Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[PatriotPride]

Perhaps it's the constant imposition of their own agenda that constructs my dismay.

Yep. You hit the nail on the head in regards to the homosexual political movement. Your argument swings both ways. You think that Christians can be "imposing"? Well...I happen to know that the homosexual political machine is "constantly imposing their own agenda". Guess what? I DON'T LIKE IT!

 

[groovatron]

Yep. You hit the nail on the head in regards to the homosexual political movement. Your argument swings both ways. You think that Christians can be "imposing"? Well...I happen to know that the homosexual political machine is "constantly imposing their own agenda". Guess what? I DON'T LIKE IT!

I'm not going to disagree with you there.

Imagine being annoyed with homos and relgious folks. Or how about homo religious folks.

 

[jbombelli]

Some people believe in liberty and freedom.

Some people only believe in those liberties and freedoms they agree with.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Care to give some examples???

Homosexuality.
Talking bad about Christianity

There is a whole list, which only require a history book, or in our modern age, the internet.

Actually, there is a LARGE Judeo connection. I don't have time to spell everything out here, but the long and short of the matter is that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.


The Jews, His "Chosen People", have largely chosen to reject Him as the Savior they have been waiting for. Christians and Jews worship God, but the FUNDAMENTAL difference is that Jews refuse to endorse Jesus' claim as valid.


Without Judaism, there could be no Christianity. It's as simple as that. The two are forever linked.

The "connection" is only acceptable in a legacy term though, considering the whole Khazar/Edomite debacle.

Jesus's birth, life and ultimately sacrifice voids the Covenant. I think his coming down had much to do with degerancy which perverted the ancient Hebrewic people, undoubtedly due to many aspects of empirical plights.
I dont agree, with you on the whole 'same' god topic. This is like saying g*d, Yewah and Allah are all the same.
Thankfully, Jesus talked about this very subject.

Christianity is Christinity due to Jesus, nobody else, nothing else. Christians do not need judeism or anything else to validate themselves, all that is needed is simply Jesus.

The concept of "Judeo-Christianity" is a new concept, of which has been alien in the description of Christianity,

Then they are idiots who need to loosen their yamakas a bit. I find it funny that the Christian Bible, written MOSTLY by Jews, is considered anti-Semitic. They don't want to acknowledge the truth, and when Christians take a stand and tell the Jews that their faith is wrong, they retort that Christianity and therefore Christians must be anti-Semitic.

Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? - Anti-Semitism and Holocaust

It's an interesting read about Christianity and gospel of Jews.

If what you say is true, could you explain why there are so many organizations, namely Christians, which seek to serve Israel?

Gen. 27:28, Deut. 8:7-9, Is.42:19, Hosea 1:9, II Sam. 7:10, Is. 24:15, Is. 49:12, Is. 65:15, Is. 18:1, Rev. 12:14

May suggest something different than what Churchanity promotes, brother.
-----------------------------------------------------


Off topic question for Christians. How many of you & those you know actually read the Bible vs go to Church and accept what you are told?

Im curious, having discovered that very few Christians actually do not study the bible

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

If a number of people in a given state voted to ban possessions of all firearms would it be OK? We're not a democracy, the majority does not get to dictate to everyone, especially where rights are concerned. The judge in this case (a Reagan appointee) ruled using the 14th Amendment (as the SCOTUS just did in McDonald) and wrote:
Here's his ruling.

You can't vote to remove rights of people that you don't like. If that were the case then slavery could make a come back and a baptist majority could vote to ban everything they didn't like, no matter what catholics might want. Either we are all equals before the law or we are not. I'll err on the side of total equality. Gay marriages aren't going to make my marriage any less valid.
Even AG Moonbeam got it right when he declined to defend prop. 8

Well said! This is my first post, and I'm obviously new here (not a lurker). My brother is a homosexual and we live in Salt Lake City, the Mormon capitol of the world. Needless to say, he has felt like a beaten up rag-doll because of the Mormon church and all of the anti-gay people who have the nerve to call him an abomination. Which is their right, I suppose.
Homosexuals can hold office, be police, many homosexuals serve in our military, and some of us here may be homosexual or have homosexual family or friends. So why can't they get married? They're good enough to hold office, be celebrities, fight and die for our country, yet because some people and their mainly religious and homophobic beliefs tells them they aren't good enough to marry their partner whom they love just as much as you love your spouse.

In what world is that right?

To anyone who says that it destroys the "sanctity or marriage." Get real, look up the history of marriage, it is far from a strictly religious or Christian ceremony. So to those who supported Prop 8, all I have to say is, shame on you. That is not what America is about. To those that realize that, even if they are uncomfortable with it, that this is a civil and constitutional issue that is meant to protect the rights of EVERYONE then all I have to say is

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

Are you always this condescending? You and I will have to continue to...disagree.



And what exactly ARE you for? It's a valid question.



Yet ANOTHER bitter person with a problem with Christianity. Let me clue you into something---EVERYONE'S beliefs, and not just Christians', influence our laws and "impact others" as you put it. Look at the slew of anti-Christian (or anti-FAITH) laws and lawsuits that have come into being in the past few decades. The list goes on. For the record, YES I am a Christian. YES, God has said that homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination. That being said, I don't hate gays. If someone wants to be gay, then by all means, be gay. I won't give you any grief over it. But I DO take offense to wanting extra rights. WHY get married? Has anyone really stopped to consider the implications (economical, political, etc) of gay marriage, or are the heads still buried in the sand? Homosexuality is unnatural folks. There is no way around it. It serves no reproductive purpose, is contrary to the beliefs of evolution, and is in direct contradiction of God's mandates. If homosexuals want to be in a relationship, live together, sleep together---then that is their choice, and I agree that the government should have no say in the matter as our country is not ruled by religious law. However, when the clamoring hordes demand "equality" (read---"extra rights"), I ask why? If you live together, have a relationship, possibly raise an adopted family...then what is the concern regarding marriage? I suppose the economic incentives have nothing to do with it... Stop with the fallacies...pedophilia and bestiality? REALLY? Speaking of a "mature conversation"...both are UNNATURAL, but have been made illegal. There is no argument that pedophilia is a crime deserving of death, but bestiality is another issue entirely. If a man wants to sleep with another man, what's the harm? Likewise, if a man wants to sleep with a donkey, what's the harm? It's not hurting anybody

And did you REALLY bring up abortion? Tell me that this discussion has not become THAT ridiculous---if you want to discuss the legalized murder of children, please do so in another thread. This one has not COMPLETELY derailed yet...although it's well on it's way.

Can you prove homosexuality is unnatural? Since we find it in the animal kingdom I find this statement to be extremely contradictory. And no, you cannot say something like "Animals also cannibalize their young!" That would be shifting the goal-post. People like my brother are NOT asking for extra rights. My brother can hold office, become an police officer, fight in our military, die for our country and fight for your freedom, yet it's not okay for him to get married to his longtime boyfriend?

You're right when you say people's personal beliefs inevitibly enter the political arena. But what makes someone a TRUE patriot is when they can set those aside, and look at the situation from not only a Constitutional point of view, but a rational one as well. If a gay doctor saved your life, would you be comfortable looking him in the eye and telling him that "I can go marry my loved one, but you can't because I believe you are an abomination."
Who would be the real abomination in that scenario?

When blacks and whites couldn't get married people also said that blacks were asking for "extra rights" same with the women's liberation movement. And now, with homosexuals. To say homosexuality is not natural is an outright lie, you can still believe it, but the evidence is stacked against you.

I personally know of 3 people that were raised by gay parents. And you know what? They are all really happy, and successful, and they are straight, too.

My brother was BORN GAY, I can tell you this because I lived with him for nearly two decades. I saw his struggle and inner turmoil, I saw how unhappy he was when he had to put on his "Straight face." Since he came out, he has been happier, healthier, and more productive. He should have every right that you and I have. Your argument that marriage is meant for procreation also falls flat the second you actually study the history of marriage throughout the world or in our own country. What about couples that can't reproduce? What about the elderly, widowers and widows who decide to spend their twilight years together. Should they not be allowed to marry just because it's not part of the "social norm?" Which, by the way, changes yearly.

Some may say our society is becoming more immoral every decade. I say our society is struggling with the vastness of our own human complexities. And that we are coming to understand them better each year. You are a Christian, I am an atheist. I believe in a secular government, I've seen how theocratic governments work and societies, it is never a pretty sight. I am not calling for an atheistic approach to governing, I'm calling for a secular, and equal government. One that cares for it's people, provides education and healthcare for them, instead of spending countless billions on war and profiteering. A government that recognizes two people in love. A government that is as human as the rest of us.

Now I imagine we can argue till we are blue in the fingers, but this is what I have to say on the subject, and I am damn happy that you and I have the right to say what we want. But just like every member here would be upset if they tried to take our firearms away, don't tell my brother that his love isn't real, and that he can't marry another consenting adult. Two couples are kissing in a park, one heterosexual, one homosexual. Yet I hear this all the time "Those fags are just showing off their gayness to the world to promote homosexual behavior." How would you feel if someone told you, that you are an abomination, that you cannot marry the person you love? That you showing affection to them is wrong? I imagine it'd make you upset.

My brother certainly didn't want to be discriminated against any more than anyone else. He just wants to be who he is, without hurting you, or the rest of the world. No more, no less. Is that so wrong?

 

[308jake]

In what culture has marriage not represented the union of a man and a women?

Shame on you for calling out those who supported Prop 8.

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

EXACTLY.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin(Christians tend to put too much emphasis on this sin, as compared to others, I think, but that is another discussion).

However, I have come to the thinking that I would support Civil Unions, for many of the reasons previously mentioned in this thread. Marriage as a covenant between two people, and a State recognized marriage, are actually two different things. By making gay marriage legal, however, you start the push toward forcing churches to accept and perform gay marriages against their beliefs.

Call it a Civil Union, give it the same STATE sponsored rights, but leave the choice to the churches as to whether or not to perform them, with no legal ramifications if they choose not to.

I'd also like to point out that the same passage that says homosexuality is a sin, also mentions that it is wrong to eat lobster. So, why are so many Christians eating shellfish?

 

[308jake]

Keep hitting the crack pipe sister.

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

Sorry, honesty in the debate isn't in the cards; note the fallback to a previous positon, e.g. 'bigot'. That's the ole standby.

Side Note: If homosexuality is such a wonderful thing, why hasn't evolution supported it by allowing homosexuals to breed? If homosexuality were an evolutionary plus, wouldn't it have been codified into marriage long since? Or were all those generations of people back through history just morons who didn't realize what a great contribution homosexual couples would make if only they were married?

IS this supposed to be a serious statement? You clearly have very little understanding of evolutionary biology.

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

In what culture has marriage not represented the union of a man and a women?

Shame on you for calling out those who supported Prop 8.

If you'd take a bit of your time to do some research, you'd see there are quite a few. Educate yourself, and when you throw out little ad hominems like "keep hitting that crackpipe, sister" or whatever you just said to me, that just discredits you even further.

Shame on me? No, shame on you!

 

[hoboboxerjoe]

So much here, where to begin.

First, by what right does the federal government insert itself into questions of marriage? It's not explicit in the constitution, nor does it seem evident in the penumbra's thereof.

Second, as most activists in this arena will tell you, it is not the acceptance of their union by the masses which is sought, but specifically the acceptance by the state and the implied contractual benefits attached thereto. While technically, many such remedies are available through contract law (co-ownership of property, wills, etc.), the codified marriage automatically ascribes these and makes the boundaries much lower. Furthermore, many of the benefits of marriage still wouldn't apply, such as Social Security survival benefits, etc., without state recognition.

While, as a Christian, I believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, I do not believe it should be persecuted or prosecuted. Nowhere in the Bible I read did Jesus admonish anyone to preach or convert via the sword, whether the sword is yours or the government's (yours by proxy).

I firmly believe all governments should get out of the marriage business.

Marriage should only involve three parties, in my eyes. God, and the two being united. If they can find a church which would make such a spiritual union (and there are plenty) more power to them.

Sadly, the state has inserted itself into the institution of marriage and has ascribed these numerous benefits and legal statuses, mostly due to the heinous entitlement system that our forebears allowed to be born and which we allow to survive. These entitlements and their structure relating to state-sanctioned marriage are the shackles which tend to make us more willing to bind ourselves to the state, as opposed to God, in our marriages.

Without government entitlements, contractual assignment of property rights could easily handle most concerns for all couples, regardless their preference.

I honestly believe that if we could return the government to its original limited state, eliminating entitlements and penalties and benefits based on an individual's status, most such issues would be of no concern.

Sadly, there seems no way to stuff that genie back into the bottle, and it certainly won't go of its own accord.

What about atheists like me? Should we not be allowed to get married then since we don't believe in a god (due to lack of evidence)?

Marriage should ultimately be about love, the love between two people, of legal age, and of sound mind. Whether procreation becomes a part of that marriage is entirely up to them and should no be included in it's definition.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

What about atheists like me? Should we not be allowed to get married then since we don't believe in a god (due to lack of evidence)?

Marriage should ultimately be about love, the love between two people, of legal age, and of sound mind. Whether procreation becomes a part of that marriage is entirely up to them and should no be included in it's definition.

Why do you or your Brother NEED to have a State Sanctioned marriage?


MY WIFE AND I, dont believe the State ought to have THAT power, and we wont support such measures.

Furthermore, If Pro-creation is the desire, then homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Delmar]

IMO, government needs to get all the way out of the marriage business.

Indeed, the government should get out of the business of redefining marriage! It is and always has been a union between a man and a woman.

 

[Delmar]

Can you prove homosexuality is unnatural? Since we find it in the animal kingdom I find this statement to be extremely contradictory. And no, you cannot say something like "Animals also cannibalize their young!" That would be shifting the goal-post. People like my brother are NOT asking for extra rights. My brother can hold office, become an police officer, fight in our military, die for our country and fight for your freedom, yet it's not okay for him to get married to his longtime boyfriend?

You're right when you say people's personal beliefs inevitibly enter the political arena. But what makes someone a TRUE patriot is when they can set those aside, and look at the situation from not only a Constitutional point of view, but a rational one as well. If a gay doctor saved your life, would you be comfortable looking him in the eye and telling him that "I can go marry my loved one, but you can't because I believe you are an abomination."
Who would be the real abomination in that scenario?

When blacks and whites couldn't get married people also said that blacks were asking for "extra rights" same with the women's liberation movement. And now, with homosexuals. To say homosexuality is not natural is an outright lie, you can still believe it, but the evidence is stacked against you.

I personally know of 3 people that were raised by gay parents. And you know what? They are all really happy, and successful, and they are straight, too.

My brother was BORN GAY, I can tell you this because I lived with him for nearly two decades. I saw his struggle and inner turmoil, I saw how unhappy he was when he had to put on his "Straight face." Since he came out, he has been happier, healthier, and more productive. He should have every right that you and I have. Your argument that marriage is meant for procreation also falls flat the second you actually study the history of marriage throughout the world or in our own country. What about couples that can't reproduce? What about the elderly, widowers and widows who decide to spend their twilight years together. Should they not be allowed to marry just because it's not part of the "social norm?" Which, by the way, changes yearly.

Some may say our society is becoming more immoral every decade. I say our society is struggling with the vastness of our own human complexities. And that we are coming to understand them better each year. You are a Christian, I am an atheist. I believe in a secular government, I've seen how theocratic governments work and societies, it is never a pretty sight. I am not calling for an atheistic approach to governing, I'm calling for a secular, and equal government. One that cares for it's people, provides education and healthcare for them, instead of spending countless billions on war and profiteering. A government that recognizes two people in love. A government that is as human as the rest of us.

Now I imagine we can argue till we are blue in the fingers, but this is what I have to say on the subject, and I am damn happy that you and I have the right to say what we want. But just like every member here would be upset if they tried to take our firearms away, don't tell my brother that his love isn't real, and that he can't marry another consenting adult. Two couples are kissing in a park, one heterosexual, one homosexual. Yet I hear this all the time "Those fags are just showing off their gayness to the world to promote homosexual behavior." How would you feel if someone told you, that you are an abomination, that you cannot marry the person you love? That you showing affection to them is wrong? I imagine it'd make you upset.

My brother certainly didn't want to be discriminated against any more than anyone else. He just wants to be who he is, without hurting you, or the rest of the world. No more, no less. Is that so wrong?

Sin is natural, you are right about that.

 

[Delmar]

I'd also like to point out that the same passage that says homosexuality is a sin, also mentions that it is wrong to eat lobster. So, why are so many Christians eating shellfish?

There is not just one passage in the Bible that refers to Homosexuality as sin and not all of them refer to shellfish. I could explain to you why eating "unclean foods" was considered a sin for the Hebrew people, but not for gentile believers, though I seriously doubt you have any interest in God's opinion.

 

[Indy317]

Marriage should ultimately be about love, the love between two people, of legal age, and of sound mind.

Why only "two people?" Shouldn't a group of consenting adults be allowed to receive the benefits of marriage as a group of three or more?

 

[Eddie]

I can see you are not familar with my earlier posts on INGO regarding the Ancient Greeks and homosexuality.

IT WAS A SHAMEFUL ACT, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. to cut to the chase.

You are essentially suggesting that man/child sex was able to produce great warriors. Modern Psychologist would say a victim of this sort of behavior would not benefit from it - AT ALL.... Who to believe...

This is slander against Greeks & the West.

Please review my posts regarding the subject.

No, I am pointing out that you have your history wrong. Never made any judgment on whether the practice was right or wrong. I said that the Greeks did not regard such relationships as marriage as they were for a limited duration. There is plenty of historical references to male/male relationships in ancient Greece, if I am slandering the Greek race by mentioning them then so is Aristotle so I'm not in too bad of company.

 

[groovatron]

There are several ways in which people become homosexuals. Most are born with it. It is a physiological condition. They really don't have a choice in the matter. Sure, they could spend there whole life in denial, but that's no way to live. There are also a small percentage of homosexuals that have had years of mental and physical abuse (mostly as a child) that lead them to there sexual confusion. Then there are those who actually choose to be homosexuals. These folks also suffer form a mental disorder often stemming from childhood abuse.

I'm not sure why there are still people out there that will deny scientific fact in the name of their own insecurities. It is really a lead weight in humanities mental evolution.

To tell someone that they are a sinner for being their natural selves is a shameful behavior. IMO, it's more of a sin then the vary act that you accuse.

 

[Expat]

To tell someone that they are a sinner for being their natural selves is a shameful behavior. IMO, it's more of a sin then the vary act that you accuse.

Wow... God is in our presence. The Grand Arbiter of what is sin and what is not...