PDA

View Full Version : same sex marriage; my view gets some help



John Smith
02-27-2010, 09:04 PM
I have often argued that same sex marriage is among those rights not subject to majority rule. These two guys express that opinion far better than do I.

This is really worth watching.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/watch.html (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/watch.html)

Harbormaster
02-27-2010, 10:05 PM
Here's a button pattern I made for Maine's campaign:

http://home.gwi.net/%7Eeglaser/Bertie.jpg

stoneyreef
02-27-2010, 11:38 PM
This has nothing to do with equal protection, civil liberties etc etc ad nauseum.

Every Man and Woman no matter who they are have the same exact equal right to marry another of the opposite sex.


This is so simple that it is nauseating. Thus, there is nothing about ensuring rights, these people want to create a right. However according to our founding documents, rights can only be endowed by our creator, not by legal or bastardized means.

Upnorth1
02-27-2010, 11:49 PM
rights can only be endowed by our creator

What a moron .....

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 09:47 AM
However according to our founding documents, rights can only be endowed by our creator, not by legal or bastardized means.Nonsense. The Constitution of the United States mentions God not at all, and religion only twice - in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and in Article VI section 3: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Best get used to the idea. As surely as the anti-miscegenation laws were doomed, same-sex marriage is coming; it's a matter of simple justice, and does no harm to anyone.

stoneyreef
02-28-2010, 11:19 AM
OH, I forgot, if a document or fact does not fit your views then it either didn't exist, or does not fit in your narrow scope of definition:

Well the document that started it all states:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .

Garret
02-28-2010, 11:56 AM
OH, I forgot, if a document or fact does not fit your views then it either didn't exist, or does not fit in your narrow scope of definition:



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .

Well the document that started it all states:

So, God gave us all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights? If so, are you prepared to state that every person (OK, every "Christian" if you're of that narrow mindset) on the planet has these rights? People in Myanmar have the "right to keep and bear arms" for example? All Chinese have the "right to assemble"?

Just askin.....

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 11:58 AM
So we have a disagreement about what rights the creator has endowed us with. You think that God doesn't approve of same-sex marriage. I think God is on the side of kindness and justice, and leaves the details up to us.

Peerie Maa
02-28-2010, 12:02 PM
OH, I forgot, if a document or fact does not fit your views then it either didn't exist, or does not fit in your narrow scope of definition:

Well the document that started it all states:Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .

But some are more equal that others. All men are only created equal if Stoneyreef agrees with his Creators wishes.

Tobago
02-28-2010, 12:39 PM
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

No mention of gender preference, no qualifications. From Jesus not an old testament prophet or story teller.

Peerie Maa
02-28-2010, 12:42 PM
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

No mention of gender preference, no qualifications. From Jesus not an old testament prophet or story teller.

Just goes to show how the religion of the three books has changed with time. Problem is it allows all sorts of bigots to claim that their god is on their side.

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 12:47 PM
Wasn't it God that destroyed Sodom and Gamorroh?
I suppose could argue that that was justice not sure of kindness. The God described in the Old Testament is most certainly not the one I was referring to.

McMike
02-28-2010, 12:48 PM
This has nothing to do with equal protection, civil liberties etc etc ad nauseum.

Every Man and Woman no matter who they are have the same exact equal right to marry another of the opposite sex.


This is so simple that it is nauseating. Thus, there is nothing about ensuring rights, these people want to create a right. However according to our founding documents, rights can only be endowed by our creator, not by legal or bastardized means.


Go live in Vatican City then because this is America and civil liberties and equal rights and protection under the law are no brainers. The right has already been created, the only thing holding gay marriage back are closed minded, selfish jerks who can't see past their own ego and can't read the constitution.

John Smith
02-28-2010, 01:22 PM
This has nothing to do with equal protection, civil liberties etc etc ad nauseum.

Every Man and Woman no matter who they are have the same exact equal right to marry another of the opposite sex.


This is so simple that it is nauseating. Thus, there is nothing about ensuring rights, these people want to create a right. However according to our founding documents, rights can only be endowed by our creator, not by legal or bastardized means.
Nonsense. No matter where one lives, one has those rights the government allows one to have.

This has Everything to do with equal rights. I think it was all summed up nicely when the judge asked the attorney for the other side how this will negatively affect anyone, and the answer was , "I don't know."

These are two very brillian attorneys, on opposite sides of the political spectrum, fighting together for this equal right.

John Smith
02-28-2010, 01:24 PM
OH, I forgot, if a document or fact does not fit your views then it either didn't exist, or does not fit in your narrow scope of definition:

Well the document that started it all states:

Rights to speak our opinion, carry our gun, and marry whomever we wish, no?

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 01:28 PM
Nonsense. No matter where one lives, one has those rights the government allows one to have. Not a good idea. What's legal is not necessarily right.

But kindness, justice, and respect for our fellow human beings are on the side of same-sex marriage, and no one has yet been able to show any harm it will do.

John Smith
02-28-2010, 01:30 PM
I am just glad that it is being pursued this way, as I've always thought it something not governed by majority rule.

I have no idea what people think changes with same sex marriage. Will guys stop having sex with each other? No.

How they think it takes from heterosexual marriage escapes me.

How often in our history have we been afraid that giving rights to a broader section of our population would lead to the sky falling, and how often has that kind of thinking been proven wrong?

Yet, that sort of thinking continues.

McMike
02-28-2010, 04:04 PM
This is a subject where conservatives show what boneheads they really are.

Peerie Maa
02-28-2010, 05:23 PM
This is a subject where conservatives show what boneheads they really are.
Isn't this what conservatives are about, preventing change?

2. To keep (a quantity) constant through physical or chemical reactions or evolutionary changes

mariner2k
02-28-2010, 06:13 PM
In the Constitution does "the Creator" neccesarily assume God, Christian or otherwise....or is it meant to respect a variety of beliefs?

stoneyreef
02-28-2010, 07:05 PM
On the subject of founding documents ... .for the people by the people, California's constitution . . . . the federal constitution . .. . . The people voted on prop 8 already.

So now the creator has decided, our founding documents have decided, and now the present day people have decided? Do you really need it any clearer?

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 07:16 PM
So now the creator has decided, Really? He told you? Must be nice to be so sure of these things. Do you hear these voices often?
our founding documents have decided, Nowhere in any of the founding documents is same-sex marriage mentioned. The founders, of course, would have almost certainly opposed it, but an awful lot of them were slaveholders too, so perhaps we can do better than they did. Times change.

John Smith
02-28-2010, 07:22 PM
On the subject of founding documents ... .for the people by the people, California's constitution . . . . the federal constitution . .. . . The people voted on prop 8 already.

So now the creator has decided, our founding documents have decided, and now the present day people have decided? Do you really need it any clearer?
If it were left to referendum, women wouldn't be voting. Civil right laws wouldn't have come to be.

Your thoughts on the constitution are just plain wrong. A whole section of it sets forth areas of rights where the minority is protected from the will of the majority.

That's because these rights are viewed an inalienable rights. They include your right to practice your religion and me to practice mine.

Among others.

The right for one adult to marry another adult is among those rights that are of no business to anyone other than the couple wishing to marry.

The only thing "religious" about marriage is the "state" empowers the priest et al to perform the ceremony. It is the state that issues the license, the certificate, and, if necessary, grants the divorce.

What possible reason do you have to refuse two men, or two women, from getting married and enjoying all those STATE issued next of kin rights?

If a gay couple buys the house next to you and moves in, what difference does it make to you if they marry or just live together?

How many heterosexual couples are just living together, in sin?

It's a simple argument. Some of us believe the constitution allows an adult to marry whomever he loves. Somehow, you think it gives that right only to people who love someone of the opposite sex.

I see no logic in your view.

I would point out that a few years back an amendment to the constitution was considered which would make same sex marriage unconstitutional. Give that some thought. Sans such an amendment, same sex marriage must be constitutional, or no such amendment would be needed.

MattL
02-28-2010, 07:27 PM
I voted against prop 8 and still think it is bad, and mean spirited. One of the main reasons it passed is that a bunch of out of state people dumped a bunch of money into it. We had anti 8 bumperstickers that got ripped off of our cars too.

stoneyreef
02-28-2010, 07:35 PM
What possible reason do you have to refuse two men, or two women, from getting married and enjoying all those STATE issued next of kin rights?





By the very definition of what you are proposing to allow, next of kin is impossible. There is no progeny as the result of a same sex union.

McMike
02-28-2010, 08:00 PM
On the subject of founding documents ... .for the people by the people, California's constitution . . . . the federal constitution . .. . . The people voted on prop 8 already.

So now the creator has decided, our founding documents have decided, and now the present day people have decided? Do you really need it any clearer?

What really gives me a nice feeling is that in the end you'll not get your way.

The constitution does protect the minority in situations regarding equal rights and equal protection.

I'm finding it really hard not to call you names. God you're wrong . . . . :mad:

stoneyreef
02-28-2010, 08:03 PM
Attack the views not the person. That is my motto. No ad hominem here.

Harry Miller
02-28-2010, 09:03 PM
By the very definition of what you are proposing to allow, next of kin is impossible. There is no progeny as the result of a same sex union.

Tell that to my grandchildren.

John Smith
02-28-2010, 09:06 PM
By the very definition of what you are proposing to allow, next of kin is impossible. There is no progeny as the result of a same sex union.
HORSEFEATHERS! Next of kin benefits come via marriage, issued by the state. These include such things as pension surviver benefits, coverage of one by the other's health insurance, ICU visitation, etc.

There are many heterosexual marriages where there is no progeny. Should they be voided? There is much progeny without marriage, should it not be honored?

Do adopted kids count?

Get into this century, please. If marriage were about having kids, we wouldn't be able to have kids without being married, under God's supposed rules.

Tom Montgomery
02-28-2010, 09:48 PM
So there is more than one God? :eek:

Some think so. There are certainly different conceptions of God.

Tom Montgomery
02-28-2010, 09:50 PM
So, stoneyreef, do you hold Thomas Jefferson's ideas to be sacred? Would that include his thoughts regarding slavery? His thoughts regarding Jesus and Christianity?

You right-wingnuts tickle me! You seem to think all our thinking was done for us 250 years ago.

Glen Longino
02-28-2010, 10:22 PM
So there is more than one God? :eek:

No, you idgit!
There is not even one!:eek:
JMO!:D

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
02-28-2010, 10:46 PM
This has nothing to do with equal protection, civil liberties etc etc ad nauseum.

Every Man and Woman no matter who they are have the same exact equal right to marry another of the opposite sex.


This is so simple that it is nauseating. Thus, there is nothing about ensuring rights, these people want to create a right. However according to our founding documents, rights can only be endowed by our creator, not by legal or bastardized means.

You are referring to the Declaration of Independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident; That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

The D of I, while noteworthy, is not the rule of law. The Constitution is. And it has been shown to be flawed on many occasions, and thus amended.

stoneyreef
02-28-2010, 11:12 PM
I never said rule of law, I said founding documents, The rule of law was created when they voted on prop 8. A democratic election where the majority ruled.

Oh and BTW, you dems were not whining about majority rule when you had a filibuster proof super majority.

Keith Wilson
02-28-2010, 11:23 PM
So there is more than one God? I have no idea. People have all sorts of contradictory ideas about God, or the gods. Some of them might be right, but they can't all be.

Stoney, you can't have it both ways - either there are inalienable rights which cannot be justly taken away whatever the law is, although unjust governments can try - or rights are whatever the majority says they are, and proposition 8 is perfectly legitimate. Take your pick, one or the other.

stoneyreef
03-01-2010, 12:01 AM
I have no idea. People have all sorts of contradictory ideas about God, or the gods. Some of them might be right, but they can't all be.

Stoney, you can't have it both ways - either there are inalienable rights which cannot be justly taken away whatever the law is, although unjust governments can try - or rights are whatever the majority says they are, and proposition 8 is perfectly legitimate. Take your pick, one or the other.


I know, I was starting to sound just like a Dem????? Hmmmm. Now you can see my point. For the Dems whatever situation serves them best is what is right for them in that micro second of time.

We can either stop the moral decay of society now and let this abhorration burn itself out, or we can continue with our heads in the sand and continue to year after year cry and moan about the repubs did this or the dems did that.

Time to get back to right and wrong and no matter which way you look at same sex sexual relationships either married or just the acts, morally, ethically, spiritually, divinely and now legally, it is wrong. I don't need any greater proof than what history has shown and the current day of the people standing up and making a decision about prop 8 in California. Can't get any more plain than it is now!

Ron Williamson
03-01-2010, 06:14 AM
Moral decay?
Right and wrong?
Just because YOU don't like it,doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.
It sounds like you're a flaming hetero anyway and all of should be irrelevant to you.
R

John Smith
03-01-2010, 08:55 AM
I never said rule of law, I said founding documents, The rule of law was created when they voted on prop 8. A democratic election where the majority ruled.

Oh and BTW, you dems were not whining about majority rule when you had a filibuster proof super majority.
The dems NEVER had a filibuster proof majority. I have always complained about the filibuster regardless of which party held the majority.

Rule of law is not the same as majority rules. The way the system is supposed to work is laws pass by majorities, not super majorities, in the House and Senate. It then requires 2/3 to override a veto, if the president vetoes the bill.

If the new law contradicts the constitution, it is challenged and the courst decide.

The majority cannot, under the constitution, deprive the minority of the rights given to them.

It's an interesting document, you should read it some time.

This is like the debate on where to hold trials. Constitution recognizes military or civilian "accused", and dictates how each should be tried.

Freedom of speech is a good exampe of something NOT dictated by the majority.

The right to marry whatever consenting adult you choose absolutely falls under the concept of a right not to be dictated by majority rule.

A right is not determined by popularity. Also a clause in there about the pursuit of happiness. Is any American excluded from that right.