@AllAmericanGirl225 Thanks, I think I sometimes tire of the onesided biased presentation of the issue from the viewpoint ONLY of those that seek gay acceptance and now marriage. There is no discussion of the ramifications it truly does have and will have on churches and people in them that think homosexuality and the marriage of the same is just a huge sin.
Your logic is made up of many silly points. "marriage is on the table"? None of your rights are being modified or reduced. It sounds like you want to tie all laws to the bible. If that is the case, how many of the rules in the bible do you violate all of the time? Do you oppose the consumption of shellfish or the wearing of mixed fibers? Do you handle pigskin? The bible is faith based and even those who believe the bible can't agree on what it means. That is why there are so many denominations.
@jackson23220 Law of Moses is done. No need to bring up all that. But Jesus DID validate marriage in his teachings and confirmed that it is still between a man and a woman ONLY. A man shall cleave to his wife and NONE ELSE. There you go, that's New Testament biblical.
Marriage is religious FIRST. It always has been. Before the United States even came into existence and started making laws, there was already marriage. THE USA can't change all that.
I think one thing you are not understanding, Mormonanswerman, is that you don't have the right to use your beliefs to stop a person who doesn't share them from doing something just because you believe it's a sin when it doesn't harm you or anyone else. I know you see what's going on as horrible, but belief can't and shouldn't be used against people to limit freedom. Also, unless civil unions give all the exact same rights and privileges as legal marriage, it's unfair and unequal.
@Jwb52z I have always wondered why they don't seek to improve the Civil Unions instead of changing marriage. Marriage is associated with religion. Civil Unions are not, so they are going after the wrong thing. I keep hearing them say that we need to fix divorce, fix divorce, as if to say, your "marriage" is not so sacred. But if they can say "fix divorce," they should be able to hear "fix civil unions."
@mermaidsareppl222 That's wrongheaded thinking. Before Vegas, there was marriage. Vegas piggy backs on what the USA did to incorporate marriage into the government paper work. But what the government did by doing that did NOTHING to take away from what marriage was: a binding covenant between a man and a woman for LIFE.
Now gays seek to CHANGE marriage. I am standing up as one who is against that idea.
@mermaidsareppl222 I did not make this a political issue. It has always been a MORAL issue. That's where churches and members of churches open their mouths and speak, for it is not only our right but a duty as well.
Civil unrest again it shows the that christians have hate if they will take it that far! Now you sound homopbic if christians will take it that far! Again christians will have to get over it! Thats like someone saying "I dont hate black people, I just dont want them going to the same schools as my white child"! Gays and lesbians will get their freedom just as you have yours. but Im curious to know what kind of civil unrest will go on if they do get married?
@OurLongRoadHome Well you were thinking that Christians would take up sticks and guns and create havoc, and all you have to do is watch the NEWS to see that it is those "peace loving" gays and lesbians who took to the streets, stomped on cop cars and shouted and made a huge scene. Another story of lesbians storming through a church service. No, its not us.
@OurLongRoadHome Another conflict will be in the courts, which we have seen already. I imagine civil unrest when Christians try to defend their churches from hateful gays and lesbians trying to stomp on the 1st Amendment rights of all citizens in this country, when they see that they can't be married in their churches even though the government may say they can. When churches try to defend their doors, I can see gays and lesbians making trouble. I can see burning torches approaching a church.
@mermaidsareppl222 No, but its around the corner. I can read history to know how tyranny works, and what people do in general. Surely they are just biding their time until they have a majority, else they would derail their movement, their agenda.
Get over yourself! let them get married! believe me you will sleep well at night! I am for gay rights! you either are or your not, christian or not! go to church every sunday 99% dont care! christians though are the main voice AGAINST gays and lesbians! I dont think your hateful at all! I just think you dont have a life! And when christians came out against the dont ask dont tell I would say that is homophobic! Show me a bible verse were it says gays and lesbians cant serve. exactly!
@OurLongRoadHome No, let them get a civil union. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. It is DOCTRINE in most religions. Why don't the gays and lesbians RESPECT the fact that there are doctrines in religions that can not change and will not change. Introducing this idea into it creates a holy war. Indeed if they keep it up and create conflicts when they could easily have a civil union and fix them to their satisfactions, then they will create the civil unrest that they probably desire
Cooper brought up a great point in his rebuttal. No one with a legal mind would doubt that the Supreme Court that ruled in Loving vs. Virginia would have struck down gay marriage in every aspect. Touchet!
My other take was Theodore Olsen. I think he took the case because he wants to get appointed to the Supreme Court. He was supposed to have Alito's position but NO democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee would allow him to pass. Secondly, Olsen did an appeal to emotion and went out of his way to ignore judicial precedent. How can you rule on this case and IGNORE Baker vs. Nelson? Or as Olsen put it Baker wasn't about same sex relationships, it was about gender. Who in their right mind......
One thing was clear to me. None of the three judges liked Judge Walkers ruling and non of them liked the stance taken by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Browne in their self serving vetoes. I am guessing that they will send it back to the Supreme Court and tell them to rule differently on their vetoes.
“The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children,” said Charles Cooper, one of two attorneys defending Proposition 8 before the appeals court hearing Monday.
@mormonanswerman Did you see how polite Cooper was while the others sides lawyers wanted to lecture and point fingers and correct? I thought that was pretty stupid on their part and Reinhart seemed pretty nerved by that and he has all ready decided which side he stands on.
@omiolo In his arguments, Cooper told the judges that when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, “society immediately has a vital interest in that.” Among other things, “society needs the creation of new life for the next generation,” he said.
Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said.
“But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and raise children...?” Hawkins asked.
Cooper responded by reiterating his procreation argument. “The point and the question is whether or not the State of California has a rational reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex couples who cannot, without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex, procreate, and opposite-sex couples who … can procreate.”
@mormonanswerman "Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said."
@omiolo Yes I did. It was fascinating, and Cooper was BRILLIANT I thought, especially after the first hour recess when he got up again and took on some really TOUGH direct questions, especially from Judge Hawkins, a liberal.
Proposition 8 is now before the 9th Circuit court of appeals. One of the three Judges is Mormon Christian. One is as far left as Hugo Chavez and one is a Clinton appointee. I am praying that the Mormon Christian writes the majority opinion. Either way it goes to the Supreme Court.
Actually, it is the judges job to determine what is and is not legal as far as the constitution goes. Prop 8 was not constitutionally legal and that is why it was struck down, even though that is what the voters wanted. If voters in california voted to make mormonism illegal, that would also be struck down in court because it is not constitutionally legal.
@Pharaoh481 I'm not so sure about that. EDMUNDS TUCKER ACT in 1892 basically DID take away the rights of mormons to marry they way their religion allowed, and they were forced to cease polygamy or go to prison. Many mormons did go to federal prisons rather than divide their families and make their kids fatherless and homeless. No one cared then. Federal Government just took over and no judge stepped in to protect their constitutional right to marry like they wanted.
@Pharaoh481 Sometimes laws are passed that are not constutional, like the Edmunds Tucker Act. That law was just congress passing off as law their personal opinions against the mormons then, and there was NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States that prohibited polygamy in any way. So it was unconstitutional.
@mormonanswerman So, you seem what it's like on the receiving end? How about we stop trying to outlaw marriage for everyone? gays and polygamists included.
@Pharaoh481 My arguments are NOT for polygamy. I am only pointing out that a change was made in the laws of the land, and as a result the mormons are a model example of getting IN LINE with it and making this country work. I fear the gays will try and turn this into anarchy, into rebellion, and revolution. I fear they want war if they can't have their way. They are doing things the mormons NEVER did. They are rebelling. Its unattractive.
@mormonanswerman War? I think you're being a little bit paranoid. You see rebellion, I see people fighting for human rights. You are fear mongering, and I find that "unattractive".
@Pharaoh481 No worse than Nancy Pelosi talking about her fears of tea baggers, she says she fears them on national TV, almost squeezing out the crocodile tears. I think my concerns are VALID, because unlike Nancy, I have actually SEEN some very real behavior and actions to BACK THIS UP, people stomping cars, raiding churches, suing people, and altercations... and she has seen nothing, just talk, her talk. She fear mongers, because she MADE IT UP.
@Pharaoh481 PROP 8 specifically changed the State Constitution so that it WAS constitutional to have marriage mean what it has always meant: btwn man and woman. No judge can overturn our will as a people to make a constitution that we deem fit. No one judge can do that . We do not have kings here. We have the will of the PEOPLE. And if the will of the people wants something, let them put that in a Constitution so we can all obey it.
Sir Elton, on the first day of same-sex unions in England and Wales, said: "I'm very proud of what Britain has done for gay rights. In America, unfortunately, there's the 'm' word - some say 'It's marriage or nothing'.
"Well, you're going to have to wait a long time, baby. Let's just get the ball rolling with civil partnerships. You can't go for the jugular straight away. As it happens I don't want to get married."
A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality. -Winston Churchill
Dear M.A.M.. Some things to consider... You are right when you explained it's your right to to speak from your moral beliefs/conscience in a public venue... As are Muslims.. As are Catholics..
As far as the "hateful" topic.. think of the others perspective a moment. You are voting against their right to marry. That's ur right but howd you feel if someone voted against your right to marry in temples? It could actually happen. and some might say it's hateful, racist or discriminatory.
You're a sick human being. The right to abolish the rights for a gay couple to get married? You're dissapointed? Biased Judge? You're completely insane. The Constituion does NOT give you the right to take away same sex marriages. Nobody cares if you think gays are immoral because it isn't no matter how much you wanna preach that. You said yourself that people have the right to any faith, so stop trying to impose your world views on people you don't agree with, scumbag.
Meth use among gay men has been a pervasive problem for decades, particularly in the western United States. Here in King County, about 10 percent of gay and bisexual men used crystal meth in a given year, according to data from Public Health — Seattle & King County. These rates are twice as high in men under the age of 30.
I just can't sit back and keep quiet regarding you logic anymore. You are arguing about the right/wrong/immorality based on a book/religion/concept that is not standard scientific fact. YOU believe it is some ultimate truth in the universe. In fact millions of people believe it. It doesn't make that concept a truth. You have to admit this. Put aside your dogmatic beliefs for one minute and admit that there is a real possibility that you are incorrect in your beliefs. (cont)
@nevertsen You really do want me to show some doubt. But I don't have any doubts. I have found out for myself by getting answers from God, through prayer, and He has spoken to me as He has spoken to countless MILLIONS over the course of this earth. I am not so special, but you are stuck in the land is disbelief.
Again, you think everyone else is just like you, and has or will have all of the experiences that you have had that caused you to come to the land of doubt and agnosticism.
(cont) Yet you sit there after condemning a population of people and claim you're being persecuted back by them. How about you leave them alone? If they want to get married how does that affect you? Honestly? Historically, religious zealots are the ones to fear. It really makes me sick that you put religion in front of humanistic acceptance and love. God is a concept. You grip so tight to this solitary concept that you sqeeze the life out of reality. Look around. Love the people in front of you.
@nevertsen I don't look at this like I started the fight. No, we have a group of people that are trying to change religious definitions, and they are doing so to justify their lack of moral stand on the issue. There are no moral absolutes in their world. In fact, they would love it if there was no sin. But there IS sin you know, and that is where faith separates those who don't have it from those who do. Faith works on love of God. Do you have this? I love God and He says love all others too.
@DevilDogGR You would like that, but I am part of the beginnings of the BACKLASH that is coming, people speaking up, standing up for their rights in this country, and educating those that ascribe to political correctness, when it is really just a form of communism, and attack on free speech. When your free speech is summed up by telling everyone else to shut up, it makes you a tyrant at heart. Good thing you have NO power over me. Peace.
LOL And the worst part of it is, you see NO IRONY in what you just said.
"standing up for their rights"...uh...what about OUR rights?
You are not special (even though your religion tells you different). You are just one of many. Just like me. But people like you just can't see that can you? You people are nothing but opportunists who set yourselves up as standard bearers of the downtrodden for their own self glorification. Has NOTHING to do with God. And I'm the sinner?? lol
Marriage isn't an exclusively religious institution. The earliest widespread use of marriage was across the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, and eventually across Rome and Greece. None of these places defined it as exclusive to heterosexual relationships. A lot of you Christians love to claim that gay folks are attempting to redefine marriage, but in claiming that it's some sort of sacred hetero-only thing, you're redefining it yourself. Religion is for those that fail to examine reality.
@Comrade1919 Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago. God told them about marriage in Genesis 4 and that was from that time period. I believe that. I'm throwing in with that. If that is true, and I believe it is, then it is the FIRST mention of marriage and God mentioned it. This is reality for me.
At a later date, God said that when a man lies with a man like he lies with a woman, it is an abomination, and among the Children of Israel who lived that law it was punishable by death. Its no good man
@Wallz20 What? Do we now have a religion on sexual practices?
I didn't vote against gay marriage. I voted to protect MARRIAGE. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Gay marriage is a 21st century FAD, a modern construct (very recent) and has no precedent. It is a new invention. It has a very steep uphill battle to justify ITS relevance. I didn't vote against it. I voted to protect marriage and that is where my heart is.
Letting marriage fall into the hands of these changers affects ME.
@mormonanswerman I would agree that I think gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, but I know that I personally have sinned far too much to be casting stones at anyone else and it's not my job to define what marriage is or is not. If gay people want to exercise their rights as citizens of the United States I will not stand in their way. Let them explain their own actions to God.
@Wallz20 Thanks for your comments, and I want rights for everyone too. I don't think I am taking away rights by protecting marriage for what it is though, for what it has always been. The burden of proof that marriage needs to change now after all these 1000's of years is on the gays and lesbians and their friends in the cause to justify that. Marriage has ALWAYS been between man and woman by definition, not by tradition.
Blacks OTOH used to RULE over whites, so... not the same thing here...
@mormonanswerman who has the right to decide what marriage is though? If it's you... then sure your right, but if it's God, then this falls under freedom of religion. Why should we restrict their free agency when we can't even handle our own?
@Wallz20 My free agency says that I want to make sure I try and please God as well as I can, Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and so I think it shows our love for God to respect what He says, and my belief is that the Bible is indeed the word of God, and it is recorded what Jesus said about Marriage in Matt 19:4-6. Very clear there.
I've got to go with what I believe man, and if someone else believes differently, then LET'S VOTE. That's all we can do at this point.
@Wallz20 Government is going to cross paths with religion once in a while, as people who vote choose to make law and order in their society that is compatible with what they feel God would have them do. I think I am being unthankful to God, ungrateful, if I don't preach and teach what I know to be right, and choose to have our society as clean and neat as possible. Would you have porn in the schools or something? Your logic on this is seems to be lacking and insensitive to kids.
@Wallz20 When the vote and the SCOTUS ruliing on abortion was made to allow the killing of babies, it became out of my hands. There's nothing more I can do at this point to try and save babies, legally. Women all over have the "legal right" to kill their unborn. What a lousy law that does nothing to protect the unborn, yet those truly human babies that would live if they were allowed to. How horrible that our laws protect that.
@Wallz20 I want to stop things like abortion the killing of real human babies. I don't care one whit about the so-called rights of the mother to do that, I don't believe she has a right to do that. But the law stands, and it is out of my hands now. The blood is not on my hands at all. I have a free conscience and others will be judged by God for this gross crime against nature.
We shall all be judged by God over how we treat His marriage ordinance too, and how we stand up for it, or NOT.
@Wallz20 I think what it comes down to in a very spiritual sense, is how much did we stand up for God while in this life. I am going to do what I CAN do, and it is not about "rights" when there are very real MORAL decisions to make in our society.
I was not against blacks sitting on the front of the bus. I was not against them using the same drinking fountain. That was not even a MORAL issue at all, that was just hate in action.
But this is morality in action, and it is GAYS who hate it.
@mormonanswerman well my own, along with many other's, morals hold that mormonism is an abomination is the eyes of God... maybe we should put your rights up for vote too. Is that not just morality in action?
@Wallz20 What rights would you put up for vote? I mean, what a dumb comment. Now you want to lock me up for being a mormon? You have lost the argument.
No shit you have your rights to practice what you want, and state what you want, and vote on the matters you want. Anybody who denys you this doesn't respect what our country is founded upon. They have the right to call you hateful, and you have the right to call them immoral. I think that the Christian views are hateful, and by extension your adherence to them full of hate, but that's just it. I can say that. And you say that i'm entirely immoral. I love discourse, it's our right.
@fecalmadder Yes, you are right. It is NOT in there. I think that some people who are now CREATING new rights, or at least are trying to, are quoting this phrase, which if it applies to anything, is the 1st Amendment Bill of Rights, which we already know about, and which says nothing about PROP 8 being unconstitutional. In fact, it is the very reason we vote on things, to see what the MAJORITY wants to do. PROP 8 did that and won.
The books were all rare, 19th-century Mormon publications printed in the United Kingdom, mostly Liverpool.
Each book, which originally cost British Saints between one and three shillings (between $5 and $15 U.S currency at the time), is now worth anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000.
His audience, about 15 book collectors, mumbled an equally courteous greeting, but they were obviously distracted. Their eyes were fixed on the cart next to him where about 30 antique books were delicately stacked.
More than 150 of the YSAs stayed with local members, some of whom canceled trips during the holiday weekend to help out.
The extended invitation came from Elder David Murray, an Area Seventy, who addressed the YSAs in an open, straightforward and detailed question-and-answer session on Saturday morning and then spoke a second time on Sunday when more than 600 YSAs attended sacrament meeting together.
Here's some perspective on the issue from your very own bible!!
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
@filmstocker "You really get to know each other," said Patterson about his partners. "Every partner that I have played with has ended up talking to me about the church and wanted to know more about it. So I would always do my little missionary discussions and tell them all about the church and how it works. All of them have been really open to what I have to say. And a lot of them believe many of the things the church teaches. It has been a real positive experience."
Why can't the LGBT community take the loss and move on?
You wanting to install sexual perversion into our mainstream society is disgusting and wrong on every level.
There wouldn't have been parades of christians gay-bashing if Prop 8 had failed. You didn't see masses of christians bargeing into LGBT buildings and vandalizing stuff.
You guys are the biggest group of hypocrites ever. Begging for tolerance, yet showing none in return if things don't go your way.
Um, we just won. It's your side which just suffered a loss.
And no. This struggle for equality is now a part of the American landscape and will be until equality is achieved. Period. Full stop. If that means the struggle is a part of the American landscape forever, then so be it. It's not going anywhere, no matter the setbacks. Of that you can be sure.
And the same argument was used about interracial marriage. "Think of the children! How selfish of the parents to raise children in such a world."
Prop 8 also btw had nothing to do with gay couples' ability to adopt, have children, have foster children, or surrogate children etc. Those rights are unaffected by Prop 8, so even that's a fail.
I'm glad we're in agreement there. The recognition of the right of people to choose a spouse of the same sex in no way infringes on the right of other citizens NOT to make that choice.
In court, your side failed to show any harm that would result in recognizing those rights.
Actually, Prop 8 succeeded and hate crimes against gays and lesbians increased a great deal, both in the campaign leading up to the vote and afterwards. When you tell voters that minority X is inferior, many crazy people take that as a sign it's open season on a vulnerable minority which society has seen fit to exclude from equality.
@filmstocker Yeah, BUT those things were NEVER the voice of the people :)
I think THAT is where you are missing it. Focus on the voice of 7,000,000 people who VOTED, and then compare that to a school board making some decision on busing the kids. 7,0000,000 people. 7 people. 7,000,000, people. 7 people. This big difference and HOW it was done should be able to sink in now...
They most certainly WERE the voice of the people. Segregation and banning interracial marriage were very popular and widely supported among state majorities at the time they were overturned by judges. Desegregation was resisted far more fiercely (and with the same arguments you're using... "How dare judges overturn the right of the people to govern themselves?!?") than even ssm is being resisted now by state majorities. Pick up a history book.
That's because the issue of discrimination against ethnicity/race has never been consitutional. Therefore, an overturn was legitimate.
Likewise, marriage between same-gender couples has never been constitutional. When the people vote to amend the constituition to specify that marriage is to be between heterosexual couples only, then it needs to stay that way. Had the people voted to re-define marriage, I wouldn't want our judicial system over riding the voice of the people.
Marriage is a fundamental right, with liberty of choice in marital spouse the defining aspect of that right. if the state creates laws which limit that right on the basis of gender, some rational justification must be offered for limiting that fundamental right in order for such laws to be constitutional, even if the law is popular. No rational justification could be offered for Prop 8, which is why it failed in court. "We've always done it that way," is simply inadequate.
In other words: If the only rights you can exercise are those that meet the approval of state majorities, why even have rights at all? Why even have a constitution to protect and delineate individual rights, if rights are to be offered and withheld at the whims of state majorities?
Judge Walker conceded the obvious: “The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” (p.112). He nonetheless insisted that Prop 8 infringed the “fundamental right to marry,” (p. 117)
"The evidence did not show any historical purpose in excluding same sex couples from marriage... The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents... Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right."
Back when marriage was first constituted no one considered Man/Man marriage or Woman/Woman marriage. Like it or not, marriage was always between a man and a woman until gays decided they wanted to change what marriage is. What will the next step be? Man/child Man/animal So you think this is a crazy example.? I think a man married to a man is crazy.. Have what ever relationship you want but don't call it marriage. Marriage is ordained of God and between a man & a woman.
@midgetsmommy Back when marriage was first constituted, no one imagined that women could enter a marriage as the legal equal of a man. Marriages in which the genders are legally equal is a recent change in the institution of marriage
Marriage has varied enormously throughout society and history, and has in some instances included same sex couples
Aaying "It's always been that way," is not adequate reason ALONE for continuing something. That's tautological. Some reason BEYOND that is required
@filmstocker "Marriages in which the genders are legally equal is a recent change in the institution of marriage"
And, it should be added, was greeted with just as much--if not more--resistance from the same crowd of half-witted fundamentalist sky-daddy worshippers.
Resisted by men who wanted to own the women as stock animals. I am old enough to remember when a woman could be beaten by her husband and the law would not defend her.
@midgetsmommy "be beaten by her husband and the law would not defend her."
And such legal conceptualizations about a women's rights within the marriage contract were once considered an essential and defining aspect of marriage. To suggest that women had rights within a marriage--much less equal rights within the marriage contract--was quite radical in its time.
Actually you are wrong about woman not being equal from the beginning. Man being the stronger of the sexes did that. And since society has had it every way possible at one time or another then I vote to keep it between one man and one woman. Gays are free to marry the same as straights are. Free to marry the opposite sex. Does any activity between two consenting adults justify or make the activity acceptable, and lawfully correct? I vote NO!
You can feel that the activity is incorrect, but if you wish to show that your feelings should maintain the force of law and the force of legal inequality, you need to be able to document why that is the case. "My views are popular," and "Sky-daddy says so" and "It's always been that way," are all inadequate when it comes time to hold up laws to see if they pass constitutional muster.
You are free to believe a man choosing to marry a man is crazy, and you're free to believe that your imaginary sky-friend thinks the same way. You are NOT free to withhold the right of other adult citizens to exercise their personal liberty in choosing their spouse.
And if you are unable to draw any rational distinction between the same sex marriage of 2 freely consenting adult citizens, and bestiality/pedophelia, then you are retarded.
@filmstocker What the judge misses, is that if the definition of marriage changes to include gays and lesbians and transvestites, etc., it carries new legal meanings, but with the SAME WORD. So when a gay man gets disgruntled with his church, because they want to excommunicate him for gay sex, is that gay man now going to be able to sue the church based on some trumped up discrimination charge? Is he going to get a lot of money now?
That is WHY you don't get to have the word marriage.
The definition of marriage has changed enormously across time and cultures and has in various instances included ssm, so even that's false.
And you're arguing with what's known as the slippery slope fallacy. "If X happens, there's nothing we can do to prevent Y from happening." There's a reason it's called a fallacy. It's a fail.
SSM has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and many places for longer. No one is lining up to marry their dogs, computers, mothers etc as opponents predicted.
Marriage is the creation of legal kinship between two unrelated consenting adults. Brothers and sisters already have a legal kinship which prevents the creation of a new form of kinship.
Moreover, laws that prevent incestuous marriages apply equally to all people. No one--male or female--can marry their brother. Laws banning ssm uniquely single out gays for discrimination and deprivation of rights.
And the bestiality/pedophelia argumet begs the question... Are YOU so stupid that you can draw no rational distinction between the commitment of two adult citizens and betiality/pedophelia? Really? None at all?
How sad for you. Fortunately, there ARE people smart enough to be capable of drawing such rational distinctions, even if you find it eludes you. (eyeroll)
You have responded to the wrong person. If a man or woman thinks they want to have sex with a corpse who doesn't care what's going on, would you consider that normal, OK, or proper behavior? What about the argument that gays are born that way? Then what about the person who has an attraction to children. you wouldn't agree with that would you? I believe being gay just as messed up. Main difference is the consenting adults. If you want gay sex get it, but leave marriage alone.
Sex/marriage with a corpse or with a child does not involve two free, consenting adult citizens who are otherwise qualified for marriage and/or sexual intercourse.
NEXT!
And you can believe being gay is messed up. You cannot put your finger on the scales of justice it and weigh it down to give your beliefs the force of law in maintaining inequality between citizens. That's all.
Sexual perversion vs the color of ones skin or origin of birth are not even close to the same thing. Don't you dare try and pull that card.
You have no choice about how you are born into race and ethnicity.
You can, however, choose to not commit homosexual acts and choose to not force sexual corruption on our children and our children's children. I don't want my children growing up in a world where they are told that gay sex acts are normal and acceptable. Shame on you.
Perhaps one can choose one's sexual orientation (I disagree, and your side failed to prove this in court. one of the findings of facts was that orientation is unchosen).
But even setting that aside. You have not offered a reason why someone should legally be prevented from making their own choices about which gender they want to love and marry, in a country which offers equality and freedom of religion as its foundational principles.
no one can tell your children what is right or wrong except yourself.
Some people do not want their children growing up in a world where Jews are given equal rights to Christians. Some people do not want their children growing up in a world where women have equal rights to men, and so on.
Too bad. We live in a society where your private, moral, religious judgment of other citizens does not outstrip the rights of other citizens. Try Iran.
If you want to teach your children that blacks are inferior to whites, that Christians are superior to Jews, or gay relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, that is your business.
You cannot give your private, moral judgments the weight of law and withdraw rights and equality from American citizens because of what you want to teach your children. It is unconstitutional.
Race and religous affiliation are extremely different issues than homosexuality. Everytime LGBT supporters bring up other issues that are NOT related to the argument, you become less rational by the second.
You can't choose to not be black, latino, white or chinese etc.
The fact is, the vast majority of the world is disgusted by homosexuality. The lot of you are trying to corrupt the entire globe with your perverted ways. Stop it!
You can certainly chose your religion: I noticed you left that one off your list.
Bigotry is bigotry. There was a time when the majority of the world believed blacks were inferior to whites and were disgusted by the thought of interracial unions. It did not make banning such unions right.
Prop 8 supporters failed to show why their private, moral disapproval of same sex relationships should be given the force of law.
Prop 8 supporters failed to show why their private, moral disapproval of same sex relationships should be given the force of law.
Just because YOU don't like someone else's choice of a marital partner due to your prejudice does not provide you with the justification for banning their marriage or withdrawing their civil equality and personal liberties..
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
But even focusing on the judicial process, and setting to one side its reliance on the oxymoronic concept of “substantive due process,” Judge Walker’s decision is fundamentally flawed in three ways, two of which represent failures of reasoning and the third of which highlights the structural problem with substituting judicial “fact-finding” for the collected judgment of a democratic electorate.
In a larger sense, the lawsuit, seeking to overturn judicially a status quo that has existed for essentially all of human history and was only recently reaffirmed by the California electorate, is yet more proof that it’s not conservatives who are on the offensive in the ‘culture wars’.
37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex
This already-resolved, three-year-old lawsuit was resurrected with the goal of forcing legislators to redefine marriage against their will. Such attacks utterly dispel the myth that civil unions will appease same-sex “marriage” activists, who seek to use them as a legal springboard to redefine marriage.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an order Monday rejecting a recently filed motion in a long-ago-resolved lawsuit that attempted to force New Jersey legislature to redefine marriage.
Devout Catholic Alito should be the one to write the majority opinion for the Supreme Court on this so called **gay marriage**. That would ONLY be right.
@cherrydog9 reread my comment, why are you playing games with me? Should I REPEAT my comment so that you ACTUALLY have to address it or should we keep playing your game?
As long as you'd like to pray on your own time, of course! If you'd like to lead an official government event in prayer, then you are violating Separation of Church and State.
Nobody is saying you cannot have your beliefs. If you believe gay marriage is immoral, then you are free to not marry another person of the same sex. However, when you force others to adhere to YOUR definition of morality, then you are infringing on THEIR rights.
@perditiontheelder Let's use your language and express the opposite point of view. Here we go:
"If you believe moral marriage is not for you, then you are free to not marry a woman. You can get a civil union instead. However, when you force others to adhere to YOUR NEW definition of marriage, that is totally infringing on THEIR rights to vote to keep the definition AS IS."
You see, you guys violated our rights. We vote, law is passed. Disgruntled gay judge thumbs his nose, and here we are.
@mormonanswerman you don't have the right to pass law that violate our constitutional rights. so here we are. and we'll win eventually. which you know full well.
@cherrydog9 No, we vote to pass laws that CHANGE the Constitution of California so that it is CLEAR. People don't want this same sex marriage idea and it was voted out. The Federal Government already has DOMA to define marriage. Please deal with this and don't be anarchists.
Your rights to infringe on others' rights are being infringed upon? Forgive my lack of sympathy.
Clearly, if you are willing to adopt such rhetoric, you are not interested in adopting the most rational position and therefore will probably never change your mind.
@perditiontheelder This much I know. Religious people have a RIGHT to express themselves and act on their religion. That act of acting on one's religion does NOT in any way infringe on the right of a gay person. If my religion says that gay sex is sin, I am going to be able to express that thought FREELY and OPENLY if I like, this isn't Canada where they have made it a so-called "hate crime" to do so, so we are in America, thank God for the Constitution which says that RIGHT exists.
@perditiontheelder That's what you say, but like I said in the video, they start all the meetings with PRAYER in every city where I do work. They also started all of our home owners association meetings with a PRAYER too when I was on the board there. They also pledge allegiance to the flag. It is very refreshing to see such good people all over. ...which makes make think, how OUT OF TOUCH are the people preaching "separation of church and state" like they even know what it means?
@perditiontheelder We hear prayers at just about every civic meeting we go to. There IS precedent, even if the ACLU has a cow. Church and State separation is NOT to be interpreted PAST the 1st Amendment Bill of Rights which says that government shall be separated from making our religious choices. They don't do that right now, not even when a prayer is said at a meeting. Do they ever preface the prayer by forcing all to participate? No, you can ignore it while the MAJORITY enjoys it.
@perditiontheelder The purpose of the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment is to ensure that individuals have a choice, that their conscience is not forced or coerced to embrace a certain religion. Like if at a city council meeting they specifically asked YOU to get up and pray, and you don't pray, but the cops there made you do it anyway, THAT would be infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
But just because you are offended at OTHERS doing a prayer is no right violated. You are just INTOLERANT.
@perditiontheelder CHURCH AND STATE, so over-rated and over-used by atheists bent on infringing on 1st Amendment RIGHTS that every individual has to express themselves on whatever topic they like, even if it is, gasp, religious in nature. If someone on a city corner wants to shout that the end of the world is near, we have the right to walk right past, hearing what they have to say, but we have no right to silence them. Even a cop does not have that right to silence them. It happens, but...
hey man, cheer up. its not over yet. This is just a step closer to the U.S supreme court from its appeal. I know when it does get to the U.S. supreme court, it will be a UNANIMOUS decision. Just hold on. Come on, did you really believe that we had a chance in winning against one unelected openly gay judge, seriously?
I like your hair, but I disagree with your beliefs.
sariahtea 7 months ago
@AllAmericanGirl225 Thanks, I think I sometimes tire of the onesided biased presentation of the issue from the viewpoint ONLY of those that seek gay acceptance and now marriage. There is no discussion of the ramifications it truly does have and will have on churches and people in them that think homosexuality and the marriage of the same is just a huge sin.
mormonanswerman 8 months ago
Your logic is made up of many silly points. "marriage is on the table"? None of your rights are being modified or reduced. It sounds like you want to tie all laws to the bible. If that is the case, how many of the rules in the bible do you violate all of the time? Do you oppose the consumption of shellfish or the wearing of mixed fibers? Do you handle pigskin? The bible is faith based and even those who believe the bible can't agree on what it means. That is why there are so many denominations.
jackson23220 8 months ago
@jackson23220 Law of Moses is done. No need to bring up all that. But Jesus DID validate marriage in his teachings and confirmed that it is still between a man and a woman ONLY. A man shall cleave to his wife and NONE ELSE. There you go, that's New Testament biblical.
Marriage is religious FIRST. It always has been. Before the United States even came into existence and started making laws, there was already marriage. THE USA can't change all that.
mormonanswerman 8 months ago
I think one thing you are not understanding, Mormonanswerman, is that you don't have the right to use your beliefs to stop a person who doesn't share them from doing something just because you believe it's a sin when it doesn't harm you or anyone else. I know you see what's going on as horrible, but belief can't and shouldn't be used against people to limit freedom. Also, unless civil unions give all the exact same rights and privileges as legal marriage, it's unfair and unequal.
Jwb52z 1 year ago
@Jwb52z I have always wondered why they don't seek to improve the Civil Unions instead of changing marriage. Marriage is associated with religion. Civil Unions are not, so they are going after the wrong thing. I keep hearing them say that we need to fix divorce, fix divorce, as if to say, your "marriage" is not so sacred. But if they can say "fix divorce," they should be able to hear "fix civil unions."
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman marriage is not associated with religion
if it was then 75% of vegas would be out of a job
mermaidsareppl222 9 months ago
@mermaidsareppl222 That's wrongheaded thinking. Before Vegas, there was marriage. Vegas piggy backs on what the USA did to incorporate marriage into the government paper work. But what the government did by doing that did NOTHING to take away from what marriage was: a binding covenant between a man and a woman for LIFE.
Now gays seek to CHANGE marriage. I am standing up as one who is against that idea.
mormonanswerman 8 months ago
@mormonanswerman it's sad that you want to stand against equality
mermaidsareppl222 8 months ago
@mermaidsareppl222 I did not make this a political issue. It has always been a MORAL issue. That's where churches and members of churches open their mouths and speak, for it is not only our right but a duty as well.
mormonanswerman 8 months ago
Civil unrest again it shows the that christians have hate if they will take it that far! Now you sound homopbic if christians will take it that far! Again christians will have to get over it! Thats like someone saying "I dont hate black people, I just dont want them going to the same schools as my white child"! Gays and lesbians will get their freedom just as you have yours. but Im curious to know what kind of civil unrest will go on if they do get married?
OurLongRoadHome 1 year ago
@OurLongRoadHome Well you were thinking that Christians would take up sticks and guns and create havoc, and all you have to do is watch the NEWS to see that it is those "peace loving" gays and lesbians who took to the streets, stomped on cop cars and shouted and made a huge scene. Another story of lesbians storming through a church service. No, its not us.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@OurLongRoadHome Another conflict will be in the courts, which we have seen already. I imagine civil unrest when Christians try to defend their churches from hateful gays and lesbians trying to stomp on the 1st Amendment rights of all citizens in this country, when they see that they can't be married in their churches even though the government may say they can. When churches try to defend their doors, I can see gays and lesbians making trouble. I can see burning torches approaching a church.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman really? has that happened in massachusettes or any of the other places where gay marriage is legal?
mermaidsareppl222 9 months ago
@mermaidsareppl222 No, but its around the corner. I can read history to know how tyranny works, and what people do in general. Surely they are just biding their time until they have a majority, else they would derail their movement, their agenda.
mormonanswerman 8 months ago
Get over yourself! let them get married! believe me you will sleep well at night! I am for gay rights! you either are or your not, christian or not! go to church every sunday 99% dont care! christians though are the main voice AGAINST gays and lesbians! I dont think your hateful at all! I just think you dont have a life! And when christians came out against the dont ask dont tell I would say that is homophobic! Show me a bible verse were it says gays and lesbians cant serve. exactly!
OurLongRoadHome 1 year ago
@OurLongRoadHome No, let them get a civil union. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. It is DOCTRINE in most religions. Why don't the gays and lesbians RESPECT the fact that there are doctrines in religions that can not change and will not change. Introducing this idea into it creates a holy war. Indeed if they keep it up and create conflicts when they could easily have a civil union and fix them to their satisfactions, then they will create the civil unrest that they probably desire
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
Cooper brought up a great point in his rebuttal. No one with a legal mind would doubt that the Supreme Court that ruled in Loving vs. Virginia would have struck down gay marriage in every aspect. Touchet!
omiolo 1 year ago
My other take was Theodore Olsen. I think he took the case because he wants to get appointed to the Supreme Court. He was supposed to have Alito's position but NO democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee would allow him to pass. Secondly, Olsen did an appeal to emotion and went out of his way to ignore judicial precedent. How can you rule on this case and IGNORE Baker vs. Nelson? Or as Olsen put it Baker wasn't about same sex relationships, it was about gender. Who in their right mind......
omiolo 1 year ago
One thing was clear to me. None of the three judges liked Judge Walkers ruling and non of them liked the stance taken by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Browne in their self serving vetoes. I am guessing that they will send it back to the Supreme Court and tell them to rule differently on their vetoes.
omiolo 1 year ago
google this c-spanvideo program Perryv
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
MAM,
Did you watch the court proceedings on C-SPAN? I found it fascinating. BTW, you have a jerk for a governor and for an attorney general.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo yes and yes!
“The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally produce children,” said Charles Cooper, one of two attorneys defending Proposition 8 before the appeals court hearing Monday.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman Did you see how polite Cooper was while the others sides lawyers wanted to lecture and point fingers and correct? I thought that was pretty stupid on their part and Reinhart seemed pretty nerved by that and he has all ready decided which side he stands on.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo In his arguments, Cooper told the judges that when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, “society immediately has a vital interest in that.” Among other things, “society needs the creation of new life for the next generation,” he said.
Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
“But how does it relate to having two males or two females marry each other and raise children...?” Hawkins asked.
Cooper responded by reiterating his procreation argument. “The point and the question is whether or not the State of California has a rational reason for drawing a distinction between same-sex couples who cannot, without the intervention of a third party of the opposite sex, procreate, and opposite-sex couples who … can procreate.”
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman Did you laugh when the Lesbian lawyer said same-sex couples could procreate?
omiolo 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman "Society’s vital interests are also threatened by the possibility of “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy” and single parent households in which children have “poorer outcomes,” he said."
Nobody touched that in rebuttal.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo Yes I did. It was fascinating, and Cooper was BRILLIANT I thought, especially after the first hour recess when he got up again and took on some really TOUGH direct questions, especially from Judge Hawkins, a liberal.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
Proposition 8 is now before the 9th Circuit court of appeals. One of the three Judges is Mormon Christian. One is as far left as Hugo Chavez and one is a Clinton appointee. I am praying that the Mormon Christian writes the majority opinion. Either way it goes to the Supreme Court.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo We need MORE judges to be Christians! Thanks for sharing.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman The ninth circuit is going to have the court proceedings televised live on C-SPAN.
omiolo 1 year ago
Actually, it is the judges job to determine what is and is not legal as far as the constitution goes. Prop 8 was not constitutionally legal and that is why it was struck down, even though that is what the voters wanted. If voters in california voted to make mormonism illegal, that would also be struck down in court because it is not constitutionally legal.
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 I'm not so sure about that. EDMUNDS TUCKER ACT in 1892 basically DID take away the rights of mormons to marry they way their religion allowed, and they were forced to cease polygamy or go to prison. Many mormons did go to federal prisons rather than divide their families and make their kids fatherless and homeless. No one cared then. Federal Government just took over and no judge stepped in to protect their constitutional right to marry like they wanted.
Today we have PC judges.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 Sometimes laws are passed that are not constutional, like the Edmunds Tucker Act. That law was just congress passing off as law their personal opinions against the mormons then, and there was NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States that prohibited polygamy in any way. So it was unconstitutional.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman So, you seem what it's like on the receiving end? How about we stop trying to outlaw marriage for everyone? gays and polygamists included.
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 My arguments are NOT for polygamy. I am only pointing out that a change was made in the laws of the land, and as a result the mormons are a model example of getting IN LINE with it and making this country work. I fear the gays will try and turn this into anarchy, into rebellion, and revolution. I fear they want war if they can't have their way. They are doing things the mormons NEVER did. They are rebelling. Its unattractive.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman War? I think you're being a little bit paranoid. You see rebellion, I see people fighting for human rights. You are fear mongering, and I find that "unattractive".
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 No worse than Nancy Pelosi talking about her fears of tea baggers, she says she fears them on national TV, almost squeezing out the crocodile tears. I think my concerns are VALID, because unlike Nancy, I have actually SEEN some very real behavior and actions to BACK THIS UP, people stomping cars, raiding churches, suing people, and altercations... and she has seen nothing, just talk, her talk. She fear mongers, because she MADE IT UP.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 PROP 8 specifically changed the State Constitution so that it WAS constitutional to have marriage mean what it has always meant: btwn man and woman. No judge can overturn our will as a people to make a constitution that we deem fit. No one judge can do that . We do not have kings here. We have the will of the PEOPLE. And if the will of the people wants something, let them put that in a Constitution so we can all obey it.
The federal constitution is SILENT on marriage.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
ELTON JOHN
Sir Elton, on the first day of same-sex unions in England and Wales, said: "I'm very proud of what Britain has done for gay rights. In America, unfortunately, there's the 'm' word - some say 'It's marriage or nothing'.
"Well, you're going to have to wait a long time, baby. Let's just get the ball rolling with civil partnerships. You can't go for the jugular straight away. As it happens I don't want to get married."
source: thisislondon
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
"UPDATE 1-1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV"
a lifestyle with these fruits should NEVER be legitimized.
omiolo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality. -Winston Churchill
pangeanet 1 year ago
Dear M.A.M.. Some things to consider... You are right when you explained it's your right to to speak from your moral beliefs/conscience in a public venue... As are Muslims.. As are Catholics..
As far as the "hateful" topic.. think of the others perspective a moment. You are voting against their right to marry. That's ur right but howd you feel if someone voted against your right to marry in temples? It could actually happen. and some might say it's hateful, racist or discriminatory.
dreamextreme7 1 year ago
You're a sick human being. The right to abolish the rights for a gay couple to get married? You're dissapointed? Biased Judge? You're completely insane. The Constituion does NOT give you the right to take away same sex marriages. Nobody cares if you think gays are immoral because it isn't no matter how much you wanna preach that. You said yourself that people have the right to any faith, so stop trying to impose your world views on people you don't agree with, scumbag.
lamjer68 1 year ago
Meth use among gay men has been a pervasive problem for decades, particularly in the western United States. Here in King County, about 10 percent of gay and bisexual men used crystal meth in a given year, according to data from Public Health — Seattle & King County. These rates are twice as high in men under the age of 30.
omiolo 1 year ago
I just can't sit back and keep quiet regarding you logic anymore. You are arguing about the right/wrong/immorality based on a book/religion/concept that is not standard scientific fact. YOU believe it is some ultimate truth in the universe. In fact millions of people believe it. It doesn't make that concept a truth. You have to admit this. Put aside your dogmatic beliefs for one minute and admit that there is a real possibility that you are incorrect in your beliefs. (cont)
nevertsen 1 year ago
@nevertsen You really do want me to show some doubt. But I don't have any doubts. I have found out for myself by getting answers from God, through prayer, and He has spoken to me as He has spoken to countless MILLIONS over the course of this earth. I am not so special, but you are stuck in the land is disbelief.
Again, you think everyone else is just like you, and has or will have all of the experiences that you have had that caused you to come to the land of doubt and agnosticism.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
(cont) Yet you sit there after condemning a population of people and claim you're being persecuted back by them. How about you leave them alone? If they want to get married how does that affect you? Honestly? Historically, religious zealots are the ones to fear. It really makes me sick that you put religion in front of humanistic acceptance and love. God is a concept. You grip so tight to this solitary concept that you sqeeze the life out of reality. Look around. Love the people in front of you.
nevertsen 1 year ago
@nevertsen I don't look at this like I started the fight. No, we have a group of people that are trying to change religious definitions, and they are doing so to justify their lack of moral stand on the issue. There are no moral absolutes in their world. In fact, they would love it if there was no sin. But there IS sin you know, and that is where faith separates those who don't have it from those who do. Faith works on love of God. Do you have this? I love God and He says love all others too.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
"Do I need to shut up about my faiths?"
Yes, You do.
DevilDogGR 1 year ago
@DevilDogGR You would like that, but I am part of the beginnings of the BACKLASH that is coming, people speaking up, standing up for their rights in this country, and educating those that ascribe to political correctness, when it is really just a form of communism, and attack on free speech. When your free speech is summed up by telling everyone else to shut up, it makes you a tyrant at heart. Good thing you have NO power over me. Peace.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman
LOL And the worst part of it is, you see NO IRONY in what you just said.
"standing up for their rights"...uh...what about OUR rights?
You are not special (even though your religion tells you different). You are just one of many. Just like me. But people like you just can't see that can you? You people are nothing but opportunists who set yourselves up as standard bearers of the downtrodden for their own self glorification. Has NOTHING to do with God. And I'm the sinner?? lol
DevilDogGR 1 year ago
Marriage isn't an exclusively religious institution. The earliest widespread use of marriage was across the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations, and eventually across Rome and Greece. None of these places defined it as exclusive to heterosexual relationships. A lot of you Christians love to claim that gay folks are attempting to redefine marriage, but in claiming that it's some sort of sacred hetero-only thing, you're redefining it yourself. Religion is for those that fail to examine reality.
Comrade1919 1 year ago
@Comrade1919 Adam and Eve lived 6000 years ago. God told them about marriage in Genesis 4 and that was from that time period. I believe that. I'm throwing in with that. If that is true, and I believe it is, then it is the FIRST mention of marriage and God mentioned it. This is reality for me.
At a later date, God said that when a man lies with a man like he lies with a woman, it is an abomination, and among the Children of Israel who lived that law it was punishable by death. Its no good man
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
Couldn't your voting against gay marriage be considered prohibiting the free exercise of their religion rather than protecting your own???
Wallz20 1 year ago
@Wallz20 What? Do we now have a religion on sexual practices?
I didn't vote against gay marriage. I voted to protect MARRIAGE. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Gay marriage is a 21st century FAD, a modern construct (very recent) and has no precedent. It is a new invention. It has a very steep uphill battle to justify ITS relevance. I didn't vote against it. I voted to protect marriage and that is where my heart is.
Letting marriage fall into the hands of these changers affects ME.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman I would agree that I think gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of God, but I know that I personally have sinned far too much to be casting stones at anyone else and it's not my job to define what marriage is or is not. If gay people want to exercise their rights as citizens of the United States I will not stand in their way. Let them explain their own actions to God.
Wallz20 1 year ago
@Wallz20 Thanks for your comments, and I want rights for everyone too. I don't think I am taking away rights by protecting marriage for what it is though, for what it has always been. The burden of proof that marriage needs to change now after all these 1000's of years is on the gays and lesbians and their friends in the cause to justify that. Marriage has ALWAYS been between man and woman by definition, not by tradition.
Blacks OTOH used to RULE over whites, so... not the same thing here...
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman who has the right to decide what marriage is though? If it's you... then sure your right, but if it's God, then this falls under freedom of religion. Why should we restrict their free agency when we can't even handle our own?
Wallz20 1 year ago
@Wallz20 My free agency says that I want to make sure I try and please God as well as I can, Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and so I think it shows our love for God to respect what He says, and my belief is that the Bible is indeed the word of God, and it is recorded what Jesus said about Marriage in Matt 19:4-6. Very clear there.
I've got to go with what I believe man, and if someone else believes differently, then LET'S VOTE. That's all we can do at this point.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman "If ye love me, keep my commandments" not "if ye love me, keep my commandments and vote to make sure everyone else does too"
Wallz20 1 year ago
@Wallz20 Government is going to cross paths with religion once in a while, as people who vote choose to make law and order in their society that is compatible with what they feel God would have them do. I think I am being unthankful to God, ungrateful, if I don't preach and teach what I know to be right, and choose to have our society as clean and neat as possible. Would you have porn in the schools or something? Your logic on this is seems to be lacking and insensitive to kids.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@Wallz20 When the vote and the SCOTUS ruliing on abortion was made to allow the killing of babies, it became out of my hands. There's nothing more I can do at this point to try and save babies, legally. Women all over have the "legal right" to kill their unborn. What a lousy law that does nothing to protect the unborn, yet those truly human babies that would live if they were allowed to. How horrible that our laws protect that.
You want to complain? Complain about THAT.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@Wallz20 I want to stop things like abortion the killing of real human babies. I don't care one whit about the so-called rights of the mother to do that, I don't believe she has a right to do that. But the law stands, and it is out of my hands now. The blood is not on my hands at all. I have a free conscience and others will be judged by God for this gross crime against nature.
We shall all be judged by God over how we treat His marriage ordinance too, and how we stand up for it, or NOT.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@Wallz20 I think what it comes down to in a very spiritual sense, is how much did we stand up for God while in this life. I am going to do what I CAN do, and it is not about "rights" when there are very real MORAL decisions to make in our society.
I was not against blacks sitting on the front of the bus. I was not against them using the same drinking fountain. That was not even a MORAL issue at all, that was just hate in action.
But this is morality in action, and it is GAYS who hate it.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman well my own, along with many other's, morals hold that mormonism is an abomination is the eyes of God... maybe we should put your rights up for vote too. Is that not just morality in action?
Wallz20 1 year ago
@Wallz20 What rights would you put up for vote? I mean, what a dumb comment. Now you want to lock me up for being a mormon? You have lost the argument.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
No shit you have your rights to practice what you want, and state what you want, and vote on the matters you want. Anybody who denys you this doesn't respect what our country is founded upon. They have the right to call you hateful, and you have the right to call them immoral. I think that the Christian views are hateful, and by extension your adherence to them full of hate, but that's just it. I can say that. And you say that i'm entirely immoral. I love discourse, it's our right.
JochenHadley 1 year ago
There is a lot of talk of "separation of church and state" in these comments, go read the constitution and find them.......not there.
fecalmadder 1 year ago
@fecalmadder Yes, you are right. It is NOT in there. I think that some people who are now CREATING new rights, or at least are trying to, are quoting this phrase, which if it applies to anything, is the 1st Amendment Bill of Rights, which we already know about, and which says nothing about PROP 8 being unconstitutional. In fact, it is the very reason we vote on things, to see what the MAJORITY wants to do. PROP 8 did that and won.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman you are right on as always. love the vids man God Bless!
fecalmadder 1 year ago
The books were all rare, 19th-century Mormon publications printed in the United Kingdom, mostly Liverpool.
Each book, which originally cost British Saints between one and three shillings (between $5 and $15 U.S currency at the time), is now worth anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000.
omiolo 1 year ago
His audience, about 15 book collectors, mumbled an equally courteous greeting, but they were obviously distracted. Their eyes were fixed on the cart next to him where about 30 antique books were delicately stacked.
omiolo 1 year ago
More than 150 of the YSAs stayed with local members, some of whom canceled trips during the holiday weekend to help out.
The extended invitation came from Elder David Murray, an Area Seventy, who addressed the YSAs in an open, straightforward and detailed question-and-answer session on Saturday morning and then spoke a second time on Sunday when more than 600 YSAs attended sacrament meeting together.
omiolo 1 year ago
Here's some perspective on the issue from your very own bible!!
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Romans 13: 1-2
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker "You really get to know each other," said Patterson about his partners. "Every partner that I have played with has ended up talking to me about the church and wanted to know more about it. So I would always do my little missionary discussions and tell them all about the church and how it works. All of them have been really open to what I have to say. And a lot of them believe many of the things the church teaches. It has been a real positive experience."
omiolo 1 year ago
Why can't the LGBT community take the loss and move on?
You wanting to install sexual perversion into our mainstream society is disgusting and wrong on every level.
There wouldn't have been parades of christians gay-bashing if Prop 8 had failed. You didn't see masses of christians bargeing into LGBT buildings and vandalizing stuff.
You guys are the biggest group of hypocrites ever. Begging for tolerance, yet showing none in return if things don't go your way.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer "take the loss"
Um, we just won. It's your side which just suffered a loss.
And no. This struggle for equality is now a part of the American landscape and will be until equality is achieved. Period. Full stop. If that means the struggle is a part of the American landscape forever, then so be it. It's not going anywhere, no matter the setbacks. Of that you can be sure.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
I am not "at loss" here. I didn't lose anything.
It is our children that are losing. Being born into a world full of corruption instilled by people like you. Thanks a lot, jerk.
Children should never have 2 mommys or 2 daddys. What a sick and twisted way to grow up in a household.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
And the same argument was used about interracial marriage. "Think of the children! How selfish of the parents to raise children in such a world."
Prop 8 also btw had nothing to do with gay couples' ability to adopt, have children, have foster children, or surrogate children etc. Those rights are unaffected by Prop 8, so even that's a fail.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer "I didn't lose anything."
I'm glad we're in agreement there. The recognition of the right of people to choose a spouse of the same sex in no way infringes on the right of other citizens NOT to make that choice.
In court, your side failed to show any harm that would result in recognizing those rights.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
Actually, Prop 8 succeeded and hate crimes against gays and lesbians increased a great deal, both in the campaign leading up to the vote and afterwards. When you tell voters that minority X is inferior, many crazy people take that as a sign it's open season on a vulnerable minority which society has seen fit to exclude from equality.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer Absolutely right on!
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
A single judge or group of judges turning over the voice of the people is never a good thing.
NO on gay marriage!
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
Um, judges overturned segregation in schools and laws that banned interracial marriage against the will of state voting majorities at that time.
Down with Brown v Board of Education!! Down with Loving v Virginia!!
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker Yeah, BUT those things were NEVER the voice of the people :)
I think THAT is where you are missing it. Focus on the voice of 7,000,000 people who VOTED, and then compare that to a school board making some decision on busing the kids. 7,0000,000 people. 7 people. 7,000,000, people. 7 people. This big difference and HOW it was done should be able to sink in now...
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman
They most certainly WERE the voice of the people. Segregation and banning interracial marriage were very popular and widely supported among state majorities at the time they were overturned by judges. Desegregation was resisted far more fiercely (and with the same arguments you're using... "How dare judges overturn the right of the people to govern themselves?!?") than even ssm is being resisted now by state majorities. Pick up a history book.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
That's because the issue of discrimination against ethnicity/race has never been consitutional. Therefore, an overturn was legitimate.
Likewise, marriage between same-gender couples has never been constitutional. When the people vote to amend the constituition to specify that marriage is to be between heterosexual couples only, then it needs to stay that way. Had the people voted to re-define marriage, I wouldn't want our judicial system over riding the voice of the people.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
Marriage is a fundamental right, with liberty of choice in marital spouse the defining aspect of that right. if the state creates laws which limit that right on the basis of gender, some rational justification must be offered for limiting that fundamental right in order for such laws to be constitutional, even if the law is popular. No rational justification could be offered for Prop 8, which is why it failed in court. "We've always done it that way," is simply inadequate.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
In other words: If the only rights you can exercise are those that meet the approval of state majorities, why even have rights at all? Why even have a constitution to protect and delineate individual rights, if rights are to be offered and withheld at the whims of state majorities?
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer read your stats on your page. you sound hot. and gay. pic?
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9
I'm flattered.
Not.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
Judge Walker conceded the obvious: “The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” (p.112). He nonetheless insisted that Prop 8 infringed the “fundamental right to marry,” (p. 117)
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo
Of course, you miss the best part.
"The evidence did not show any historical purpose in excluding same sex couples from marriage... The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents... Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right."
[Haters' heads explode]
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
Back when marriage was first constituted no one considered Man/Man marriage or Woman/Woman marriage. Like it or not, marriage was always between a man and a woman until gays decided they wanted to change what marriage is. What will the next step be? Man/child Man/animal So you think this is a crazy example.? I think a man married to a man is crazy.. Have what ever relationship you want but don't call it marriage. Marriage is ordained of God and between a man & a woman.
midgetsmommy 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy Back when marriage was first constituted, no one imagined that women could enter a marriage as the legal equal of a man. Marriages in which the genders are legally equal is a recent change in the institution of marriage
Marriage has varied enormously throughout society and history, and has in some instances included same sex couples
Aaying "It's always been that way," is not adequate reason ALONE for continuing something. That's tautological. Some reason BEYOND that is required
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker "Marriages in which the genders are legally equal is a recent change in the institution of marriage"
And, it should be added, was greeted with just as much--if not more--resistance from the same crowd of half-witted fundamentalist sky-daddy worshippers.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
Resisted by men who wanted to own the women as stock animals. I am old enough to remember when a woman could be beaten by her husband and the law would not defend her.
midgetsmommy 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy "be beaten by her husband and the law would not defend her."
And such legal conceptualizations about a women's rights within the marriage contract were once considered an essential and defining aspect of marriage. To suggest that women had rights within a marriage--much less equal rights within the marriage contract--was quite radical in its time.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
Actually you are wrong about woman not being equal from the beginning. Man being the stronger of the sexes did that. And since society has had it every way possible at one time or another then I vote to keep it between one man and one woman. Gays are free to marry the same as straights are. Free to marry the opposite sex. Does any activity between two consenting adults justify or make the activity acceptable, and lawfully correct? I vote NO!
midgetsmommy 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy
You can feel that the activity is incorrect, but if you wish to show that your feelings should maintain the force of law and the force of legal inequality, you need to be able to document why that is the case. "My views are popular," and "Sky-daddy says so" and "It's always been that way," are all inadequate when it comes time to hold up laws to see if they pass constitutional muster.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy
You are free to believe a man choosing to marry a man is crazy, and you're free to believe that your imaginary sky-friend thinks the same way. You are NOT free to withhold the right of other adult citizens to exercise their personal liberty in choosing their spouse.
And if you are unable to draw any rational distinction between the same sex marriage of 2 freely consenting adult citizens, and bestiality/pedophelia, then you are retarded.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker What the judge misses, is that if the definition of marriage changes to include gays and lesbians and transvestites, etc., it carries new legal meanings, but with the SAME WORD. So when a gay man gets disgruntled with his church, because they want to excommunicate him for gay sex, is that gay man now going to be able to sue the church based on some trumped up discrimination charge? Is he going to get a lot of money now?
That is WHY you don't get to have the word marriage.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
The definition of marriage has changed enormously across time and cultures and has in various instances included ssm, so even that's false.
And you're arguing with what's known as the slippery slope fallacy. "If X happens, there's nothing we can do to prevent Y from happening." There's a reason it's called a fallacy. It's a fail.
SSM has been legal in MA for 6 years now, and many places for longer. No one is lining up to marry their dogs, computers, mothers etc as opponents predicted.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
Oh, but yes. It is still illegal to marry your sister or brother. So while we are at it, wouldn't they be two consenting adults?
midgetsmommy 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy
Marriage is the creation of legal kinship between two unrelated consenting adults. Brothers and sisters already have a legal kinship which prevents the creation of a new form of kinship.
Moreover, laws that prevent incestuous marriages apply equally to all people. No one--male or female--can marry their brother. Laws banning ssm uniquely single out gays for discrimination and deprivation of rights.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman
And the bestiality/pedophelia argumet begs the question... Are YOU so stupid that you can draw no rational distinction between the commitment of two adult citizens and betiality/pedophelia? Really? None at all?
How sad for you. Fortunately, there ARE people smart enough to be capable of drawing such rational distinctions, even if you find it eludes you. (eyeroll)
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
You have responded to the wrong person. If a man or woman thinks they want to have sex with a corpse who doesn't care what's going on, would you consider that normal, OK, or proper behavior? What about the argument that gays are born that way? Then what about the person who has an attraction to children. you wouldn't agree with that would you? I believe being gay just as messed up. Main difference is the consenting adults. If you want gay sex get it, but leave marriage alone.
midgetsmommy 1 year ago
@midgetsmommy
Sex/marriage with a corpse or with a child does not involve two free, consenting adult citizens who are otherwise qualified for marriage and/or sexual intercourse.
NEXT!
And you can believe being gay is messed up. You cannot put your finger on the scales of justice it and weigh it down to give your beliefs the force of law in maintaining inequality between citizens. That's all.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
Sexual perversion vs the color of ones skin or origin of birth are not even close to the same thing. Don't you dare try and pull that card.
You have no choice about how you are born into race and ethnicity.
You can, however, choose to not commit homosexual acts and choose to not force sexual corruption on our children and our children's children. I don't want my children growing up in a world where they are told that gay sex acts are normal and acceptable. Shame on you.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
Perhaps one can choose one's sexual orientation (I disagree, and your side failed to prove this in court. one of the findings of facts was that orientation is unchosen).
But even setting that aside. You have not offered a reason why someone should legally be prevented from making their own choices about which gender they want to love and marry, in a country which offers equality and freedom of religion as its foundational principles.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
no one can tell your children what is right or wrong except yourself.
Some people do not want their children growing up in a world where Jews are given equal rights to Christians. Some people do not want their children growing up in a world where women have equal rights to men, and so on.
Too bad. We live in a society where your private, moral, religious judgment of other citizens does not outstrip the rights of other citizens. Try Iran.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
"no one can tell your children what is right or wrong except yourself"
If you think society doesn't impact their perspective significantly, then you are extremely ignorant.
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
If you want to teach your children that blacks are inferior to whites, that Christians are superior to Jews, or gay relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, that is your business.
You cannot give your private, moral judgments the weight of law and withdraw rights and equality from American citizens because of what you want to teach your children. It is unconstitutional.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@filmstocker
What a ridiculous argument.
Race and religous affiliation are extremely different issues than homosexuality. Everytime LGBT supporters bring up other issues that are NOT related to the argument, you become less rational by the second.
You can't choose to not be black, latino, white or chinese etc.
The fact is, the vast majority of the world is disgusted by homosexuality. The lot of you are trying to corrupt the entire globe with your perverted ways. Stop it!
HomesliceDrummer 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
You can certainly chose your religion: I noticed you left that one off your list.
Bigotry is bigotry. There was a time when the majority of the world believed blacks were inferior to whites and were disgusted by the thought of interracial unions. It did not make banning such unions right.
Prop 8 supporters failed to show why their private, moral disapproval of same sex relationships should be given the force of law.
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
Again the crux of the argument is here:
Prop 8 supporters failed to show why their private, moral disapproval of same sex relationships should be given the force of law.
Just because YOU don't like someone else's choice of a marital partner due to your prejudice does not provide you with the justification for banning their marriage or withdrawing their civil equality and personal liberties..
filmstocker 1 year ago
@HomesliceDrummer
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
--Coretta Scott King
Word.
filmstocker 1 year ago
But even focusing on the judicial process, and setting to one side its reliance on the oxymoronic concept of “substantive due process,” Judge Walker’s decision is fundamentally flawed in three ways, two of which represent failures of reasoning and the third of which highlights the structural problem with substituting judicial “fact-finding” for the collected judgment of a democratic electorate.
omiolo 1 year ago
In a larger sense, the lawsuit, seeking to overturn judicially a status quo that has existed for essentially all of human history and was only recently reaffirmed by the California electorate, is yet more proof that it’s not conservatives who are on the offensive in the ‘culture wars’.
omiolo 1 year ago
The Prop 8 Decision: Having It Both Ways
by Dan McLaughlin
omiolo 1 year ago
37 states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs), while 2 more states have strong language that defines marriage as one man and one woman. There are 30 states that have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, including the three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) that passed constitutional amendments in November 2008.
omiolo 1 year ago
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex
omiolo 1 year ago
This already-resolved, three-year-old lawsuit was resurrected with the goal of forcing legislators to redefine marriage against their will. Such attacks utterly dispel the myth that civil unions will appease same-sex “marriage” activists, who seek to use them as a legal springboard to redefine marriage.”
omiolo 1 year ago
NJ Supreme Court Rejects Demand to Redefine Marriage
omiolo 1 year ago
The New Jersey Supreme Court issued an order Monday rejecting a recently filed motion in a long-ago-resolved lawsuit that attempted to force New Jersey legislature to redefine marriage.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo only because they have to go through the lower courts first.
listen, you will lose. we will win. get over it.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 there is a Mormon on the ninth circuit. To be fair he should write the majority opinion for Prop 8 appeal.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo lol. we'll see captain failtard
cherrydog9 1 year ago
So if the organization of the church wasn't a corporation, where did that idea come from?
Doctrine and Covenants 20 states that the church was "regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country."
omiolo 1 year ago
Devout Catholic Alito should be the one to write the majority opinion for the Supreme Court on this so called **gay marriage**. That would ONLY be right.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo religious beliefs should not dictate constitutional rights.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 the ENTIRE constitution is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo yes, that's why there's no mention at all of god, jesus or christianity in the ENTIRE constitution.
fail.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 reread my comment, why are you playing games with me? Should I REPEAT my comment so that you ACTUALLY have to address it or should we keep playing your game?
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo [rereading...] yeah, still fail. game over
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 maybe this time focus on COMPREHENSION
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo captain caps lock: you fail. epicly.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 I guess if you say that enough. Even YOU will start to believe it.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo i don't believe it. i know it. :)
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@omiolo oh and by "ENTIRE" i guess you're including the part of the constitution where blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person
oops.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 please do NOT confuse race with sexual behavior. It is a common fallacy employed by your types.
omiolo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrPorterRockwell "When did marriage become a "right"?"
when the supreme court said so
regardless, your religion always has and always will be an abomination to reason no matter how much you whine about it.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
As long as you'd like to pray on your own time, of course! If you'd like to lead an official government event in prayer, then you are violating Separation of Church and State.
Nobody is saying you cannot have your beliefs. If you believe gay marriage is immoral, then you are free to not marry another person of the same sex. However, when you force others to adhere to YOUR definition of morality, then you are infringing on THEIR rights.
perditiontheelder 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder Let's use your language and express the opposite point of view. Here we go:
"If you believe moral marriage is not for you, then you are free to not marry a woman. You can get a civil union instead. However, when you force others to adhere to YOUR NEW definition of marriage, that is totally infringing on THEIR rights to vote to keep the definition AS IS."
You see, you guys violated our rights. We vote, law is passed. Disgruntled gay judge thumbs his nose, and here we are.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman you don't have the right to pass law that violate our constitutional rights. so here we are. and we'll win eventually. which you know full well.
cherrydog9 1 year ago
@cherrydog9 No, we vote to pass laws that CHANGE the Constitution of California so that it is CLEAR. People don't want this same sex marriage idea and it was voted out. The Federal Government already has DOMA to define marriage. Please deal with this and don't be anarchists.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman
Your rights to infringe on others' rights are being infringed upon? Forgive my lack of sympathy.
Clearly, if you are willing to adopt such rhetoric, you are not interested in adopting the most rational position and therefore will probably never change your mind.
perditiontheelder 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder This much I know. Religious people have a RIGHT to express themselves and act on their religion. That act of acting on one's religion does NOT in any way infringe on the right of a gay person. If my religion says that gay sex is sin, I am going to be able to express that thought FREELY and OPENLY if I like, this isn't Canada where they have made it a so-called "hate crime" to do so, so we are in America, thank God for the Constitution which says that RIGHT exists.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder "If you'd like to lead an official government event in prayer, then you are violating Separation of Church and State"
the senate and cabinet both have prayer daily.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo
And...are violating separation of church and state.
perditiontheelder 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder so far the courts have NOT agreed with you declaration.
omiolo 1 year ago
@omiolo
Interesting that you selectively chose to follow the courts decisions....
perditiontheelder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perditiontheelder "selectively chose to follow the courts"
yeah, I wasn't a big fan of their Dred Scott decision.
omiolo 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder That's what you say, but like I said in the video, they start all the meetings with PRAYER in every city where I do work. They also started all of our home owners association meetings with a PRAYER too when I was on the board there. They also pledge allegiance to the flag. It is very refreshing to see such good people all over. ...which makes make think, how OUT OF TOUCH are the people preaching "separation of church and state" like they even know what it means?
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@mormonanswerman
My claim:
leading an official government event in prayer is violating the separation of church and state
Your rebuttal:
Some official government events are led in prayer.
Your conclusion:
Therefore, no its not.
There is no logical connection there. It happens, but that does not mean it is does not violate separation of church and state.
And you think I'M out of touch?
perditiontheelder 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder We hear prayers at just about every civic meeting we go to. There IS precedent, even if the ACLU has a cow. Church and State separation is NOT to be interpreted PAST the 1st Amendment Bill of Rights which says that government shall be separated from making our religious choices. They don't do that right now, not even when a prayer is said at a meeting. Do they ever preface the prayer by forcing all to participate? No, you can ignore it while the MAJORITY enjoys it.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder The purpose of the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment is to ensure that individuals have a choice, that their conscience is not forced or coerced to embrace a certain religion. Like if at a city council meeting they specifically asked YOU to get up and pray, and you don't pray, but the cops there made you do it anyway, THAT would be infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
But just because you are offended at OTHERS doing a prayer is no right violated. You are just INTOLERANT.
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
@perditiontheelder CHURCH AND STATE, so over-rated and over-used by atheists bent on infringing on 1st Amendment RIGHTS that every individual has to express themselves on whatever topic they like, even if it is, gasp, religious in nature. If someone on a city corner wants to shout that the end of the world is near, we have the right to walk right past, hearing what they have to say, but we have no right to silence them. Even a cop does not have that right to silence them. It happens, but...
mormonanswerman 1 year ago
hey man, cheer up. its not over yet. This is just a step closer to the U.S supreme court from its appeal. I know when it does get to the U.S. supreme court, it will be a UNANIMOUS decision. Just hold on. Come on, did you really believe that we had a chance in winning against one unelected openly gay judge, seriously?
kenballer00 1 year ago