays? Wake up. They are trying to impede on our rights of expression- no prayer in schools, no Intelligent Design, and any pastor who speaks the truth about homosexuality is committing a crime? The rights of Christians are Being infringed upon. You underestimate the importance of people BELIEVE... It is that above all else that determines who you are.

Your beliefs don't determine anything. Your actions do. Now that we have that out of the way, I need some real examples of people being persecuted. No prayers in school = separation of state and church. I'm sure it would be OK if your child prayed in the cafeteria thanking the Lord for the meal. Youir examples are generalities smelling of weakness. I can give you a solid example - gay people cannot legally get married in California.

Fish
01-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Huh?

When has a police force ever arrested a pastor for preaching at church in the United States of America?

I searched through about 3 pages of Google searches, and couldn't find any instances outside of "Pastor arrested for sex crimes", "Pastor arrested for theft", "Pastor arrested for lewd acts on child".

Nothing about being arrested for preaching the Word....

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 11:52 AM
How is it ridiculous? You stated that if the majority of the country voted to discriminate against homosexuals by disallowing marriage and/or civil union, you would honor that. It seems that you are fine with discrimination based upon sexual orientation, but not ok with discrimination based upon race. Is that accurate?

You are way off base. Sexual orientation does limit some things. You simply can't produce a kid as an example. What are you going to do next accuse god of discrimination? Just one example.


I'll tell you though, in some ways I hope they overturn this. The political fallout will be well worth it.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 11:53 AM
Jaws, I think you're getting a bit off topic with some of your comments.

Bottom line, I think the essence of the debate falls to people voting for what they believe in... I personally believe that marriage is something between a man and a woman. Do I know gay couples that would be better parents than some hetero couples? Sure...

But, I have to vote for and support things that fall in line with my belief system. Is it right for me to have this thought? I don't know... I don't judge others that have different thoughts on the topic. I understand the point of view and while allowing Sam and John down the road to legally be married may not have any affect on my life... that doesn't mean that I should disregard this in the voting booth.

Everything we do and everything we vote on has an affect on something else down the road...

So, I'm not trying to change the opinions of others, but some of the comments here are a bit amusing.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 11:54 AM
I searched through about 3 pages of Google searches, and couldn't find any instances outside of "Pastor arrested for sex crimes", "Pastor arrested for theft", "Pastor arrested for lewd acts on child".

Nothing about being arrested for preaching the Word....

You sure didn't try too hard. Rev. Joseph Jenkins, New York City.

Pushead2
01-27-2010, 11:55 AM
So it's about gays.......I see......

Pants
01-27-2010, 11:56 AM
The idea of changing religions on a weekly basis is something truly wrong with this world, but you have to look at the people who are doing that. Did they truly believe in those religions or were they just following the herd?

It doesn't MATTER. Just because you believe something DOES NOT mean it's valid. A belief is a belief, a pagan is just as "right" as you are. Muslims, jews and christians are all equally "right", simply because there is NO "right" when it comes to beliefs. That's the whole definition of the word "belief". Get off your high horse, learn to be tolerant.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 12:02 PM
Your beliefs don't determine anything. Your actions do. Now that we have that out of the way, I need some real examples of people being persecuted. No prayers in school = separation of state and church. I'm sure it would be OK if your child prayed in the cafeteria thanking the Lord for the meal. Youir examples are generalities smelling of weakness. I can give you a solid example - gay people cannot legally get married in California.

Anyone can get married in California. Gay unions are not marriges, but if those people want to get really married they can.

Actions are a product of belief.

Kids can't talk about the Bible in school, but the Atheist Darwinism belief is okay? I don't think so. The founding fathers NEVER intended us to interpret the Seperation of Church and State the way we do. But they sure mention God an awful lot didn't they?

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:02 PM
I am sure you are referring mainly to his language, but are you suggesting that he should be tolerant in the voting booth as well... put his beliefs to the side and vote for something like gay marriage if it's something he truly doesn't support?

Fish
01-27-2010, 12:04 PM
You sure didn't try too hard. Rev. Joseph Jenkins, New York City.

Searching that name, I find an article that he was arrested and later charged for federal hate crimes.

Surely that isn't what you're talking about.

Hate crimes ≠ Christianity

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 12:05 PM
It doesn't MATTER. Just because you believe something DOES NOT mean it's valid. A belief is a belief, a pagan is just as "right" as you are. Muslims, jews and christians are all equally "right", simply because there is NO "right" when it comes to beliefs. That's the whole definition of the word "belief". Get off your high horse, learn to be tolerant.

And there's the essence of what I'm trying to say. Tolerance is a word that means "You can believe what you want as long as you agree with me." If gay marriage is ultimately decided to be an issue of rights, and the proper mechanisms for deciding an issue are followed, then so be it. But at least in California, the court made a ruling, the people responded with an initiative (that the courts allowed on the ballot after numerous challenges), and the people spoke. Where you and I disagree on an issue a democracy allows for people to decide because guess what? As you said, just because you believe something DOES NOT mean it's valid.

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:08 PM
Anyone can get married in California. Gay unions are not marriges, but if those people want to get really married they can.

Actions are a product of belief.

Kids can't talk about the Bible in school, but the Atheist Darwinism belief is okay? I don't think so. The founding fathers NEVER intended us to interpret the Seperation of Church and State the way we do. But they sure mention God an awful lot didn't they?

I believe in God and I learned about evolution and to me it made sense. It's called an education. God works in mysterious ways, maybe evolution was his way of creating us, I don't know. Just because we couldn't explain it 2000 years ago and had to come with a story that made sense, doesn't mean that's the way it happened. You can't take the Bible literally. But anyway, this is way off subject and doesn't pertain here.

And you say actions are a product of belief? Is that why church-goers lie, steal, kill, rape? Is that why priests do those things? I could be a satanist, but as long as I don't kill, steal, lie, etc - I'm a good person.

Actions.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 12:09 PM
It doesn't MATTER. Just because you believe something DOES NOT mean it's valid. A belief is a belief, a pagan is just as "right" as you are. Muslims, jews and christians are all equally "right", simply because there is NO "right" when it comes to beliefs. That's the whole definition of the word "belief". Get off your high horse, learn to be tolerant.

I'm not intolerant. But I will defend my beliefs, my freedom to have those beliefs and will not apologize for how "high" my horse is.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:13 PM
I believe in God and I learned about evolution and in to me it made sense. It's called an education. God works in mysterious ways, maybe evolution was his way of creating us. Just because we couldn't explain it 2000 years ago and had to come with a story that made sense. You can't take the Bible literally. But anyway, this is way off subject and doesn't pertain here.

And you say actions are a product of belief? Is that why church goers lie, steal, kill, rape? Is that why priests do those things? I could be a satanist, but as long as I don't kill, steal, lie, etc - I'm a good person.

Actions.

I'm not jumping in on his behalf, but all I will add is that people are flawed... just because you go to church or you are a pastor, doesn't mean anything. Those are things you do or a title you have... it is all about your beliefs and those beliefs (if they are genuine to you) should dictate your actions.

And, while the satanist that doesn't lie, kill, steal, etc may be a good person... he won't be going to heaven. If you don't take the Bible literally, how do you take it... as a guide, like a map?

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:15 PM
And there's the essence of what I'm trying to say. Tolerance is a word that means "You can believe what you want as long as you agree with me." If gay marriage is ultimately decided to be an issue of rights, and the proper mechanisms for deciding an issue are followed, then so be it. But at least in California, the court made a ruling, the people responded with an initiative (that the courts allowed on the ballot after numerous challenges), and the people spoke. Where you and I disagree on an issue a democracy allows for people to decide because guess what? As you said, just because you believe something DOES NOT mean it's valid.

Tolerance: you can believe whatever you want, but let others do the same. I believe in the same God as you, but I have no problem with gay people getting married. I don't think human beings should have the power to impede on others' rights (as long as those rights don't hurt anybody). I'll let God judge homosexual people, I have nothing against them.

Muslims regard women as inferior beings. They can beat their women with no recourse among other things... why? Because that's how they interpret the word of God. But you and I, both, know that it's not right. This case is no different.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 12:17 PM
I believe in God and I learned about evolution and in to me it made sense. It's called an education. God works in mysterious ways, maybe evolution was his way of creating us. Just because we couldn't explain it 2000 years ago and had to come with a story that made sense. You can't take the Bible literally. But anyway, this is way off subject and doesn't pertain here.

And you say actions are a product of belief? Is that why church goers lie, steal, kill, rape? Is that why priests do those things? I could be a satanist, but as long as I don't kill, steal, lie, etc - I'm a good person.

Actions.

Church goers, Priests, etc. Do terrible things because they hear, but do not believe. A persons values make up what they believe, and if their values aren't in the right place neither will their beliefs, and of course their actions will follow suit. You will know a true Christian by the fruit they bear and the love they show to one another. Now, I'm not saying good are exclusively Christian, but there has to be something in their belief system that drives them to be that way. Perhaps, it's Buddah, or perhaps it the teachings of their parents. Regardless, of why our beliefs do dictate who we are.

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:18 PM
I'm not intolerant. But I will defend my beliefs, my freedom to have those beliefs and will not apologize for how "high" my horse is.

And I would have no problem with that AT ALL, if you weren't trying to impede on others' rights. You have the right to express an opinion, you shouldn't be able to take rights away.

Gay people getting married doesn't impede your right to practice your religion at all.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:20 PM
And I would have no problem with that AT ALL, if you weren't trying to impede on others' rights. You have the right to express an opinion, you shouldn't be able to take right away.

Gay people getting married doesn't impede your right to practice your religion at all.

Ok, so people shouldn't vote against something they don't believe in? I mean as long as it doesn't appear to harm anyone... we should just let things go?

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:21 PM
I believe in God and I learned about evolution and to me it made sense. It's called an education. .

wow, what an arrogant thing to say.

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:22 PM
If you don't take the Bible literally, how do you take it... as a guide, like a map?

Yes, a guide. As humans, we have evolved both physically, mentally and spiritually over the last 2000 years and we will continue to do so. The Bible will remain the same, while new discoveries will provide different answers. You have to be able to adapt and not lose your faith. Or, I guess, you can disregard science all together - but, personally, I can't do that.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:22 PM
Tolerance .Tolerance is letting them have a civil union.

nychief
01-27-2010, 12:23 PM
the funny thing is that it isn't the Christians that voted Prop 8 into existence...

It was the Mormon church that funded the 43 million dollar campaign and, ironically, it was the black voters that came out for Obama that voted for it in the highest numbers.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Yes, a guide. As humans, we have evolved both physically, mentally and spiritually over the last 2000 years and we will continue to do so. The Bible will remain the same, while new discoveries will provide different answers. You have to be able to adapt and not lose your faith. Or, I guess, you can disregard science all together - but, personally, I can't do that.

I'm not 100% dismissing science, but I think it's wrong to do that very thing with the topic of Intelligent Design.

And, I agree with your comment... different doesn't mean correct.

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:25 PM
Ok, so people shouldn't vote against something they don't believe in? I mean as long as it doesn't appear to harm anyone... we should just let things go?

Let things go? How do you mean? That's pretty much what we have now. The basic laws protect our rights. That's the whole point of an organized government.

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm not 100% dismissing science, but I think it's wrong to do that very thing with the topic of Intelligent Design.

And, I agree with your comment... different doesn't mean correct.

Of course it doesn't mean correct. But, for example, you do agree that there are other systems in our galaxy and other galaxies beyond ours, right? Do you agree that the Earth is not flat? These answers have changed our view of the world, the Bible has remained the same. I'm sure you understand what I was trying to say with the post you quoted.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:29 PM
Let things go? How do you mean? That's pretty much what we have now. The basic laws protect our rights. That's the whole point of an organized government.

You stated, "And I would have no problem with that AT ALL, if you weren't trying to impede on others' rights. You have the right to express an opinion, you shouldn't be able to take right away."

I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that "by voting based on your belief, you're taking away a right that someone believes they have..."

So, if I read that correctly, my question to you was - are you suggesting that people should vote against their beliefs as long as it is a topic that doesn't appear to inflict harm on society?

Fish
01-27-2010, 12:30 PM
Tolerance is letting them have a civil union.

You speak of "tolerance", yet define it by what you think we should "let others have".

You're deciding what's best for a group of people against their wishes, yet labeling it as tolerance.

Does that make any sense?

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:31 PM
You stated, "And I would have no problem with that AT ALL, if you weren't trying to impede on others' rights. You have the right to express an opinion, you shouldn't be able to take right away."

I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that "by voting based on your belief, you're taking away a right that someone believes they have..."

So, if I read that correctly, my question to you was - are you suggesting that people should vote against their beliefs as long as it is a topic that doesn't appear to inflict harm on society?

No, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be able to vote on decisions governed by your beliefs if those beliefs take away other people's rights.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:32 PM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2008/09/thestupiditburns.jpg

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:33 PM
Of course it doesn't mean correct. But, for example, you do agree that there are other systems in our galaxy and other galaxies beyond ours, right? Do you agree that the Earth is not flat? These answers have changed our view of the world, the Bible has remained the same. I'm sure you understand what I was trying to say with the post you quoted.

I get all of that... I don't recall the bible saying the Earth was flat and yes there are other systems in our galaxy. That's not where I was focused.

Those things have nothing to do with the meat of this topic... or personal belief systems, relationships with God....

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:35 PM
Those things have nothing to do with the meat of this topic... or personal belief systems, relationships with God....

Agreed. Different argument altogether.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 12:35 PM
You are way off base. Sexual orientation does limit some things. You simply can't produce a kid as an example. What are you going to do next accuse god of discrimination? Just one example.


So a man or woman who is sterile should not be allowed to marry because he or she cannot produce a kid?

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:36 PM
You speak of "tolerance", yet define it by what you think we should "let others have".

You're deciding what's best for a group of people against their wishes, yet labeling it as tolerance.

Does that make any sense?

Giving all the rights to a group that the rest of us have with the exception of a word can only be described as intollerant by those that truly are. Does that make sense?

Like I said I hope the court shits on the California voters. This whole trail has been a witch hunt that is unpresidented. Any means to an end I guess.

Jawshco
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
No, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be able to vote on decisions governed by your beliefs if those beliefs take away other people's rights.

But there is no win-win here. If the gays win, Christians Lose and visa versa. That's just what politics are. Some one always wins and loses in every political decision that's made.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
No, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be able to vote on decisions governed by your beliefs if those beliefs take away other people's rights.

Ahhh ... that doesn't make much sense to me, you're entitled to it.

What should govern my votes? And, related to this topic... rights aren't technically being taken away, that's not the argument... the rights were never there to be lost.

Anyway... I honestly don't know how people can avoid voting without putting regard into their beliefs.

What's the harm to you if someone wants to marry his sister... or his mother? What if a father wanted to marry his 20 year old daughter?

They can't do it, but would you support it?

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:37 PM
Tolerance is dead, by the way. At this point, you must be tolerant of intolerance.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:38 PM
So a man or woman who is sterile should not be allowed to marry because he or she cannot produce a kid?

There's a crazy twist on the comment... you're not that silly, you know that was not where he was going.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 12:38 PM
But there is no win-win here. If the gays win, Christians Lose and visa versa. That's just what politics are. Some one always wins and loses in every political decision that's made.

How do Christians lose? How does two men or two women getting married directly affect you?

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:39 PM
So a man or woman who is sterile should not be allowed to marry because he or she cannot produce a kid?

That is such a weak argument and I am so sick of hearing it. The mass majority of heterosexuals can reproduce and it's the very nature heterosexuality. Zero homosexuals can reproduce naturally, period. Like I said, any means to an end.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 12:40 PM
Ahhh ... that doesn't make much sense to me, you're entitled to it.

What should govern my votes? And, related to this topic... rights aren't technically being taken away, that's not the argument... the rights were never there to be lost.

Anyway... I honestly don't know how people can avoid voting without putting regard into their beliefs.

What's the harm to you if someone wants to marry his sister... or his mother? What if a father wanted to marry his 20 year old daughter?

They can't do it, but would you support it?

People can vote however they want. However, the courts are there to protect the rights of the minority. While "rights aren't technically being taken away" they are being denied.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:41 PM
Tolerance is dead, by the way. At this point, you must be tolerant of intolerance.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to blindly accept things that you don't believe in to happen...

Tolerance is the act of accepting the fact that others have differing opinions and you allow them to have those opinions and thoughts... but it doesn't mean you have to support them. There's the difference and that's where the situation lies with voting on topics like this one.

You can be tolerant of the fact that others disagree and you should allow them to express their concerns, but you don't have to support their view. That's more than just being tolerant.

KC native
01-27-2010, 12:42 PM
the funny thing is that it isn't the Christians that voted Prop 8 into existence...

It was the Mormon church that funded the 43 million dollar campaign and, ironically, it was the black voters that came out for Obama that voted for it in the highest numbers.

Not true. It was a generational thing more than a race thing.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:43 PM
People can vote however they want. However, the courts are there to protect the rights of the minority. While "rights aren't technically being taken away" they are being denied.

Rights are being denied if your definition of marriage is something other than that being a bond or a covenant between a man and a woman.

People try to align this to sex and race, but to me ... they're not in the same ballpark.

Again, I'll ask the question again... Should a father be able to marry his daughter? Morally, you may thing it's insanely crazy, but how much different are the two scenarios... as long as you're talking about consenting adults ... why not support that one?

nychief
01-27-2010, 12:44 PM
Not true. It was a generational thing more than a race thing.

You're wrong. read the papers.

KC native
01-27-2010, 12:44 PM
That is such a weak argument and I am so sick of hearing it. The mass majority of heterosexuals can reproduce and it's the very nature heterosexuality. Zero homosexuals can reproduce naturally, period. Like I said, any means to an end.

I'm sorry but where in the Constitution does it reference the ability or assumed ability to reproduce as a requirement for equal rights?

Fish
01-27-2010, 12:45 PM
Giving all the rights to a group that the rest of us have with the exception of a word can only be described as intollerant by those that truly are. Does that make sense?

Like I said I hope the court shits on the California voters. This whole trail has been a witch hunt that is unpresidented. Any means to an end I guess.

Yes, but I don't understand the need for the exception. That's the whole point. To me, true tolerance would mean no exceptions.

KC native
01-27-2010, 12:46 PM
You're wrong. read the papers.

Post #40

Nate Silver covered this on his site

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Prop 8 Myths
by Nate Silver @ 3:47 PM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content

Writes Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee:

Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.

To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional – meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher – chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.

KC native
01-27-2010, 12:48 PM
Rights are being denied if your definition of marriage is something other than that being a bond or a covenant between a man and a woman.

People try to align this to sex and race, but to me ... they're not in the same ballpark.

Again, I'll ask the question again... Should a father be able to marry his daughter? Morally, you may thing it's insanely crazy, but how much different are the two scenarios... as long as you're talking about consenting adults ... why not support that one?

This is ridiculous but um, let's see...perhaps because inbreeding results in genetic defects which will affect the rest of society through the increased costs of care.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:49 PM
Rights are being denied if your definition of marriage is something other than that being a bond or a covenant between a man and a woman.

Correct. Sad thing is a lot of people view marriage as a bond between two people, without the man/woman mandate.

People try to align this to sex and race, but to me ... they're not in the same ballpark.

Rights wise, it definitely is akin to race.


Again, I'll ask the question again... Should a father be able to marry his daughter? Morally, you may thing it's insanely crazy, but how much different are the two scenarios... as long as you're talking about consenting adults ... why not support that one?

I'm not sure I get this argument in the context of tolerance is dead. Currently, tolerance must extend to people who marginalize other groups. In this case, Christian's view of marriage. It's tolerating their intolerance. That's what I'm told I have to do.

I guess you're getting at where does tolerance legitimately stop. Well, that's why I've claimed tolerance is dead. It's been brutally murdered - mostly by religious groups wanting tolerance for any beliefs they have.

To answer that it has some scientific implications - genetic deformation, the percentage of DNA shared by each, etc. You might counter that gays can't reproduce which equalizes the deformation aspect. But the other you can't really argue. So, perhaps you define marriage by the acceptable percentage of DNA shared between people?

There isn't an answer yet. And not sure there will be. Cop out or not.

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 12:50 PM
why is it that gays say straights who dont agree with there 'lifestyle' are phobic? I dont think they are scared, just disgusted.

Straight Pride!


this should make BD go KERAZY!

:)

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:50 PM
This is ridiculous but um, let's see...perhaps because inbreeding results in genetic defects which will affect the rest of society through the increased costs of care.

I agree it was jumping the shark... :D

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Tolerance is dead, by the way. At this point, you must be tolerant of intolerance.
Which is simply absurd.

That is such a weak argument and I am so sick of hearing it. The mass majority of heterosexuals can reproduce and it's the very nature heterosexuality. Zero homosexuals can reproduce naturally, period. Like I said, any means to an end.
Appealing to what is "natural" is a logical fallacy. Its called the Naturalistic Fallacy.

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 12:53 PM
has the part about male dogs humping each other come up yet?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 12:54 PM
I love these threads. It gives me a heads up on folks who are bat shit crazy that I would've otherwise thought were perfectly normal human beings.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Which is simply absurd.


Appealing to what is "natural" is a logical fallacy. Its called the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Yep to point 1.

Expanding point 2: Homosexuality is, in fact, natural. It's evident in just about every other species on the planet. And pretty much in the same numbers: a minority. I don't really see why people still argue the natural aspect since it's easy to ask one question that defeats that whole argument (and the whole born/choice):

When did you decide to be heterosexual?

Right, you didn't.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:56 PM
why is it that gays say straights who dont agree with there 'lifestyle' are phobic? I dont think they are scared, just disgusted.

Straight Pride!


this should make BD go KERAZY!

:)

I am not certainly not a homophobe. I look at myself as more of a zackophobe. That's people who have a fear of nutless pirates hiding in closets.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Correct. Sad thing is a lot of people view marriage as a bond between two people, without the man/woman mandate.

Rights wise, it definitely is akin to race.



If someone believes that the covenant of marriage is between a man and a woman and they consider themselves as a Christian that believes in the word of God... I would think it would be tough to vote against your belief system on this one. Again, to each his own on that one... that's why we have the system in place.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:56 PM
I love these threads. It gives me a heads up on folks who are bat shit crazy that I would've otherwise thought were perfectly normal human beings.

So true.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-27-2010, 12:57 PM
People try to align this to sex and race, but to me ... they're not in the same ballpark.

Sexuality is every bit as much of a fundamental part of personhood as is race.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 12:58 PM
has the part about male dogs humping each other come up yet?

No, there is something about werewolves beheading and boiling dog heads though but I think that's another thread.

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 12:58 PM
I am not certainly not a homophobe. I look at myself as more of a zackophobe. That's people who have a fear of nutless pirates hiding in closets.

Thanks dick now i have something else to be afraid of.

nutless pirates? WTF is that? Lets kill it anyway!

Pants
01-27-2010, 12:59 PM
Ahhh ... that doesn't make much sense to me, you're entitled to it.

Denying people rights that don't harm anyone because you BELIEVE it's wrong is OK with you? How can my statement not make much sense to you?

Like I said before, the vast majority BELIEVED that it was wrong for black people to have the same rights as white people.

Also, look at my Muslim world example and their treatment of women. They treat them like second rate beings because their BELIEFS state it is true.

And, related to this topic... rights aren't technically being taken away, that's not the argument... the rights were never there to be lost. But the same applied to slavery, women's suffrage, etc...


Anyway... I honestly don't know how people can avoid voting without putting regard into their beliefs.
No, you can vote upon your beliefs as long as you're not taking rights away (or denying them - for semantics' purpose).

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 12:59 PM
If someone believes that the covenant of marriage is between a man and a woman and they consider themselves as a Christian that believes in the word of God... I would think it would be tough to vote against your belief system on this one. Again, to each his own on that one... that's why we have the system in place.

Right. But the point is that your belief system requires you to be intolerant. Which, for Christians, completely defeats Jesus' teachings, by the way.

Again, tolerance has been murdered time and time again. At this point, you must be tolerant of beliefs that are intolerant in and of themselves.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:00 PM
Also, BD, I've followed it pretty closely with twitter feeds coming out. Sounds like the defense got blown out of the water. Their witnesses got difficult and aggressive to the point of Walker issuing warnings and one of them Blankethorn stated over and over that he agrees with the prosecution on A, B, C and D.

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 01:00 PM
No, there is something about werewolves beheading and boiling dog heads though but I think that's another thread.

came pretty close in post #152 sec.II

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
If someone believes that the covenant of marriage is between a man and a woman and they consider themselves as a Christian that believes in the word of God... I would think it would be tough to vote against your belief system on this one. Again, to each his own on that one... that's why we have the system in place.

If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman then no one is infringing upon your right to that belief nor is anyone forcing you to go against that belief. You can exercise your belief by marrying a woman (or man if you are a woman) and not marrying someone of the same sex. However, by passing an amendment/law/proposition defining marriage as only between a man and woman you are infringing upon the belief of those who do not believe marriage is only between a man and woman. Additionally, you are denying those people the ability to exercise their belief.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Denying people rights that don't harm anyone because you BELIEVE it's wrong, is OK with you? How can my statement not make much sense to you?

Like I said before, the vast majority BELIEVED that it was wrong for black people to have the same rights as white people.

Also, look at my Muslim world example and their treatment of women. They treat them like second rate beings because their BELIEFS state it is true.



But the same applied to slavery, women's suffrage, etc...




No, you can vote upon your beliefs as long as you're not taking rights away (or denying them - for semantics' purpose).


Agreed on all points.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Right. But the point is that your belief system requires you to be intolerant. Which, for Christians, completely defeats Jesus' teachings, by the way.

Again, tolerance has been murdered time and time again. At this point, you must be tolerant of beliefs that are intolerant in and of themselves.

So Jesus' teachings were always tolerant?

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Yep to point 1.

Expanding point 2: Homosexuality is, in fact, natural. It's evident in just about every other species on the planet. And pretty much in the same numbers: a minority. I don't really see why people still argue the natural aspect since it's easy to ask one question that defeats that whole argument (and the whole born/choice):

When did you decide to be heterosexual?

Right, you didn't.

It's an interesting topic... not sure I agree with the simple question aspect of your comment though. I do think that how kids are raised plays a huge part in what the become later in life.

I don't think I buy the notion that someone is born straight or gay... genetically, I know there are things that you can point to defend the stance, but I think there's more to it than that alone.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Sexuality is every bit as much of a fundamental part of personhood as is race.

Oh god, first Reaper, then gayhawk, now you. Nature begs to differ. Is anyone even going to bother to address the witchhunt that is the prop 8 trial or just how big of a joke it's become. It's what the whole thread is actually about. There is a reason I said any means to an end about 15 times. Nevermind I have to go anyway. Carry on.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:01 PM
If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman then no one is infringing upon your right to that belief nor is anyone forcing you to go against that belief. You can exercise your belief by marrying a woman (or man if you are a woman) and not marrying someone of the same sex. However, by passing an amendment/law/proposition defining marriage as only between a man and woman you are infringing upon the belief of those who do not believe marriage is only between a man and woman. Additionally, you are denying those people the ability to exercise their belief.

Well put. I forgot to mention that aspect.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-27-2010, 01:02 PM
the funny thing is that it isn't the Christians that voted Prop 8 into existence...

It was the Mormon church that funded the 43 million dollar campaign and, ironically, it was the black voters that came out for Obama that voted for it in the highest numbers.

Those black voters did so b/c of the influence of Protestant Christianity and the institutional homophobia that is far more prevalent in the black community. The two are somewhat correlated through the individual doctrines of the churches.

There are a variety of people who caused it to pass

The money of the Mormon church
The teachings of Protestant Christianity
The large turnout of AA's, who are highly religious, and who also have a larger percentage of their population who is anti-gay.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:04 PM
So Jesus' teachings were always tolerant?

That's their whole PR spin on them. That's how they're percieved. Yes, some are not. And the Bible is definitely an intolerant text. Angry god. That's why I discarded it.

It's an interesting topic... not sure I agree with the simple question aspect of your comment though. I do think that how kids are raised plays a huge part in what the become later in life.

I don't think I buy the notion that someone is born straight or gay... genetically, I know there are things that you can point to defend the stance, but I think there's more to it than that alone.

It's true, it might be factors on both sides. But that doesn't make it a conscious choice, though one could make it if they wanted.

Oh god, first Reaper, then gayhawk, now you. Nature begs to differ. Is anyone even going to bother to address the witchhunt that is the prop 8 trial or just how big of a joke it's become. It's what the whole thread is actually about. There is a reason I said any means to an end about 15 times. Nevermind I have to go anyway. Carry on.

I aim to please.

Nature begs to differ with you on homosexuality being unnatural considering most species have a homosexual segment.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:05 PM
Those black voters did so b/c of the influence of Protestant Christianity and the institutional homophobia that is far more prevalent in the black community. The two are somewhat correlated through the individual doctrines of the churches.

There are a variety of people who caused it to pass

The money of the Mormon church
The teachings of Protestant Christianity
The large turnout of AA's, who are highly religious, and who also have a larger percentage of their population who is anti-gay.

Saddleback Ministries.
Rick "Tolerant" Warren.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-27-2010, 01:05 PM
Oh god, first Reaper, then gayhawk, now you. Nature begs to differ. Is anyone even going to bother to address the witchhunt that is the prop 8 trial or just how big of a joke it's become. It's what the whole thread is actually about. There is a reason I said any means to an end about 15 times. Nevermind I have to go anyway. Carry on.

Nature does not beg to differ. Homosexuality is an observable trait throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a choice, just like your race isn't a choice.




P.S.: I'm sure someone will follow with the argument that homosexuals can't extend their lines, and thus, it's an undesirable trait and will be weeded out through natural selection.

Well, let's take that belief to its logical conclusion as well. You won't like your bedfellows.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 01:05 PM
So Jesus' teachings were always tolerant?

I'm no bible scholar, but my understanding of the teachings of Jesus was to hold yourself to a much higher standard than you hold anyone else. You fix you, and let others do as they will. God will sort everyone out.

Brock
01-27-2010, 01:05 PM
I don't think I buy the notion that someone is born straight or gay... genetically, I know there are things that you can point to defend the stance, but I think there's more to it than that alone.

Like what?

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 01:05 PM
Also, BD, I've followed it pretty closely with twitter feeds coming out. Sounds like the defense got blown out of the water. Their witnesses got difficult and aggressive to the point of Walker issuing warnings and one of them Blankethorn stated over and over that he agrees with the prosecution on A, B, C and D.


I'm sure you have conveniently overlooked the fact that judge let the prosecution grill the people who wrote the bill about their personal life which has nothing to do with the case. I am more than certain that you feel the defense got blown out of the water. I am telling you the political fallout after 2 elections will be huge if they overturn this. Now I'm late, great.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:07 PM
If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman then no one is infringing upon your right to that belief nor is anyone forcing you to go against that belief. You can exercise your belief by marrying a woman (or man if you are a woman) and not marrying someone of the same sex. However, by passing an amendment/law/proposition defining marriage as only between a man and woman you are infringing upon the belief of those who do not believe marriage is only between a man and woman. Additionally, you are denying those people the ability to exercise their belief.

I totally get your point... we just differ on this one.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-27-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm sure you have conveniently overlooked the fact that judge let the prosecution grill the people who wrote the bill about their personal life which has nothing to do with the case. I am more than certain that you feel the defense got blown out of the water. I am telling you the political fallout after 2 elections will be huge if they overturn this. Now I'm late, great.

Define irony:

Bitching while you chose to respond to this post. The people you are arguing against had no choice.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 01:08 PM
Nature does not beg to differ. Homosexuality is an observable trait throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a choice, just like your race isn't a choice.




P.S.: I'm sure someone will follow with the argument that homosexuals can't extend their lines, and thus, it's an undesirable trait and will be weeded out through natural selection.

Well, let's take that belief to its logical conclusion as well. You won't like your bedfellows.

I am not going to argue the symantecs of that with you. God obviously wanted a man and a woman to reproduce or it wouldn't be that way. PERIOD. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or marry but should have every other right a couple has. Getting maried is just a word. Civil unions and no adoptions, end of story.

nychief
01-27-2010, 01:08 PM
Those black voters did so b/c of the influence of Protestant Christianity and the institutional homophobia that is far more prevalent in the black community. The two are somewhat correlated through the individual doctrines of the churches.

There are a variety of people who caused it to pass

The money of the Mormon church
The teachings of Protestant Christianity
The large turnout of AA's, who are highly religious, and who also have a larger percentage of their population who is anti-gay.


yep, all true... that and "El Polo Loco" money.


California is a fascinating political landscape...

Pants
01-27-2010, 01:09 PM
I totally get your point... we just differ on this one.

But you do realize that marriage had nothing to do with faith or religion at its roots, correct?

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 01:09 PM
I am not going to argue the symantecs of that with you. God obviously wanted a man and a woman to reproduce or it wouldn't be that way. PERIOD. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or marry but should have every other right a couple has. Getting maried is just a word. Civil unions and no adoptions, end of story.

Please file in the dictionary under intolerance.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 01:10 PM
Define irony:

Bitching while you chose to respond to this post. The people you are arguing against had no choice.

That has nothing to do with what I posted, try again,

nychief
01-27-2010, 01:10 PM
I am not going to argue the symantecs of that with you. God obviously wanted a man and a woman to reproduce or it wouldn't be that way. PERIOD. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or marry but should have every other right a couple has. Getting maried is just a word. Civil unions and no adoptions, end of story.

Big Daddy....

http://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2008/04/pregnant_woman_thinks_shes_man.jpg

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 01:10 PM
I totally get your point... we just differ on this one.

So if you understand the philosophy, why do you differ on it? It's a control issue IMO. People are way too focused on what's going on in everyone else's house while completely ignoring what's wrong in their own. Now, I'm not trying to project that opinion onto you. I'm just saying that's my opinion on how it is for a lot of people out there.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:10 PM
I am not going to argue the symantecs of that with you. God obviously wanted a man and a woman to reproduce or it wouldn't be that way. PERIOD. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or marry but should have every other right a couple has. Getting maried is just a word. Civil unions and no adoptions, end of story.

And that's why I dropped the whole god thing.

I think this just sent it to DC. :)

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 01:11 PM
Nature begs to differ with you on homosexuality being unnatural considering most species have a homosexual segment.

name a few.

Brock
01-27-2010, 01:12 PM
name a few.

Monkeys, dolphins, penguins.

DaKCMan AP
01-27-2010, 01:13 PM
name a few.

...a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Biological+Exuberance:+Animal+Homosexuality+and+Natural+Diversity.-a053877996

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1264623260&sr=8-1

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:14 PM
name a few.

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

Knock yourself out.

Oh, and it's pretty well cited on that OMG WIKIPEDIA PAGE.

Pants
01-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Monkeys, dolphins, penguins.

Yeah, pretty much all water mammals. They also kill for pleasure (as opposed to survival) and rape as well.

CaliforniaChief
01-27-2010, 01:18 PM
I'm no bible scholar, but my understanding of the teachings of Jesus was to hold yourself to a much higher standard than you hold anyone else. You fix you, and let others do as they will. God will sort everyone out.

Absolutely, and I'm not applying his teachings onto other people here, either. I'm just responding to this generalization about Jesus' teachings that simply is inaccurate. I don't call them intolerant, I call them challenging...and believe me there are enough inconsistencies from my own life to his teachings to keep me busy for the rest of my life and then some.

nychief
01-27-2010, 01:18 PM
Monkeys, dolphins, penguins, Raiders fans.

FYP

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 01:18 PM
I am not going to argue the symantecs of that with you. God obviously wanted a man and a woman to reproduce or it wouldn't be that way. PERIOD. Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or marry but should have every other right a couple has. Getting maried is just a word. Civil unions and no adoptions, end of story.
If God is the justification then why allow homosexuals any rights? Why defy a divine mandate?

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:19 PM
If God is the justification then why allow homosexuals any rights? Why defy a divine mandate?

Stone all adulters.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:19 PM
But you do realize that marriage had nothing to do with faith or religion at its roots, correct?

I'm just looking at it from what I believe in... the view of a christian marriage. I can't stop people from doing it, but if asked to vote on the topic, I wouldn't support it with my vote.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Absolutely, and I'm not applying his teachings onto other people here, either. I'm just responding to this generalization about Jesus' teachings that simply is inaccurate. I don't call them intolerant, I call them challenging...and believe me there are enough inconsistencies from my own life to his teachings to keep me busy for the rest of my life and then some.

What, precisely, was inaccurate about the sweeping generalization (I do agree on generalization point)?

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:21 PM
I'm just looking at it from what I believe in... the view of a christian marriage. I can't stop people from doing it, but if asked to vote on the topic, I wouldn't support it with my vote.

Why vote at all since it wouldn't affect you?

Pants
01-27-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm just looking at it from what I believe in... the view of a christian marriage. I can't stop people from doing it, but if asked to vote on the topic, I wouldn't support it with my vote.

If it came up in your state, would you go out and vote against it? Because it seems like you understand our points and agree to some extent but choose to go with your BELIEF and deny others their rights, which is pretty much intolerance.

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 01:25 PM
you guys sourced one guy who has a phd in linguistics.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:25 PM
Why vote at all since it wouldn't affect you?

I'm not sure if voting for the County Clerk really impacts me either, but I still do it... why would I not vote on something just because I don't think it impacts me now?

Voting changes how things are done... if I just sit by and let change that I don't agree with happen, well that's kind of silly.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:26 PM
you guys sourced one guy who has a phd in linguistics.

Good strawman.

I'm not sure if voting for the County Clerk really impacts me either, but I still do it... why would I not vote on something just because I don't think it impacts me now?

Voting changes how things are done... if I just sit by and let change that I don't agree with happen, well that's kind of silly.

Right, but nothing about your beliefs is challenged by it. It impacts you in ZERO ways.

L.A. Chieffan
01-27-2010, 01:27 PM
bonobos get it on 24/7
Posted via Mobile Device

Pants
01-27-2010, 01:28 PM
Good strawman.



Right, but nothing about your beliefs is challenged by it. It impacts you in ZERO ways.

The county clerk position would, definitely, have a greater impact on the population of said county.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:28 PM
If it came up in your state, would you go out and vote against it? Because it seems like you understand our points and agree to some extent but choose to go with your BELIEF and deny others their rights, which is pretty much intolerance.

I don't see it that way... I understand the points because I'm being tolerant, I don't necessarily agree or support the points being made. Accepting everything that everyone would like to do in life doesn't make you tolerant.

Pants
01-27-2010, 01:29 PM
I don't see it that way... I understand the points because I'm being tolerant, I don't necessarily agree or support the points being made. Accepting everything that everyone would like to do in life doesn't make you tolerant.

Of course not. Accepting everything one would like to do in life that doesn't harm others would, though.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 01:31 PM
Absolutely, and I'm not applying his teachings onto other people here, either. I'm just responding to this generalization about Jesus' teachings that simply is inaccurate. I don't call them intolerant, I call them challenging...and believe me there are enough inconsistencies from my own life to his teachings to keep me busy for the rest of my life and then some.

Hey, that applies to all of us. I consider a lot of Christians to be nut bags, but not nearly a majority of them. I'm a God loving soul, not a God fearing one. I wish everyone was the same way. And I have plenty of faults of my own. So, no soap box here. I promise. You're a good guy Chief. I'm not trying to call anyone's ass out on the carpet. It's a good, thought provoking thread. All that said, there is some bat shit crazy going on in this thread. JMO.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 01:32 PM
Of course not. Accepting everything one would like to do in life that doesn't harm others would, though.

Again, it's not all about "causing harm"... we're at the agree to disagree point.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 01:33 PM
Again, it's not all about "causing harm"... we're at the agree to disagree point.

Then what is it about?

MOhillbilly
01-27-2010, 01:34 PM
Good strawman.





Im not trying to be a strawman i have a honest intrest in this subject and could care less about making an argument for or against human homosexuality w/ it.

CrazyPhuD
01-27-2010, 02:05 PM
JFC can we send this to DC already.....

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 02:12 PM
JFC can we send this to DC already.....

Why'd you bump it. Do you go into DC? If not, why open it and read it to begin with? This has been a pretty good thread without a lot of the shit slinging that does go on in DC. It's been a downright civil discussion, which is my guess to why it has not been moved.

Inspector
01-27-2010, 02:13 PM
My sister's first husband was gay. Anyone who says gay's can't get married are mistaken.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 02:24 PM
Why'd you bump it. Do you go into DC? If not, why open it and read it to begin with? This has been a pretty good thread without a lot of the shit slinging that does go on in DC. It's been a downright civil discussion, which is my guess to why it has not been moved.

That's pretty much what I almost typed and then got sidetracked.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 02:39 PM
If God is the justification then why allow homosexuals any rights? Why defy a divine mandate?

What part of reproduction = the natural ability to produce a family are you having a hard time following?

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 02:42 PM
What part of reproduction = the natural ability to produce a family are you having a hard time following?

So, single parents should be mandated to remarry? Or not adopt, period?

Pants
01-27-2010, 02:43 PM
What part of reproduction = the natural ability to produce a family are you having a hard time following?

Back to the argument of a parent being sterile, I guess...

KC native
01-27-2010, 02:43 PM
What part of reproduction = the natural ability to produce a family are you having a hard time following?

I'm curious. Where does it say in the Constitution that you have to have the natural ability to produce a family to have equal rights?

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm curious. Where does it say in the Constitution that you have to have the natural ability to produce a family to have equal rights?

How many times do I have to say I am for equal rights? We are are really down to a word and the ability to adopt. Everything else I am right there. There is a reason god gave one man and one woman the ability to reproduce. Psychologists go on and on about the inportance of a child having a mother and a father in their lives. The gay community would like us to believe that this situation does not exist and they are just victims. It's just not the case.

This pales in comparison to what is being allowed to happen in that court room in order to paint the legislators as bad, bad people. Their personal belief has nothing to do with the piece of legislation at hand. This thing should have been wrapped up a long time ago.

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 02:56 PM
How many times do I have to say I am for equal rights? We are are really down to a word and the ability to adopt. Everything else I am right there. There is a reason god gave one man and one woman the ability to reproduce. Psychologists go on and on about the inportance of a child having a mother and a father in their lives. The gay community would like us to believe that this situation does not exist and they are just victims. It's just not the case.

This pales in comparison to what is being allowed to happen in that court room in order to paint the legislators as bad, bad people. Their personal belief has nothing to do with the piece of legislation at hand. This thing should have been wrapped up a long time ago.

What happens if god was taken out of the equation once and for all? Say tomorrow, god didn't exist at all. You'd still take the same argument?

If so, why?

irishjayhawk
01-27-2010, 02:59 PM
How many times do I have to say I am for equal rights? We are are really down to a word and the ability to adopt. Everything else I am right there. There is a reason god gave one man and one woman the ability to reproduce. Psychologists go on and on about the inportance of a child having a mother and a father in their lives. The gay community would like us to believe that this situation does not exist and they are just victims. It's just not the case.

This pales in comparison to what is being allowed to happen in that court room in order to paint the legislators as bad, bad people. Their personal belief has nothing to do with the piece of legislation at hand. This thing should have been wrapped up a long time ago.

Also, legislators had very little to do with the Prop 8 amendment. IIRC, it was a ballot initiative by the people and organizations. They had to follow certain procedures (unbiased write up on the ballot itself, etc) but it wasn't California's congress writing it like Congress is wrote the Health Care bill.

And since these "legislators" as you call them, are being completely intolerant, they are getting flak. They are mostly religious too. They're getting flak. Religion/God shouldn't be in the laws. Period.

KC native
01-27-2010, 03:00 PM
How many times do I have to say I am for equal rights? We are are really down to a word and the ability to adopt. Everything else I am right there. There is a reason god gave one man and one woman the ability to reproduce. Psychologists go on and on about the inportance of a child having a mother and a father in their lives. The gay community would like us to believe that this situation does not exist and they are just victims. It's just not the case.

This pales in comparison to what is being allowed to happen in that court room in order to paint the legislators as bad, bad people. Their personal belief has nothing to do with the piece of legislation at hand. This thing should have been wrapped up a long time ago.

No, you're not for equal rights. Civil unions are separate but equal type of territory.

Beyond that I know gay parents and they are just as great of parents as hetero couples. A child needs love and attention first and foremost. The child doesn't care if they have two daddies or two mommies. Your stance on gays not being able to adopt is outrageous to me as I would much rather a child be adopted to gay parents rather than be forced to remain in foster care. Restricting that ability shows that you aren't really for equal rights. You just want rights for everyone according to your religious beliefs.

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:01 PM
Religion/God shouldn't be in the laws. Period.

Exactly.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:03 PM
Saying that God/Religion shouldn't be in the laws is correct. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to vote based off of their own beliefs. That's just as bad as telling homosexuals they can't get married IMO.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 03:08 PM
No, you're not for equal rights. Civil unions are separate but equal type of territory.

Beyond that I know gay parents and they are just as great of parents as hetero couples. A child needs love and attention first and foremost. The child doesn't care if they have two daddies or two mommies. Your stance on gays not being able to adopt is outrageous to me as I would much rather a child be adopted to gay parents rather than be forced to remain in foster care. Restricting that ability shows that you aren't really for equal rights. You just want rights for everyone according to your religious beliefs.

Yea you know, blah, blah blah. Screw all the psychologists you know. I've already covered the foster care/adoption bureaucratic nightmare in detail I am not going there again. You can go back and read it if you want.

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:12 PM
Saying that God/Religion shouldn't be in the laws is correct. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to vote based off of their own beliefs. That's just as bad as telling homosexuals they can't get married IMO.

This is true, however, what we have been arguing throughout this whole thread is that people should not be voting based off of their own beliefs if those beliefs deny others their rights. Does that make sense?

bogey
01-27-2010, 03:15 PM
Yea you know, blah, blah blah. Screw all the psychologists you know. I've already covered the foster care/adoption bureaucratic nightmare in detail I am not going there again. You can go back and read it if you want.

I missed what you said earlier and can't find it. Why do you ignor success stories? Do you have real life stories of children adopted by gays that turned out bad? My gay dentist has two adopted children. He and his partner adopted a brother and sister 12 years ago. These kids are now 15 and 18 years old. They're happy kids. I'm surprised at your take on this.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:19 PM
This is true, however, what we have been arguing throughout this whole thread is that people should not be voting based off of their own beliefs if those beliefs deny others their rights. Does that make sense?

Sure. And while I agree with you on a personal level, does that create a problem in itself? If we're telling people not to vote based off of their beliefs because they deny rights to others, aren't we in effect denying rights to the people who vote based off of those beliefs?

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:21 PM
Sure. And while I agree with you on a personal level, does that create a problem in itself? If we're telling people not to vote based off of their beliefs because they deny rights to others, aren't we in effect denying rights to the people who vote based off of those beliefs?

That's not a sound argument. Denying someone rights is not a right.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:23 PM
That's not a sound argument. Denying someone rights is not a right.

Maybe I misworded my statement. It happens frequently enough. Telling someone they shouldn't vote to remove someone else's rights is fine. But telling them it's due to their beliefs is wrong. Correct the poor education. Don't attack the cause of it.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:24 PM
Maybe I misworded my statement. It happens frequently enough. Telling someone they shouldn't vote to remove someone else's rights is fine. But telling them it's due to their beliefs is wrong. Correct the poor education. Don't attack the cause of it.

I say this because no one has ever gotten anywhere with it. Telling someone their pastor is full of shit isn't going to persuade anyone. Pointing out that real people are getting screwed over because you're trying to control them makes a better point IMO.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 03:24 PM
Take back your freedom? How are you being repressed?

And, yeah, applaud the African-American groups who want equal rights for themselves but then want to deny equal rights to another minority. Brilliant!

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I disagree with the way you frame the issue.

Homosexual males have exactly the same rights now as heterosexual males have. Find a woman and marry her if you want to, or remain a bachelor.

KC native
01-27-2010, 03:27 PM
Yea you know, blah, blah blah. Screw all the psychologists you know. I've already covered the foster care/adoption bureaucratic nightmare in detail I am not going there again. You can go back and read it if you want.

I didn't say psychologists. I personally know two people who are gay but were trying to fit into the hetero lifestyle earlier in their lives. Well, they both had kids and to this day they are both great parents with great kids(one is a woman and the other a man).

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:30 PM
Religion/God shouldn't be in the laws. Period.

Exactly.

I'm not even sure what "religion/God shouldn't be in the laws" really means here.

Well, when the country was founded there was a focus on God. Does "In God We Trust" ring a bell? Just look at all the references to God in the founding of our country.

I'm not sure how to wrap my around around the notion that if I believe in God and a particular way to lead your life, I'm supposed to ignore that belief when it comes to matters that shape the nation that I live in...

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:33 PM
Also, I know a lot of people that are gay... they're great people - they're friends from high school, college, work...

I want them to get the best out of life, some of them would make fantastic parents... some of them are parents. I still have my beliefs and while we agree and disagree on things, I'm not going to alter my beliefs.

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:33 PM
I say this because no one has ever gotten anywhere with it. Telling someone their pastor is full of shit isn't going to persuade anyone. Pointing out that real people are getting screwed over because you're trying to control them makes a better point IMO.

Of course it makes a better point, I agree with you 100%, Flop. And while that will work with some people, others will just say that the given homosexual person should just chose to be straight. To many, faith is an absolute thing and on top of that, homosexuality isn't something a straight person can really relate to because it's a completely foreign concept.

All I want is for people to realize that some people are different and it's not by choice and you shouldn't deny them rights based solely on your personal beliefs.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:35 PM
Also, I know a lot of people that are gay... they're great people - they're friends from high school, college, work...

I want them to get the best out of life, some of them would make fantastic parents... some of them are parents. I still have my beliefs and while we agree and disagree on things, I'm not going to alter my beliefs.

Do your beliefs state that Thou shalt not judge and leave it to God? If so, then what's the problem? Gay people aren't hurting anyone with their lifestyle, and frankly, that should be the only thing that matters to Christians. Let God do his job, and quit impeding on the freewill that he gave to us.

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 03:35 PM
I missed what you said earlier and can't find it. Why do you ignor success stories? Do you have real life stories of children adopted by gays that turned out bad? My gay dentist has two adopted children. He and his partner adopted a brother and sister 12 years ago. These kids are now 15 and 18 years old. They're happy kids. I'm surprised at your take on this.

The goal should not be what can be done successfully it should be what is the best situation those kids can walk into. The most basic fundamentally healthy situation is having a mother and father as both parents bring different qualities to a relationship. This is really very simple psychology which nobody wants to talk about. Does it mean it’s best situation every time, absolutely not but you have to start somewhere. Every time you bring this up the proponents for gay adoption move the goal posts to “ better gay parents that love the kids than foster care or a group home” The adoption agencies are an abomination. Do you realize how hard it is for good heterosexual parents in healthy relationships to adopt? I gave examples earlier, I am sure you can find those. I would adopt right now but no way I am going through that hell or giving them that much money. Bottom line is our problem is the agencies, There are plenty of good heterosexual families that would love to adopt if they were not robbed and drug through 50 miles of broken glass and hot coals.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:37 PM
Of course it makes a better point, I agree with you 100%, Flop. And while that will work with some people, others will just say that the given homosexual person should just chose to be straight. To many, faith is an absolute thing and on top of that, homosexuality isn't something a straight person can really relate to because it's a completely foreign concept.

All I want is for people to realize that some people are different and it's not by choice and you shouldn't deny them rights based solely on your personal beliefs.

We are totally on the same team. And I'm not in a position where I should be criticizing you, that really wasn't my intention. It did come across that way though, and for that, I apologize.

I'm going to challenge their beliefs. What belief does someone have that gives them the right to impede on the free will that God gave human beings? The exception to that rule obviously being that you can't use your free will to go out and hurt, or damage someone. No one can claim that homosexuality is an impediment on the general public's daily lives.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:38 PM
Of course it makes a better point, I agree with you 100%, Flop. And while that will work with some people, others will just say that the given homosexual person should just chose to be straight. To many, faith is an absolute thing and on top of that, homosexuality isn't something a straight person can really relate to because it's a completely foreign concept.

All I want is for people to realize that some people are different and it's not by choice and you shouldn't deny them rights based solely on your personal beliefs.

Faith should be an absolute thing to you if you are a believer... your belief in God isn't like going to the grocery store, you can't just pick and choose what you like and say you believe in God. You can't just be a casual Christian when it works best for you.

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:38 PM
Also, I know a lot of people that are gay... they're great people - they're friends from high school, college, work...

I want them to get the best out of life, some of them would make fantastic parents... some of them are parents. I still have my beliefs and while we agree and disagree on things, I'm not going to alter my beliefs.

It means "do not deny people rights based on your religion." Separation of church and state. Go see Yemen for a model of what NOT to do. It's great that the basic laws of Christianity fit the basic laws of any normal society and our current Constitutional laws, which are all based on not denying people their right to live, own property, etc.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:41 PM
Do your beliefs state that Thou shalt not judge and leave it to God? If so, then what's the problem? Gay people aren't hurting anyone with their lifestyle, and frankly, that should be the only thing that matters to Christians. Let God do his job, and quit impeding on the freewill that he gave to us.

I'm not judging anyone...

And, again... back to the topic, we're talking about a situation where people are being asked to vote. It's your duty to vote, sure you can choose not to vote... but if the topic is something of which that you do not believe in or do not support, why should that vote be silenced?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:44 PM
I'm not judging anyone...

And, again... back to the topic, we're talking about a situation where people are being asked to vote. It's your duty to vote, sure you can choose not to vote... but if the topic is something of which that you do not believe in or do not support, why should that vote be silenced?

Because you're beliefs also state that you aren't going to harm anyone else. Your vote is harming millions of people, who want nothing more than the same benefits you and I get from marriage. In effect, they're paying a penalty for their lifestyle, just because you don't agree with it. By voting for them to not have the same rights as you and I, you're absolutely judging them IMO.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:45 PM
It means "do not deny people rights based on your religion." Separation of church and state.

That's your interpretation...

If the government were trying to enforce a set of laws based on a particular religion, that's where the separation of church and state applies. It does not apply to any person and the way they vote.

L.A. Chieffan
01-27-2010, 03:45 PM
i seen two boy dogs doin it

BIG_DADDY
01-27-2010, 03:46 PM
We are totally on the same team. And I'm not in a position where I should be criticizing you, that really wasn't my intention. It did come across that way though, and for that, I apologize.

I'm going to challenge their beliefs. What belief does someone have that gives them the right to impede on the free will that God gave human beings? The exception to that rule obviously being that you can't use your free will to go out and hurt, or damage someone. No one can claim that homosexuality is an impediment on the general public's daily lives.

Where is the connect?

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:47 PM
Faith should be an absolute thing to you if you are a believer... your belief in God isn't like going to the grocery store, you can't just pick and choose what you like and say you believe in God. You can't just be a casual Christian when it works best for you.

Sure. And you have ALL the right in the world to think whatever you want to think. I'm not trying to tell how to think or what to think about. I just don't want those thoughts becoming a law that denies people a certain right.

You're entitled to think and act however you want, God will be your judge in the end.

What I can't grasp is why you want to deny people a right that would NOT affect you in any way shape or from just because it's against a personal belief of yours. I mean, just take a step back and look at the concept as a whole. I already gave you real examples of countries being run by religious law (tribal Afghanistan is another great example, where justice is carried out according to the word of God), do you want me to give you a hypothetical example as well?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2010, 03:47 PM
Where is the connect?

That post had very little to do with the discussion at hand. I think people should absolutely be allowed to vote based on their beliefs. I think more people should question some of their beliefs.

Mile High Mania
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
Because you're beliefs also state that you aren't going to harm anyone else. Your vote is harming millions of people, who want nothing more than the same benefits you and I get from marriage. In effect, they're paying a penalty for their lifestyle, just because you don't agree with it. By voting for them to not have the same rights as you and I, you're absolutely judging them IMO.

So, if I don't agree with something ... by default, I'm judging it... right?

L.A. Chieffan
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
two hot chicks doin it is hot. where can i vote on that?

Pants
01-27-2010, 03:49 PM
That's your interpretation...

If the government were trying to enforce a set of laws based on a particular religion, that's where the separation of church and state applies. It does not apply to any person and the way they vote.

This is true. I see what you're saying.