it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

#101
#101
IPorange said:
I will avoid directly commenting on the Bible when I can since it bothers panda, but I saw this sign:

75dbd44b-5836-4f62-8c7b-d03d6dde0c7c.jpg


Any thoughts on this? Is this just inflammatory rhetoric? Or is it taking something out of context? Or do some of you agree with the biblical sentiment here?
Click to expand...


I completely agree that this was valid during the Mosaic Law covenant.
This is a typical example of finding and using one scripture completely out of context to either incite tension or fit one's own agenda.

Completely and utterly out of context.....again.
 
#103
#103
if they are saying that God will destroy something like he did S and G now then basically yes.
 
#105
#105
IPorange said:
Sometimes. Sometimes it isn't. Yes, there are gay psychologists.
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree with the sometimes part. Now days if you do not believe that homosexuality isn't right then your biggoted and homophobic. You can also add the term close minded too.
 
#107
#107
Oldvol75 said:
I'll have to disagree with the sometimes part. Now days if you do not believe that homosexuality isn't right then your biggoted and homophobic. You can also add the term close minded too.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true (I don't mean I totally agree with that sentiment, although I know you don't, and agree that you will be labeled as such by mainstream society). My sometimes was referring to psychologists' backgrounds being "interesting" in a way that would put them in the "homosexual" crowd.

I do think if someone starts voting their view of homosexuality into law, that is wrong.
 
#108
#108
IPorange said:
Yes, this is true (I don't mean I totally agree with that sentiment, although I know you don't, and agree that you will be labeled as such by mainstream society). My sometimes was referring to psychologists' backgrounds being "interesting" in a way that would put them in the "homosexual" crowd.

I do think if someone starts voting their view of homosexuality into law, that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Really? Mainstream? Didn't that judge in California over turn a majority vote dealing with homosexuality? I guess its all about where the mainstream is.

They did vote against it then a judge over turn the will of the people.
 
#109
#109
Oldvol75 said:
Really? Mainstream? Didn't that judge in California over turn a majority vote dealing with homosexuality? I guess its all about where the mainstream is.
Click to expand...

Pop culture? Educated society? However you want to phrase it, espousing that homosexuality is wrong will get you a negative reaction in public, regardless of how that vote went.

Prop 8 is ironic, because it was only narrowly passed, and the segment of the population that pushed it over the top was actually the African American vote that was out to elect Obama, and happened to see that on the ballot. For whatever the reason, African Americans are overwhelmingly liberal democrat and yet overwhelmingly anti-gay rights.

Go figure.
 
#110
#110
IPorange said:
Pop culture? Educated society? However you want to phrase it, espousing that homosexuality is wrong will get you a negative reaction in public, regardless of how that vote went.

Prop 8 is ironic, because it was only narrowly passed, and the segment of the population that pushed it over the top was actually the African American vote that was out to elect Obama, and happened to see that on the ballot. For whatever the reason, African Americans are overwhelmingly liberal democrat and yet overwhelmingly anti-gay rights.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Even with who ever voted it in, it does make a statement that is was considered liberal California.
 
#111
#111
I'm just saying a popular opinion has never made it a right one. Unless you agree with their choices for Congress and the white house. Or how about their popularly elected governor, who now says gay marriages should immediately resume in the state?

Schizophrenic. No, holding up something as being "popular" is as much a point against it as for it, imo.
 
#112
#112
The defintion of marriage should include "with the possibility of procreation by natural methods including only the two joined by the marriage union".

Should...

That of course is purely my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
#113
#113
It's a simple contract. In the public domain, it is a legal contract - nothing more nothing less. Not everyone is entitled to a contract. There is no "right" to a contract.
 
#115
#115
CSpindizzy said:
It's a simple contract. In the public domain, it is a legal contract - nothing more nothing less. Not everyone is entitled to a contract. There is no "right" to a contract.
Click to expand...

If you are discriminating who can get that contract by race, gender, or orientation, that's been found to be illegal before.
 
#116
#116
the government, at all levels, should get out of the marriage business altogether. Couples (yes, couples only) should go to the government for a civil union contract (for tax and other purposes) and to a church for a consecrated "marriage".

the gay rights movement would do well to ally themselves with libertarians on this issue, but they won't. They would much rather stick with the "government-is-all-things-to-all-people" crowd.
 
#117
#117
MG1968 said:
the government, at all levels, should get out of the marriage business altogether. Couples (yes, couples only) should go to the government for a civil union contract (for tax and other purposes) and to a church for a consecrated "marriage".

the gay rights movement would do well to ally themselves with libertarians on this issue, but they won't. They would much rather stick with the "government-is-all-things-to-all-people" crowd.
Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly agree. The best answer is to get the government out of the "marriage" business.
 
#118
#118
IPorange said:
I'm just saying a popular opinion has never made it a right one. Unless you agree with their choices for Congress and the white house. Or how about their popularly elected governor, who now says gay marriages should immediately resume in the state?

Schizophrenic. No, holding up something as being "popular" is as much a point against it as for it, imo.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part. I just don't think that there is a true majority that really support such things.

I believe that it is really generational. I am assuming that you are probably in your late 20's, early 30's. You have grown up totally different than me at 53. Most people in your asumed age group have grown up in an MTV generation. I grew up with Lucy and Ricky sleeping in seperate beds on TV. Where Jeanie couldn't show her navel. People in the last 20 to 30 years ago, began working on young children, in schools and on TV, showing more and more things and trying to make them seem ok. The more that you reach out to a child in his/her informative years, the more likely they get use to things. An example: When I was about 7 or 8, I saw the movie Dracula. Scared me to death! Now I sit and laugh because of it. I've have seen more and more movies that have gotten me use to it. In other words, I no longer pay attention to it. That is the same thing that has happened to this 30 and below group. The more they see of it, the more they accepted it because it has been taught to them.

Just like our government today, they are counting on us to just ignore and accept, right or wrong.
 
#119
#119
IPorange said:
If you are discriminating who can get that contract by race, gender, or orientation, that's been found to be illegal before.
Click to expand...

Again, once you start adding "conditions", it will become endless. Orientation has only become a recent addition.

As I said before, of which you managed to avoid and squirm on, this whole case now causes the precise definition of marriage to be written. Tell me what the specific legal definition that will hold up to legal scrutiny and offer equal protection and due process. It's now complicated and those who fought this do not truly understand what issue this creates.

Marriage is an issue that always has and always will be public. It's not about what two people do in their bedroom. It affects an employer's insurance policies and benefits, federal and state tax credits and taxes, child custody, property rights, estates, and numerous other public issues. Marriage is thought of as private but it is a civil contract where governmental and contractual issues occur. It cannot be a 'private' issue.
 
#121
#121
Why don't we just ask the Inventor of Marriage of what He thinks marriage should constitute? Seems to make sense to me.
 
#123
#123
CSpindizzy said:
Again, once you start adding "conditions", it will become endless. Orientation has only become a recent addition.

As I said before, of which you managed to avoid and squirm on, this whole case now causes the precise definition of marriage to be written. Tell me what the specific legal definition that will hold up to legal scrutiny and offer equal protection and due process. It's now complicated and those who fought this do not truly understand what issue this creates.

Marriage is an issue that always has and always will be public. It's not about what two people do in their bedroom. It affects an employer's insurance policies and benefits, federal and state tax credits and taxes, child custody, property rights, estates, and numerous other public issues. Marriage is thought of as private but it is a civil contract where governmental and contractual issues occur. It cannot be a 'private' issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not squirming, and assuming people who disagree with you "do not truly understand what this issue creates" is silly. The issue is a matter of removing religious morality from governmental institutions. Like it or not, "marriage" in how it applies to our discussion is not the same as a biblical or Christian marriage. It never was, unless you think the State of Missouri or where ever one gets granted their license is God. And the more you bring up issues of tax credits, property rights, and even child custody, that only highlights that the current setup is unable to properly deal with the sort of relationships our society now has. Like it or not, there are millions of homosexuals in this country.
 
#124
#124
PandamoniumReigns said:
Nicely played IP.:good!:

However, you are still in the business of taking things too literal and not using context correctly.
Click to expand...

Too literal? I can only go off of the literature you are placing before me. So where did I go wrong? Which part of what you said is figurative or metaphorical If I take it that way, then there is wiggle room for those damn homosexuals to get in!
 
#125
#125
Oldvol75 said:
I agree with the last part. I just don't think that there is a true majority that really support such things.

I believe that it is really generational. I am assuming that you are probably in your late 20's, early 30's. You have grown up totally different than me at 53. Most people in your asumed age group have grown up in an MTV generation. I grew up with Lucy and Ricky sleeping in seperate beds on TV. Where Jeanie couldn't show her navel. People in the last 20 to 30 years ago, began working on young children, in schools and on TV, showing more and more things and trying to make them seem ok. The more that you reach out to a child in his/her informative years, the more likely they get use to things. An example: When I was about 7 or 8, I saw the movie Dracula. Scared me to death! Now I sit and laugh because of it. I've have seen more and more movies that have gotten me use to it. In other words, I no longer pay attention to it. That is the same thing that has happened to this 30 and below group. The more they see of it, the more they accepted it because it has been taught to them.

Just like our government today, they are counting on us to just ignore and accept, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

It is true, things have changed rapidly in terms of culture and society. Certainly not always for the better, but I think life in the United States is more "fair" today than ever before, despite what some Obama types say. There is always room to grow, though. I am about to turn 26, fyi.

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Churchill.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top