OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 01:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
diest u are ******* this thread UP!

good job man.

seriously.

0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 03:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
We both have a higher view of marriage than a simple government contract.

You see it as a contract with your choice of god.
I see it as a pact of love and commitment.

Nothing excludes gays from having a contract with their god of choice except people like you.

You are terribly illiterate about this topic. Get educated.

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 03:38 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
You are terribly illiterate about this topic. Get educated.

Back at ya

check out NY state, the winning democrats were all hot during the election about pushing the gay rights agenda next year, till the majority in California voted thumbs down....now the new yorkers are putting off the fight.....because unlike you they know damn well that they can't go against the majority. Homosexual marriage in NY is illegal, as it has always been illegal, as it is in every other state and so far as I know every other country.

The courts will in time go against the majority, fixated as they are on individual rights. At that time the majority will overrule the courts, and homosexual marriage will be illegal again for at least another Generation. That is, unless the gay rights groups change their spots, and show an willingness to accept less than what they think the majority owes them.

Major moral questions are not settled in the courts, the courts carry out the will of the people. You are in America...please learn how America works.
Copper Seth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 03:53 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Monogamy--one marriage at a time--is the primary vehicle through which the State regulates familial benefits and responsibilities. The State has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare and fiancial stability of your first spouse and any children of that first marriage before you may be allowed to marry again. Therefore, you must divorce your first spouse in accordance with the law before you may enter a second marriage with another person. Through a divorce action, the state court applies the law to determine matters of property division, child custody, and support.

With respect to incest, the State has a compelling interest in protecting children. Sexual abuse of a child is a crime. Fathers and mothers and other close relatives may not groom their familial children to be their sex partners. Being raised in a sexually predatory home would be harmful to children. The State must necessarily ban incestuous unions in order to protect children from becoming the helpless victims of incest.


I'll ask again Debra

What if one is capable of providing, financially, for 5 wives and all children. What right do you have to deny someone of their happiness? That doesn't sound like any sort of legitimate reasoning for denying people their legal rights of marriage.

And you speak of incestuous relationship with parents and their children. What about siblings? What about cousins? 2 siblings are still legally not allowed to married, correct? Why not?

-------------

Debra, you've crossed a serious line with your accusations of a person you have not met. My fiance would tell you that I most definitely am not gay. So would all of my friends. Your rantings here are getting more and more dillusional.

I have tried to have a civil debate with you on this board. I hope that, in the future, something will happen to you that causes you to question everything you believe to be true. If that day comes, I hope that you will open yourself to the possibility that the God of the Christian faith is real. Or, maybe you will go on to try to disproove Christianity once and for all. A lot of athiests that go on this search wind up giving their lives to Jesus. So, I hope the same will be true with you. Jesus died on a cross so that all of your sins will be forgiven. Of course, you will have to ask him to forgive you. If you do, Jesus will welcome you with open arms. God ultimately gives us what we want. If we want an eternity with him in heaven, we have to give our lives to him. If we want an eternity apart from in hell, he will give you that. It's your choice.
God loves you. He loves you more than any human can. He knows your pain and every tear you have shed. He knows the confusion you've faced and are still facing. When you give your life to Jesus, you will get peace. When you choose to live life God's way, you find peace and true happiness.

My fear for this country is that God will finally tire of us telling him that he is wrong. What I see happening in this country is this...
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorrubptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions, for their their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:18 - 32

When I die, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I will be spending eternity in heaven. Can you say the same?
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Homosexual marriage in NY is illegal, as it has always been illegal, as it is in every other state and so far as I know every other country.


Actually, gay marriage is legal in US - Connecticut and Mass. Spain, South Africa, Canada, Belgium, and Holland all allow same sex marriage.

Educate yourself before you make another ridiculous claim like that.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:09 pm
@majikal,
Quote:
The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with some of the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut

prove wikipedia wrong....

I have said that the majority will OK civil union contracts between gays with most but not all of the provisions of marriage (heterosexual only as always)..

I am getting tired of idiots claiming that I don't know what I am talking about...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 04:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
You are correct about Mass, where the courts demanded that Gays be allowed all of the rights of marriage based upon the constitution, and the courts have not yet been overturned. In this case it would take a constitution amendment or waiting for the court to change its interpretation of the current constitution (the supreme court took a pass). Even though these marriages are not recognized by federal law and federal authorities and thus are not full marriages, I agree that marriage is legal in Mass.

I had thought that Mass was civil union, I was wrong.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 05:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
majikal wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Homosexual marriage in NY is illegal, as it has always been illegal, as it is in every other state and so far as I know every other country.


Actually, gay marriage is legal in US - Connecticut and Mass. Spain, South Africa, Canada, Belgium, and Holland all allow same sex marriage.

Educate yourself before you make another ridiculous claim like that.


hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with some of the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut

prove wikipedia wrong....

I have said that the majority will OK civil union contracts between gays with most but not all of the provisions of marriage (heterosexual only as always)..

I am getting tired of idiots claiming that I don't know what I am talking about...


You don't know what you're talking about, therefore YOU'RE the IDIOT.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

Quote:
PALMER, J. The issue presented by this case is
whether the state statutory prohibition against same
sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut.
The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this
action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition
against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive
due process and equal protection under the
state constitution. The trial court rendered summary
judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials
upon determining that, because this state’s statutes
afford same sex couples the right to enter into a
civil union, which affords them the same legal rights
as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally
cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light
of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by
gay men and lesbians,1 and because the institution of
marriage carries with it a status and significance that
the newly created classification of civil unions does not
embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual
couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable
harm. We also conclude that (1) our state
scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated
on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes
of the equal protection provisions of the United States
constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect
classification for purposes of the equal protection
provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject
to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)
the state has failed to provide sufficient justification
for excluding same sex couples from the institution of
marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s
disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally
deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny,
we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a
stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation
is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In
accordance with our conclusion that the statutory
scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons
on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with
direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.


See also: Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
http://able2know.org/topic/123804-1

OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 05:34 pm
@Debra Law,
all this energy aimed at people they hate.

ahh, the humanity! the humanity!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 06:14 pm
@Debra Law,
The ruling was last month in support of gay marriage in Mass, I was not aware. I bit harsh to call me an idiot because I don't have the latest info, but anyways....

As i said, the courts will rule in favor of gay marriage, mass and Conn supreme courts prove me right not wrong. I will be wrong if the majority does not overturn the courts.

Quote:
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision _ either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution _ will not meet with success."

State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.

"It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."

The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/connecticut-gay-marriage_n_133605.html

we will see......
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
@OGIONIK,
OGIONIK wrote:

all this energy aimed at people they hate.

ahh, the humanity! the humanity!


The oppressors are currently drunk with "power." That 52 percent vote (down from 62 percent a few years ago) makes the bigots think that might makes right. If this country was truly "majority rules" as they pretend, then they better watch out when their numbers shrink below 50 percent because pay back is a bitch. They don't care about anyone else's rights that are secured by the Constitution from majoritarian oppression unless their own rights are affected. In other words, the oppressors are a bunch of uneducated, idiotic, hypocritical morons who aren't worth our time.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 06:45 pm
@Debra Law,
ya, being forced to put together a majority before you get your way is sooooo oppressive. The idea written into the constitution is that the majority does not have the right to tyrannize the minority, and the smart people are aware that the nature of the majority is always in flux. Gays are not being oppressed, far from it, they are just not getting everything they want as fast as they want it....in large part because of their own political blundering.

If the gays did put together a majority and did use their new found majority status to "pay back" the former majority, those who opposed gay marriage, then the gays would be proving that they are unworthy of wielding the majority status and would be stripped of it.

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 06:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I bit harsh to call me an idiot because I don't have the latest info, but anyways....

I will be wrong if the majority does not overturn the courts.


If you think it's "harsh" to call you an idiot because you "don't have the latest information," why don't you try reading the Federalist Papers concerning the design and purpose of our constitutional republic. That information has been around for 220 years.

You're still wrong, you idiotic moron and spewer of ignorant crapola. The oppressers tried in Massachusetts to amend their constitution so they could continue to tyrannize gay couples and they FAILED. In the five years that gay individuals have exercised their constitutionally secured right to marry the person of their choice, the sky has not fallen and you have not been injured one iota.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 07:10 pm
@Debra Law,
That an attempt to amend a state constitution failed proves that the system works, both in the attempt being made and that the numbers needed were not found in the votes. However, that is one state, at one time. These things are fluid, and 23 states specifiaclly outlaw gay marriage the the 2006 "defense of marriage" federal law making it illegal for the feds to recognize any states gay marriage as legit, so lets not pretend that we know know which way the majority will go. I say that if the gays don't wise up the majority will end up against them, possibly resulting in a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The votes are not there at the moment, but they might be in the future.

0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 02:28 am
@Copper Seth,
Copper Seth wrote:
There's nothing stopping me from having sex with a man aside from my belief that I shouldn't. It doesn't take a specific gender to get someone aroused. It takes a sexual stimulus.


Rolling Eyes

Copper Seth wrote:
My fiance would tell you that I most definitely am not gay. So would all of my friends.


Rolling Eyes

Senator Larry Craig: 'I Am Not Gay'

Quote:
WASHINGTON " Denying that he did anything wrong and stating emphatically that "I am not gay," Sen. Larry Craig asked the people of Idaho on Tuesday to forgive him for being arrested two months ago in a police sting in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.






BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 08:32 am
@Debra Law,
Debra shame on you going with the if you are not 100 percent in support of the so call gay right movement then you to must then be an in the closet self hating gay person.

So Debra your position that Copper Seth or anyone else must have this form of sexual disorder for daring to disagree with you is highly amusing but of little other benefit.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 11:23 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Debra shame on you going with the if you are not 100 percent in support of the so call gay right movement then you to must then be an in the closet self hating gay person.

So Debra your position that Copper Seth or anyone else must have this form of sexual disorder for daring to disagree with you is highly amusing but of little other benefit.


There's nothing wrong, immoral, or sinful about homosexuality. Your oppression of your fellow human beings based on their sexual orientation is shameful. Your hypocrisy is shameful. I'm not the one who is engaged in religious fear-mongering and condemning people to hell. Your double standards are wedged up your ass.

Copper Seth wrote:
Homosexuality is a sinfull lifestyle.


I disagree. You are abusing the power of the State to cast stones. You are failing the test. Your inhumanity towards others whom you ignorantly disfavor has been recorded in the Book of Life.

Copper Seth wrote:
When I die, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I will be spending eternity in heaven. Can you say the same?


So it's your position that anyone who dares to disagree with you is going to hell? Not only are you an oppressor, you're a religious fear-monger. Throughout history, many atrocities against human beings have been committed in God's name. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is not pleased with the way you throw His name around in order to justify your prejudice and bigotry.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 11:59 am
@Debra Law,
As I am an atheist both your position and Copper Seth is equally silly to me, but you still gain nothing by stating or implying anyone that does belief that there is a moral problem with homosexual acts must therefore be a self hating gay person.

To me homosexuality is just a sexual disorder with no moral compound to it one way or another and my reasons for not supporting gay married rights have been express many times on this thread in details.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 12:11 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
There's nothing wrong, immoral, or sinful about homosexuality. Your oppression of your fellow human beings based on their sexual orientation is shameful


every man has the right to decide his morals and beliefs for himself, nobody has the right to impose their morals and beliefs on others. Society does have the right sometimes to some degree, but societies morals and beliefs are decided by the majority..and here is no where near a clear majority for the acceptance of homosexual behaviour that you endorse.

That being the case, it is your duty as a citizen to attempt to treat those who disagree with you with respect and to take full consideration of the argument against your position.....you ain't doing so good.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 12:21 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
To me homosexuality is just a sexual disorder with no moral compound to it one way or another and my reasons for not supporting gay married rights have been express many times on this thread in details.



It has been proven repeatedly that your "reasons" for abusing the power of the state to oppress people because of their sexual orientation is both irrational and unconstitutional. Because you subscribe to majoritarian oppression of individuals and minorities, you have proven yourself unworthy to live in a country founded upon the blood of people who fought for security against the very thing you endorse. You are also intellectually shallow. You refuse to educate yourself concerning the basic tenets of a constitutional republic. Thus, having any discussion with you concerning the designated role of government in this country is an exercise in futility.

 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 05:38:23