NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, Muravyets, this is why it's always a joy to see you in a thread.

Your most endearing trait is when you don't "get" somebody's post so you just treat them like they're stupid rather than trying to see it from their side. You defeat yourself by doing it and I always find it incredibly entertaining. Your cheering section kinda insulates you from seeing the reality of that though, so I also kinda feel sorry for you. Tyger's point went right over your head and you'll never even know it.
Neo B, always a little slice of heaven to share a thread with you as well.

So tell me, have you decided that Tygereyes is not capable of speaking for him/herself? Is that why you are presuming to counterattack me on their behalf?

Or is it just that you think that if you -- yet again -- make me the entire focus of your argument, abandoning the topic entirely to spend all your time attacking me personally with your insults, belittlements and snidery -- like some kind of tinpot St. George going after an imaginary dragon -- that everyone will forget what they are fighting with you about?

That hasn't worked for you in years, brother. It won't work now.

I think there's been a huge misunderstanding here. All along we thought Neo B was interested in defending his position, when all he wanted to do was be a massive douchebag.

Hm. Way to prove you've got the moral highground there, buddy.

So I'm a douchebag now, huh? Cool. I'll just add that to the list of juvenile names I've been called on this forum by such "enlightened" and mature folks as yourself.

Has anybody on here said they agreed with that particular advertising?

Nope; all they have done is say they agree with Proposition 8, and agree with the Church which funded this ad, and agree with the people who voted for Proposition 8...

But I find it telling how little *anyone* wants to honestly defend this piece of filth. Interestingly, only people that disagree with Prop 8 itself have said they *disagreed* with that advertisement...

Coincidences, I'm sure.

Except in public restrooms, apparently.

Are you equating marriage to public restrooms?

Kinda irrelevant, now that the CA Constitution has changed.

Cute. Fucking cute.

Not at all a substantive reply to a substantive answer to your question, but really darn evasive and cute.

:hail:

Neo B, always a little slice of heaven to share a thread with you as well.

So tell me, have you decided that Tygereyes is not capable of speaking for him/herself? Is that why you are presuming to counterattack me on their behalf?

Or is it just that you think that if you -- yet again -- make me the entire focus of your argument, abandoning the topic entirely to spend all your time attacking me personally with your insults, belittlements and snidery -- like some kind of tinpot St. George going after an imaginary dragon -- that everyone will forget what they are fighting with you about?

That hasn't worked for you in years, brother. It won't work now.

Actually, I'm not speaking for Tyger, although I find it hypocritical of you to call me on that, considering how rarely you ever come at me by yourself without the gang behind you.

Cute. Fucking cute.

Not at all a substantive reply to a substantive answer to your question, but really darn evasive and cute.

:hail:

I couldn't resist ;)

Nope; all they have done is say they agree with Proposition 8, and agree with the Church which funded this ad, and agree with the people who voted for Proposition 8...

But I find it telling how little *anyone* wants to honestly defend this piece of filth. Interestingly, only people that disagree with Prop 8 itself have said they *disagreed* with that advertisement...

Coincidences, I'm sure.

You really should stop looking for something that isn't there.

People can agree on any issue with somebody else yet they may have vastly different reasons in how they came to the same conclusion.

What I particularly like about it, is that our position defends his right to be a religious bigot, and does not in any way abrogate his religious freedoms, or any other of his human rights.

To in any way suggest that a position which supports abrogating rights can ever be equal is laughable at best.
Well, obviously, they are claiming a "right" to oppress others and we want to stop them from doing that, so that must make us the horrible tyrants.

Are you equating marriage to public restrooms?

Um... sure... that must be it.

Well guys it's been load of fun but it's time for me to start getting ready to sleep.

I may or may not come back to the thread. I'm expecting quite a workload tomorrow and then I have my D&D game in the evening. If anybody wants an HONEST no posturing, no BS, no recrimination conversation with me about this topic, please feel free to send a TG.

Nite all.

Hm. Way to prove you've got the moral highground there, buddy.

So I'm a douchebag now, huh? Cool. I'll just add that to the list of juvenile names I've been called on this forum by such "enlightened" and mature folks as yourself.

You responded to an actual argument with a snide ad hominem attack. I was left no choice.

Should be more governors, politicians and people in general like her, by the sounds of things.

Wait, lemme get this straight. The supreme court said, 'Nah, civil unions ain't enough. Gay people can get married. End. of. story.' ?!? Or am I dreaming here.
More or less, yep. Only the Connecticut supreme court, but better than nothing.
What you do in your bedrooms is not my affair. I agree. Same thing for straight people. That all. Tell me to GET OVER it is a lame argument. What is the difference between what an unwed gay couple in a committed relationship do in the bedroom (which you admit is not your business) and what a wed gay couple do in the bedroom?
Nothing.
The only difference is that they share the same legal status as millions of other adults.



I have no paranoia or discomfort. I use to work with people who were gay. I never had any discomfort in the way they lived their lives. My church has a viewpoint on homosexuality and it will stand for a long time. You can't expect it to change. I don't. Again, I don't care what your church, nor any other church, says about gays. I couldn't care less. Not at all. Not in the slightest. I've said it dozens of times. You've even quoted me saying it.

What I care about are the legal rights of same-sex couples. Stop trying to make our arguments tie into your church. We only care about the Mormon church because of their significant influence in passing Prop 8. Beyond that, we don't give a damn.

That's true. Love or Leave it how my church stands.
And yet, no one cares what your church says.

I'll say it again. No. One. Cares.
If you can accept that gays can marry outside of your church, then there is no issue. You would have supported the law in Cali as it stood pre-prop 8.


Then I disagree with that. Sorry, but I can choose to disagree. Your state is your state. You have it anyway you want it. I don't dispute it.WHY do you disagree? The right of Connecticut and Massachusetts gay couples to wed has NO impact upon ANY churches. None. Not a single damn one. Why does it matter to you if a couple of gays choose to get married?

And this is why the two arguments will never be equal. What Neo B, and this dude Tygereyes are championing is butting in. Pretending that other people's decisions in these matters somehow deprive THEM of rights of some sort. This is patently false.
Exactly.

This isn't a case where one must win and one must lose. Allowing gays to wed in no way impacts the rights of religions.

I've been quite open and honest about why I don't answer it.


No you haven't.

You said it was a non-sequitur, which simply tells me you don't know what a non-sequitur is.

You said you don't answer those. That's not open or honest.

You decline to answer the question because you KNOW that it will expose you a hypocrite. That makes it DIShonest.

I'm not obligated to respond to every little snit and gripe in a discussion like this.

Nor to defend your arguments. It's OK, I understand. If I had completely irrational, indefensible arguments based on nothing but bigotry, I'd try to shut up more, too.

Cry me a river if you don't like it.


Nah I'll just continue taking part in the slow vivisection of your arguments and those of bigots like you while you flail helplessly. It's far more entertaining, and educational as well.

What are you even talking about? You want to gripe and cry and demand I respond to that little sign? I didn't design it, I don't know why they put that on there, thus I don't feel qualified to argue that particular point.

Ah, I like how it's a "little" sign now. Let the dismissal and disavowal begin!

It's one of the most popular ads for that campaign. It's undoubtedly had an effect on the voters. You support the campaign and the prop, as well as the people who made that sign.

Yet you're absolutely bat-shit about the prospect of even beginning to explain the reasoning behind it.


I didn't write the sign, I didn't design it, and I don't have to be "qualified" in order to know it for what it is: appeal to ignorance (association with children at all), appeal to fear (protect them! they're in danger!), and appeal to bigotry (FROM TEH GAYS).

My "qualifications" are I understand basic fucking English and can think because God endowed me with intellect. I am presuming you're not a clever Perl script and that you are equally as "qualified" as I to come to this same conclusion.

Therefore, you are lying when you feign ignorance. In an attempt to disassociate yourself from the very people and the very thoughts you are right now defending.

I feel sorry for someone like you, who sees some kind of asinine conspiracy behind every little thing. Are you so jaded? Really?

I don't see a "conspiracy." Just dishonest bigotry. Ho-hum.

OK, now I'm getting annoyed with you. What the fuck do you mean "admit" to calling it marriage. How many times do you have to be told that it IS marriage?

Yep. And that's why my church will never accept it.



YOU don't get to dictate what other people can get in life.

The LDS does not get to dictate what other people can get in life.

Never said we do. You live what you want. The old scripture, choose ye this day....


If you and they try, you will reap the repercussions of that, in terms of boycotts, public denunciations, political opposition, and social approbation.

You want gays to learn to deal with your prejudice against them? Well, then YOU and the LDS can learn to deal with the consequences of your choice to try to enshrine your bigotry into law. You are the ones who will lose in the end. That I can promise you.

And the day that happens.... *sighs* Well then I guess we really will be the minority. And I am tired of you saying it's bigotry. We haven't said you can't live the way you choose. We haven't said you can't have rights that are equal to marriage. But you keep insisting and digging at marriage and others feel otherwise. You won't compromise on that? Then you're forcing a way of life on me as much as you say mine is on yours. As much as you say otherwise.


You don't own the word marriage. You have been told that over and over, yet you choose to ignore that fact in the very same breaths with which you acknowledge other forms of marriage. How can you talk out of so many sides of your mouth at once?


I've acknowledge it. I am saying there are two views on it. And I've said it over and over again. And know there is a rights issue with marriage. And I know how others saw marriage in the past. However, you neglect to notice there is a religious aspect to it.

NOT ALL religious groups. Only some. Another fact you choose to ignore no matter how many times it is thrown at you. You complain about people presuming to tell you what your beliefs are, yet you seem totally comfortable declaring what other religion's views are. Too bad you are entirely wrong.


See my comment above about what YOU and the LDS don't get to decide for others. It includes deciding how long people have to wait for their rights to suit you.

Again we haven't decided anything on others. You live the way others choose. We just disagree how it's arranged.



No, it isn't. What gets SOME people up in arms is their bigotry against gays. Possibly also their desire to claim some kind of social/moral privilege for themselves, which obviously they can only do if they deny it to someone else. Selfishness and bigotry -- that's what gets the LDS up in arms on this issue.

*Sighs* It's a faith/value issue for many. But again. you have a point in the argument.


Tough shit. It is marriage, therefore it gets called marriage.

You want it all. what's next our temples?

More or less, yep. Only the Connecticut supreme court, but better than nothing.

That's cool. Sounds like my kinda court. I wish I knew more bout the American law system.. We only learnt about common law and English law shit here. Which is fine on one level because it's all we 'need' I guess. But on another, it'd be pretty interesting.

Also, from the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan:

The plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s conclusion
that the distinction between marriage and civil unions
is merely one of nomenclature. They contend that marriage
is not simply a term denominating a bundle of
legal rights. Rather, they contend that it is an institution
of unique and enduring importance in our society, one
that carries with it a special status. The plaintiffs therefore
contend that their claim of unequal treatment cannot
be dismissed solely because same sex couples who
enter into a civil union enjoy the same rights under
state law as married couples. The plaintiffs also claim
that we must consider the legislature’s decision to create
civil unions for same sex couples in the context of
the historical condemnation and discrimination that gay
persons have suffered. We agree with the plaintiffs
that, despite the legislature’s recent establishment of
civil unions, the restriction of marriage to opposite sex
couples implicates the constitutional rights of gay persons
who wish to marry a person of the same sex.

A cognizable constitutional claim arises whenever
the government singles out a group for differential treatment.
The legislature has subjected gay persons to precisely
that kind of differential treatment by creating a
separate legal classification for same sex couples who,
like opposite sex couples, wish to have their relationship
recognized under the law. Put differently, the civil
union law entitles same sex couples to all of the same
rights as married couples except one, that is, the freedom
to marry, a right that ‘‘has long been recognized
as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men [and women]’’ and
‘‘fundamental to our very existence and survival.’’ Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed.
2d 1010 (1967). Indeed, marriage has been characterized
as ‘‘intimate to the degree of being sacred’’; Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L.
Ed. 2d 510 (1965); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 96, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987) (‘‘many
religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance’’);
and ‘‘an institution more basic in our civilization
than any other.’’ Williams v. North Carolina, 317
U.S. 287, 303, 63 S. Ct. 207, 87 L. Ed. 279 (1942). Marriage,
therefore, is not merely shorthand for a discrete set of
legal rights and responsibilities but is ‘‘one of the most
fundamental of human relationships . . . .’’ Davis v.
Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 203, 175 A. 574 (1934). ‘‘Marriage
. . . bestows enormous private and social advantages
on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once
a deeply personal commitment to another human being
and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality,
companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. . . .
Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven,
and connection that express our common humanity,
civil marriage is an esteemed institution . . . .’’ (Citation
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Goodridge
v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 322, 798
N.E.2d 941 (2003).

Especially in light of the long and undisputed history
of invidious discrimination that gay persons have suffered;
see part V A of this opinion; we cannot discount
the plaintiffs’ assertion that the legislature, in establishing
a statutory scheme consigning same sex couples to
civil unions, has relegated them to an inferior status,
in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution
of marriage. In other words, ‘‘[b]y excluding samesex
couples from civil marriage, the [s]tate declares
that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments
and the commitments of heterosexual couples.
Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex
couples have is not as important or as significant as
‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot
have the name of marriage.’’ Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J.
415, 467, 908 A.2d 196 (2006) (Poritz, C. J., concurring
and dissenting); see also In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.
4th 757, 830–31, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2008)
(‘‘[t]he current statutes—by drawing a distinction
between the name assigned to the family relationship
available to opposite-sex couples and the name
assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex
couples, and by reserving the historic and highly
respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-
sex couples while offering same-sex couples only
the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership—
pose a serious risk of denying the official family
relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and
respect that is a core element of the constitutional right
to marry’’); Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 1207, 802 N.E.2d 565 (2004) (‘‘[t]he dissimilitude
between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’
is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language
that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex,
largely homosexual, couples to second-class status’’).
Although the legislature has determined that same sex
couples are entitled to ‘‘all the same benefits, protections
and responsibilities . . . [that] are granted to
spouses in a marriage’’; General Statutes § 46b-38nn;
the legislature nonetheless created an entirely separate
and distinct legal entity for same sex couples even
though it readily could have made those same rights
available to same sex couples by permitting them to
marry. In view of the exalted status of marriage in
our society, it is hardly surprising that civil unions are
perceived to be inferior to marriage. We therefore agree
with the plaintiffs that ‘‘[m]aintaining a second-class
citizen status for same-sex couples by excluding them
from the institution of civil marriage is the constitutional
infirmity at issue.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Opinions
of the Justices to the Senate, supra, 1209.

Accordingly, we reject the trial court’s conclusion
that marriage and civil unions are ‘‘separate’’ but ‘‘equal’’
legal entities; Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public
Health, supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 664; and that it therefore
‘‘would be the elevation of form over substance’’; id.,
667; to conclude that the constitutional rights of same
sex couples are implicated by a statutory scheme that
restricts them to civil unions. Although marriage and
civil unions do embody the same legal rights under
our law, they are by no means ‘‘equal.’’ As we have
explained, the former is an institution of transcendent
historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
latter most surely is not. Even though the classifications
created under our statutory scheme result in a type of
differential treatment that generally may be characterized
as symbolic or intangible, this court correctly has
stated that such treatment nevertheless ‘‘is every bit as
restrictive as naked exclusions’’; Evening Sentinel v.
National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26, 35,
357 A.2d 498 (1975); because it is no less real than more
tangible forms of discrimination, at least when, as in
the present case, the statute singles out a group that
historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance,
ridicule or worse.

We do not doubt that the civil union law was designed
to benefit same sex couples by providing them with
legal rights that they previously did not have. If, however,
the intended effect of a law is to treat politically
unpopular or historically disfavored minorities differently
from persons in the majority or favored class,
that law cannot evade constitutional review under the
separate but equal doctrine. See, e.g., Brown v. Board
of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed.
873 (1954); cf. In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th
830–31; Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, supra,
440 Mass. 1209. In such circumstances, the very existence
of the classification gives credence to the perception
that separate treatment is warranted for the same
illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination
in the first place. Despite the truly laudable effort
of the legislature in equalizing the legal rights afforded
same sex and opposite sex couples, there is no doubt
that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society
than marriage. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs
have alleged a constitutionally cognizable injury,
that is, the denial of the right to marry a same sex
partner.

Then you admit to calling it marriage. See. That's what causes people to go against it. You take what you can get. If you went for a civil union, or something that gives everything like marriage. You'd win. instead of saying we want marriage, then you'd have your rights. Otherwise you have all the religious groups on your back. You're expecting everything over night. The LGBT group have come far, it's an encouraging thing. But it is a syntax and meaning thing that gets people up in arms.
Look, that's because legally it WAS marriage. Proposition 8 took away an existing right. Before this, in California, gays and lesbians had the legal right to marriage, as per the decision of the State Supreme Court.

You don't seem to get it. This wasn't a campaign to legalize gay marriage, because it was legal. Get that through your thick skull.

Actually, I'm not speaking for Tyger, although I find it hypocritical of you to call me on that, considering how rarely you ever come at me by yourself without the gang behind you.
Hahahaha!!! :D Okay, point by point response:

1) You would be the resident expert on hypocrisy.

2) You shouldn't feel bad just because I have more friends than you. :tongue:

3) These other posters don't live in my house. I'm sitting here all alone, calling your arguments fatuous and you a piss-poor excuse for a debater, to your virtual face, and without asking anyone else to back me up.

4) I don't have a cheering section, and nobody needs me to give them any incentive to attack the pathetic amalgamations of contradictions, fallacies, and personal attacks you call "arguments." If you get dogpiled by multiple opponents on every issue, it's only because you have never floated an argument that was not as inviting as a lame gazelle to three different prides of lions.

Actually, I'm not speaking for Tyger, although I find it hypocritical of you to call me on that, considering how rarely you ever come at me by yourself without the gang behind you.

Even if this were true, by the way, it wouldn't make you look any better.

"You did it first" isn't a defence.

(Also... have to point out, if someone follows up Murv's post, that's a little different to you actually posting in Tiger's stead... no?)

You want it all. what's next our temples?

I couldn't think of anything worse, fuck.

Tygereyes, what you keep ignoring:

NOBODY WILL EVER EVER EVER force you to allow gay marriages to be performed in your temples. EVER. If they do, the Supreme Court will shoot it down.

Nobody forces Catholics to recognize marriages of divorced people.
Nobody forces Orthodox Jews to recognize marriages between Jews and non Jews.
Nobody will force you to allow gay marriages in your temples.
Ever.

To keep throwing that argument out reveals a good bit about your (lack of) intellectual honesty.

I couldn't think of anything worse, fuck.

LOL. :p

You want it all. what's next our temples?

You are being asinine.

Nobody in this thread has said anything about forcing the Mormon church to do anything.

All the anger has been over them interfering in the law of California and butting into people's lives. I don't care what the Mormons do in their temples, or whether they hate gay people. That's their own business.

But when you and yours fuck with me and mine, and strip rights away from my friends, it becomes my affair. I don't want to force the Mormons to perform gay marriages.

I'd just like them not to interfere with the marriages my church performs, and those performed by the state of California.

I've acknowledge it. I am saying there are two views on it. And I've said it over and over again. And know there is a rights issue with marriage. And I know how others saw marriage in the past. However, you neglect to notice there is a religious aspect to it.Yes, there is a religious aspect to marriage, which is completely separate from the legal definition of marriage. There are legal marriages and religious marriages. Your church is free to define marriage however it likes. Giving legal marriages to same-sex couples does not prevent that.

You want it all. what's next our temples?No one wants to take anything away from you. Except maybe your tax-exempt status.

Tygereyes, what you keep ignoring:

NOBODY WILL EVER EVER EVER force you to allow gay marriages to be performed in your temples. EVER. If they do, the Supreme Court will shoot it down.

Nobody forces Catholics to recognize marriages of divorced people.
Nobody forces Orthodox Jews to recognize marriages between Jews and non Jews.
Nobody will force you to allow gay marriages in your temples.
Ever.

To keep throwing that argument out reveals a good bit about your (lack of) intellectual honesty.

Perhaps. Irrational maybe. But we have concerns. We have concerns. In a later age perhaps it might be otherwise. You speak in a present tense, you can't speak for everyone that is to come.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf) (pdf)
Love you. Seriously. You get a bro-fluffle.
:fluffle:

(God...it's only 10:36, and I'm already slipping into my "overtired" mode. WTF?)
That's cool. Sounds like my kinda court. I wish I knew more bout the American law system.. We only learnt about common law and English law shit here. Which is fine on one level because it's all we 'need' I guess. But on another, it'd be pretty interesting.
Well, CT is a common law system.

The basic outline is this: CT passed civil unions. These were for only same-sex couples. It stated "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statues, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.". These rights, however, stopped at the state line.

This was a major source of issue. 8 same-sex couples challenged this in the courts. the courts found that, even though every right and responsibility of marriage was given to gays, marriage and civil union are not the same.



By the way, as a random resource, here (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm) is a decent one on the difference between civil union and marriage. Not the best, but gives a good overview.

LOL. :p

Oh, sorry. It wasn't a joke. Stepping inside a Mormon 'temple' would make me feel ill.

Perhaps. Irrational maybe. But we have concerns. We have concerns. In a later age perhaps it might be otherwise. You speak in a present tense, you can't speak for everyone that is to come.

Um... yeah, he can, actually.

"Congress shall make no law respecting religion" etc.

Yep. And that's why my church will never accept it.


Actually, based on the history of the LDS... it's only a matter of time.


I've acknowledge it. I am saying there are two views on it. And I've said it over and over again.


And you're wrong.

There are not two views.

Marriage, is marriage - and it's a legal institution.

What you are talking about - the 'religious' part, is just a ceremony.


Again we haven't decided anything on others. You live the way others choose. We just disagree how it's arranged.


And will actually intervene (even across state lines) according to the proclamations of the elders, in order to see that it must be arranged FOR OTHER PEOPLE according to YOUR preference.


You want it all. what's next our temples?

Not this tired old shit again.

No one has taken anything from you. It's pathetic to hear this again and again. If Chuck wants to marry Larry - that doesn't take jack-shit from you.

If you don't want MORMONS to marry other people of the same gender, make it a CHURCH rule, that way people who don't follow your religion can opt out of your preferences.

The only people who had something taken from them, were those who were married, or were to be married, to someone of the same gender.

Wait, lemme get this straight. The supreme court said, 'Nah, civil unions ain't enough. Gay people can get married. End. of. story.' ?!? Or am I dreaming here.

That is what the California Supreme Court said, which has now been ostensibly overturned by Prop. 8.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said the same thing.

Love you. Seriously. You get a bro-fluffle.
:fluffle:

(God...it's only 10:36, and I'm already slipping into my "overtired" mode. WTF?)

Well, CT is a common law system.

The basic outline is this: CT passed civil unions. These were for only same-sex couples. It stated "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statues, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.". These rights, however, stopped at the state line.

This was a major source of issue. 8 same-sex couples challenged this in the courts. the courts found that, even though every right and responsibility of marriage was given to gays, marriage and civil union are not the same.



By the way, as a random resource, here (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm) is a decent one on the difference between civil union and marriage. Not the best, but gives a good overview.

Indeed. Separate is not and can never be equal.

Perhaps. Irrational maybe. But we have concerns. We have concerns. In a later age perhaps it might be otherwise. You speak in a present tense, you can't speak for everyone that is to come.

Well maybe in the future, they might force people to use contraceptives every time they have sex. I mean, they don't do it now, but they might some day! Therefore, to respect Catholics, we have to ban contraceptives!

Well maybe in the future, they might force people to use contraceptives every time they have sex. I mean, they don't do it now, but they might some day! Therefore, to respect Catholics, we have to ban contraceptives!

Owned.


Btw, most Catholics I know use contraceptives. Then again, most Catholics I know also live in the Bay Area. So go figure.

Um... yeah, he can, actually.

"Congress shall make no law respecting religion" etc.

Since when do people who wish to write their religious hate into the law care about the Constitution?

Since when do people who wish to write their religious hate into the law care about the Constitution?

I'm just saying, that his assertions that this will mean that their temples will get taken away or some other silly crap that he's been saying basically is just that, silly crap.

Well, CT is a common law system.

Oh click. Okay, makes sense.
The basic outline is this: CT passed civil unions. These were for only same-sex couples. It stated "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statues, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.". These rights, however, stopped at the state line.

This was a major source of issue. 8 same-sex couples challenged this in the courts. the courts found that, even though every right and responsibility of marriage was given to gays, marriage and civil union are not the same.



By the way, as a random resource, here (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm) is a decent one on the difference between civil union and marriage. Not the best, but gives a good overview.

Wonderful, thanks for that. Will read over now. As you bro-fluffled before, as shall I now. :fluffle:

Owned.


Btw, most Catholics I know use contraceptives. Then again, most Catholics I know also live in the Bay Area. So go figure.

And that's because most Catholics despite what people think aren't part of those very old stereotypes.

Actually, based on the history of the LDS... it's only a matter of time.

Not likely.



And you're wrong.

There are not two views.

Marriage, is marriage - and it's a legal institution.

What you are talking about - the 'religious' part, is just a ceremony.

To you. Much deeper for LDS folks.


And will actually intervene (even across state lines) according to the proclamations of the elders, in order to see that it must be arranged FOR OTHER PEOPLE according to YOUR preference.

It's an olive branch. Lump it if you wish.



Not this tired old shit again.

No one has taken anything from you. It's pathetic to hear this again and again. If Chuck wants to marry Larry - that doesn't take jack-shit from you.

If you don't want MORMONS to marry other people of the same gender, make it a CHURCH rule, that way people who don't follow your religion can opt out of your preferences.

The only people who had something taken from them, were those who were married, or were to be married, to someone of the same gender.


Sorry that was a poor choice of words. Shouldn't have thrown it in. Got riled.

I'm just saying, that his assertions that this will mean that their temples will get taken away or some other silly crap that he's been saying basically is just that, silly crap.

Of course, there's the little problem, also, that any society that would be willing to force a Church to accept gay marriage would also repeal (or even ignore... they'd be ignoring the Constitution, as you pointed out, anyway) any anti-gay marriage ban, making it a completely pointless counter-effort, but, hey, let's not let that get in the way of a victim complex, shall we?

Well maybe in the future, they might force people to use contraceptives every time they have sex. I mean, they don't do it now, but they might some day! Therefore, to respect Catholics, we have to ban contraceptives!

*shakes head* Never mind you've missed the point.

Perhaps. Irrational maybe. But we have concerns. We have concerns. In a later age perhaps it might be otherwise. You speak in a present tense, you can't speak for everyone that is to come.
Listen. Irrational fears are just that. Irrational. There is NO legal way that the US or state or local governments can force a church to do anything. None. Ever. Amendment 1. Extends to the states.

Again, I say, GET OVER IT. Get over your irrational fears. Get over the blindness. Get fucking educated. Learn what a law proposes, and what it doesn't. Learn what the legal ramifications of a law are, and what they aren't. You don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to be a scholar. You just need to stop shoving your head in a hole every time someone says "Yeah...gays should be allowed to marry."

NO ONE IS GOING TO MAKE THE MORMON CHURCH PERFORM OR RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. EVER. PERIOD.

got it yet? Because that has been almost 20 pages of this thread.

That is what the California Supreme Court said, which has now been ostensibly overturned by Prop. 8.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said the same thing.

So California had in place full rights too? Here is where I get a tad confused.

By passing prop. 8, does that overturn the Cali supreme court? Well, clearly it does.. But doesn't that fuck with precedent and a whole lot of other issues?!

Oh, sorry. It wasn't a joke. Stepping inside a Mormon 'temple' would make me feel ill.


Quite possibly true. Have you ever been to an open house of a temple though? Before it's closed off to the public. Or seen pictures of the inside. It's unique. But I digress....

And that's because most Catholics despite what people think aren't part of those very old stereotypes.

But it is the official position of the Catholic Church that contraception is not allowed. And I'm fine with that, since they don't go around trying to ban contraception for other people.

(Except Africans with AIDS, but that's another topic)>

And that's because most Catholics despite what people think aren't part of those very old stereotypes.

Indeed. Catholics aren't a big monolithic bloc the way people sometimes think they are. They tend to mostly be of whatever the dominating political position in the area is. I bet Catholics from a more conservative area would be a lot more conservative. The Catholics I know live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which actually has a very large number of Catholics. But they're pretty much as liberal as everybody else. Just with more Jesus and incense.

Listen. Irrational fears are just that. Irrational. There is NO legal way that the US or state or local governments can force a church to do anything. None. Ever. Amendment 1. Extends to the states.

Again, I say, GET OVER IT. Get over your irrational fears. Get over the blindness. Get fucking educated. Learn what a law proposes, and what it doesn't. Learn what the legal ramifications of a law are, and what they aren't. You don't need to be a lawyer. You don't need to be a scholar. You just need to stop shoving your head in a hole every time someone says "Yeah...gays should be allowed to marry."

NO ONE IS GOING TO MAKE THE MORMON CHURCH PERFORM OR RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. EVER. PERIOD.

got it yet? Because that has been almost 20 pages of this thread.

Again GET OVER IT. Lame argument. But I think I am done argueing over it. This is just going in circles and I am getting tired of it.

Owned.


Btw, most Catholics I know use contraceptives. Then again, most Catholics I know also live in the Bay Area. So go figure.

I have a friend that once asked me, in response to a question about such things, "What the hell does being a Catholic have to do with my religious beliefs?!"

I thought about it, and realized that a good number of self-identified religious people only belong socially to their given denomination, but don't believe a single point of doctrine that actually defines their denomination.

Quite possibly true. Have you ever been to an open house of a temple though? Before it's closed off to the public. Or seen pictures of the inside. It's unique. But I digress....

I will admit that from what I have seen in pictures, they can be quite beautiful.

That doesn't make up for supplying 40% of the funds used to take existing rights away from Californians, though.

*shakes head* Never mind you've missed the point.

Your point was, or seemed to be:
"No, my argument that you might force our temples to recognize gay marriage is a good one, because while you won't do it now, in the future you might. Therefore, we must ban same-sex marriage."

I applied the exact same argument to contraception. If it applies to one, it applies to the other, unless you can find a rational reason (and not just "it's different") that it should apply to only one.

Owned.


Btw, most Catholics I know use contraceptives. Then again, most Catholics I know also live in the Bay Area. So go figure.

Us Catholics are cool like that, heh.

Yep. And that's why my church will never accept it.
You don't have to accept it. You don't have to do it. But you don't get to force ME to live by YOUR religious rules. Do you understand that I will never accept you forcing your religious beliefs into the laws that govern my life? Do you get that THIS is the big obstacle here?

Never said we do. You live what you want. The old scripture, choose ye this day....
Except that your church just TOOK AWAY THE ABILITY OF GAY PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA TO "LIVE WHAT THEY WANT." So tell me then, HOW are gay people in California supposed to "live what they want" when YOU and your church just stopped them from doing that? Hm? Answer me that one.

And the day that happens.... *sighs* Well then I guess we really will be the minority. And I am tired of you saying it's bigotry.
More toughness. Marriage gets called marriage, and bigotry gets called bigotry. Don't like being called a bigot? Easy fix -- stop being one.

We haven't said you can't live the way you choose. We haven't said you can't have rights that are equal to marriage.
A clear-cut and deliberate lie.

YOUR CHURCH just got a state constitution amended to TAKE AWAY ALL HOUSEHOLDING RIGHTS FROM GAYS. ALL such rights. There are, at this moment, NO CIVIL UNIONS IN CALIFORNIA. That is thanks to you.

They have NO RIGHTS to form a household with any legal recognition or rights of any kind.

Thanks to YOU.

And yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim on this forum that you support giving gays equal rights with heteros? I have now lost all respect I had gained for you in other threads on other topics. You are not just hypocritical, you are flat-out dishonest.

But you keep insisting and digging at marriage and others feel otherwise. You won't compromise on that? Then you're forcing a way of life on me as much as you say mine is on yours. As much as you say otherwise.
And another clear-cut and deliberate lie.

I challenge you right now to show any evidence of any kind whatsoever that any Mormon church anywhere has ever or is now or is in danger of being forced to participate in any way of any kind with gay marriage. You have a basis for your accusations, then lay it out for us. Now.

Or perhaps you are referring to what I talked about earlier. Are you really complaining that we are trying to oppress you by not wanting to let you oppress others?

I've acknowledge it. I am saying there are two views on it. And I've said it over and over again. And know there is a rights issue with marriage. And I know how others saw marriage in the past. However, you neglect to notice there is a religious aspect to it.
That's because there isn't one. Marriage is LEGAL. And you have a lot of damned nerve complaining that people don't pay attention to your arguments after all these pages of people directly responding to everything you say, while you return the favor by blankly ignoring everything that is said to you -- such as all the explanations of the legal nature of marriage.

Again we haven't decided anything on others. You live the way others choose. We just disagree how it's arranged.
And the most outrageous lie of all! Prop 8 most certainly did decide something "on others." You and your church have contributed significantly to stripping civil rights from US citizens, and you dare to claim that you haven't forced any decisions on anyone else?

Or is the problem that, just like the rest of this issue which you have not bothered to educate yourself about, you really have no idea what Prop 8 is?

*Sighs* It's a faith/value issue for many. But again. you have a point in the argument.
I know.

You want it all. what's next our temples?
And right here is the crux of the issue. Who the hell is going anywhere near your freaking temples? Hm? Nobody, that's who. As I did above, I challenge you to show even one instance of any Mormon church, temple, group, isolated lonely missionary, or anything, being forced to compromise their beliefs in their own religious practice by participating in any way whatsoever in anything even remotely related to gay marriage. Put up or shut up, T, because I'm sick of hearing that nonsense.

Oh, and since you're so eager to play this flat, dead ball, let me throw it back at you and say that "you want it all." You want to make me conform to the rules of your religion, even though I don't practice your relgion. What's next MY temples?

Quite possibly true. Have you ever been to an open house of a temple though? Before it's closed off to the public. Or seen pictures of the inside. It's unique. But I digress....

No, but I've been to a Mormon church many times, and they always have excellent food.

Not likely.


What happened to polygamy?

What happened to the racial purity of the the priesthood?


To you. Much deeper for LDS folks.


Irrelevent.

Still... so...irrelevent.

If you are in America, you come under the American laws of the nation. Where your own laws conflict with the laws of the antion, the laws of the nation take precedence. Where the laws of the nation conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution takes precedence.

Marriage, comes under the law. Equality, comes under the Constitution.

A religious group does not have a claim to marriage that trumps either the law of the nation, or the Constitution. And they shouldn't.

The LAW is that marriage is a secular process, with rights attached.

The LAW for Mormons... is the same law. If ALL you do, is the church ceremony, you won't be legally married in the US. If all you do is the legal part, you will.

That simple.

I don't care how much 'depth' you attach to it, a church doesn't make marriage into marriage, it just provides the religious accessories.

I have a friend that once asked me, in response to a question about such things, "What the hell does being a Catholic have to do with my religious beliefs?!"

I thought about it, and realized that a good number of self-identified religious people only belong socially to their given denomination, but don't believe a single point of doctrine that actually defines their denomination.

My dad always said he was a Catholic in the same way he was an American. He believed what he thought was the core of the religion, despite disagreeing with the church leadership (specifically on issues such as birth control, abortion, gay rights and the ordination of women).

In fact, even after I left the church, I'd still go to mass at this one parish sometimes to hear this one Priest make his sermons. It was always about the core message of love and treating other people right that Christ espoused. He used one sermon to apologize to gay people for the higher ups' opinions, and criticized them heavily. Another sermon, he told the people who had gotten divorces to take communion (it's not usually allowed), noting that Christ said "Take this all of you, and eat it." Emphasis, his, of course. That was a few years ago.

Anyway, the point is, individual parishes have a lot more independence than one might think.

Oh click. Okay, makes sense.

Wonderful, thanks for that. Will read over now. As you bro-fluffled before, as shall I now. :fluffle:No problem. And bro-fluffles are the wave of the future. Embrace them:fluffle:

So California had in place full rights too? Here is where I get a tad confused.

By passing prop. 8, does that overturn the Cali supreme court? Well, clearly it does.. But doesn't that fuck with precedent and a whole lot of other issues?!

haha...I'll see what I can clear up for you.

Start with the federal government. We have the US constitution and the US Supreme Court. These are the highest laws of the nation: every other law, be it federal, state, or local, must be constitutional.
Then we have federal laws. These are next in command.
Then we have the states, each with a constitution, and supreme court.
then there are state laws
Then there are county/local laws.

Now, the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California all said that these states must allow for full same-sex marriage.

Lets look at the Connecticut example. CT passed a law allowing for civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. This was challenged in the courts, and the courts found that the law violated the Connecticut constitution: not all citizens had equal protection under the law.
The supreme court has made its ruling. That is now, legally, part of the Connecticut constitutional law.

Now, what happened with Prop 8, and what could happen with CT, is this. An amendment could be proposed to the constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. If this happens, it erases the supreme court (and all lower court) decisions. All court decisions pretty much decide if a law is constitutional or not...by modifying the constitution to include something like a definition of marriage, it can no longer be unconstitutional.

Prop 8 overturns the court decision. Yes, it fucks with alot. That is why there is so much anger. It is one of the first times that bigotry has found its way into a constitution within the US, and a group is explicity refused rights by the state.

Your point was, or seemed to be:
"No, my argument that you might force our temples to recognize gay marriage is a good one, because while you won't do it now, in the future you might. Therefore, we must ban same-sex marriage."

I applied the exact same argument to contraception. If it applies to one, it applies to the other, unless you can find a rational reason (and not just "it's different") that it should apply to only one.

contraceptives are way diffrent than a way of life. Consequently I take them myself for health problems. So I find it rather unusual to apply this arrgument to it.

But it is the official position of the Catholic Church that contraception is not allowed. And I'm fine with that, since they don't go around trying to ban contraception for other people.

(Except Africans with AIDS, but that's another topic)>

Yes it is but it is also the official stance of the Church that you don't have sex before marriage and that you don't commit adultery. As for the other topic my statement is exactly how a lot of that topic is shot down, because people tend to forget about the no sex bit.

Indeed. Catholics aren't a big monolithic bloc the way people sometimes think they are. They tend to mostly be of whatever the dominating political position in the area is. I bet Catholics from a more conservative area would be a lot more conservative. The Catholics I know live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which actually has a very large number of Catholics. But they're pretty much as liberal as everybody else. Just with more Jesus and incense.

Yes, I think that Catholics (and perhaps those of other religions) are very much take their views on their world and form their opinions on a lot of other arguments and what is happening around them so as you say those which may be liberal is because they grew up in a liberal environment and so remain liberal despite them still believing in Jesus and his teachings and the same goes for other areas. It's just a lot of these very old stereotypes which people still hold to this very day and think is true just pisses me off because it is no where near the truth.

Your point was, or seemed to be:
"No, my argument that you might force our temples to recognize gay marriage is a good one, because while you won't do it now, in the future you might. Therefore, we must ban same-sex marriage."

I applied the exact same argument to contraception. If it applies to one, it applies to the other, unless you can find a rational reason (and not just "it's different") that it should apply to only one.

The "slippery slope" argument always falls to reductio ad absurdum.

Again GET OVER IT. Lame argument. But I think I am done argueing over it. This is just going in circles and I am getting tired of it.

Because you will not see that other people getting married does not affect you and your church.

Again GET OVER IT. Lame argument. But I think I am done argueing over it. This is just going in circles and I am getting tired of it.

It is circles because you aren't listening. Get over it isn't an argument. It is a suggestion. You are caught up on what LDS says marriage is and isn't. Well, guess what? Most people aren't LDS. And even if 90% of the US was LDS, and the other 10% gay? Guess what. It doesn't matter.

Instead of focusing on those three words of my argument, why not try reading the rest and responding to that?

How will gays being able to get a secular marriage impact you?
How will gays being able to get a secular marriage impact the Mormon church?

Yes it is but it is also the official stance of the Church that you don't have sex before marriage and that you don't commit adultery. As for the other topic my statement is exactly how a lot of that topic is shot down, because people tend to forget about the no sex bit.


Um. You do realize that married couples can and do use contraceptives? And, when contraceptives used to be illegal, they were banned for everyone including married couples?

Because you will not see that other people getting married does not affect you and your church.

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

A refusal to engage in argument on your part, does not mean we have reached a stalemate. But it does appear discussing this issue with you is pointless.

Yes it is but it is also the official stance of the Church that you don't have sex before marriage and that you don't commit adultery. As for the other topic my statement is exactly how a lot of that topic is shot down, because people tend to forget about the no sex bit.
Yeah, Catholics often do kinda forget about the no sex before marriage bit, lol.


Yes, I think that Catholics (and perhaps those of other religions) are very much take their views on their world and form their opinions on a lot of other arguments and what is happening around them so as you say those which may be liberal is because they grew up in a liberal environment and so remain liberal despite them still believing in Jesus and his teachings and the same goes for other areas. It's just a lot of these very old stereotypes which people still hold to this very day and think is true just pisses me off because it is no where near the truth.
Indeed. The Bay Area is heavily Catholic due to historically large, and still significant, Irish-American and Italian-American populations, as well as Mexican-Americans. It is also heavily liberal. These would conflict, except that unlike what many people believe, Roman Catholics are not a real solid monolithic voting bloc. And the chances of a layman getting excommunicated for disagreeing with the church hierarchy are extremely slim.

Again GET OVER IT. Lame argument. But I think I am done argueing over it. This is just going in circles and I am getting tired of it.
Telling you that your religion has the full protection of the US Constitution that makes sure the LDS can never be forced to do anything that goes against the tenets of Mormon belief is a "lame argument"? Seriously? Are you joking with us? Is this just some elaborate troll act?

*takes deep breaths; tries to calm blood pressure*

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

Not at all.

A stalemate is NOT fair enough.

Agreement isn't what is important here. 'Rights' are the issue, and whether or not one group should be stripped of them because of the will of another.


I asked once before, and there was no answer:

If all the non-Mormons in America decided to make the LDS Church illegal, to prosecute those found adhering to it's tenets, to strip it of it's assets, etc...

Would that be right or wrong, in your eyes?

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

You refuse to actually make an argument.

How do civil laws like those of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California (pre prop-8) impact your church? How do they impact your personal beliefs? How do same-sex couples impact you in any way, shape, or form?

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

Um. No. Basically you've lost because you can't come up with an argument to counter the question of how other people who are not LDS marrying people of the same sex affects you.

Until you can provide me an argument for how my friends marrying the people they love harms you, you have provided no reason for such to be illegal.

Telling you that your religion has the full protection of the US Constitution that makes sure the LDS can never be forced to do anything that goes against the tenets of Mormon belief is a "lame argument"? Seriously? Are you joking with us? Is this just some elaborate troll act?

*takes deep breaths; tries to calm blood pressure*

Better said that I. Thanks.

Yes it is but it is also the official stance of the Church that you don't have sex before marriage and that you don't commit adultery. As for the other topic my statement is exactly how a lot of that topic is shot down, because people tend to forget about the no sex bit.

My point is that you can criticize the official position of a religious organization without attacking all of its members. Which is why our complaints about the LDS church's support of Prop 8 should not be construed as an attack on all Mormons.

(Also, it's my impression that American Catholics tend to be very moderate and liberal. Fundamentalist Catholics are fairly rare).

haha...I'll see what I can clear up for you.

Start with the federal government. We have the US constitution and the US Supreme Court. These are the highest laws of the nation: every other law, be it federal, state, or local, must be constitutional.
Then we have federal laws. These are next in command.
Then we have the states, each with a constitution, and supreme court.
then there are state laws
Then there are county/local laws.

Now, the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California all said that these states must allow for full same-sex marriage.

Lets look at the Connecticut example. CT passed a law allowing for civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. This was challenged in the courts, and the courts found that the law violated the Connecticut constitution: not all citizens had equal protection under the law.
The supreme court has made its ruling. That is now, legally, part of the Connecticut constitutional law.

Now, what happened with Prop 8, and what could happen with CT, is this. An amendment could be proposed to the constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. If this happens, it erases the supreme court (and all lower court) decisions. All court decisions pretty much decide if a law is constitutional or not...by modifying the constitution to include something like a definition of marriage, it can no longer be unconstitutional.

Prop 8 overturns the court decision. Yes, it fucks with alot. That is why there is so much anger. It is one of the first times that bigotry has found its way into a constitution within the US, and a group is explicity refused rights by the state.

You could be a law lecturer, make it easier to understand than some I've been in contact with haha. Then again it does seem pretty basic once you lay it all out and get to see it. I guess it's harder to understand because we have an unwritten constitution here.

Now, having understood all that (I think?! heh), is there any room for the US Supreme court to get in on this? Or have they left it up to each State to decide how they deal with gay marriage?

What happened to polygamy?

What happened to the racial purity of the the priesthood?

I find it funny how God's Universal Law changes every so often, and it just so happens that it always happens to coincide with people getting pissed at the Church.
You'd think a perfect being would get morality and such right the first time, instead of having to change the rules every so often.

contraceptives are way diffrent than a way of life. Consequently I take them myself for health problems. So I find it rather unusual to apply this arrgument to it.
Homosexuality is not a way of life, it's a sexual preference. It just irks me that people often seem to imply that fucking people of the same gender as you in and of itself has this profound influence on who you are.

Stalemate then. We both shake our heads and realize we can not come to an agreement. Fair enough.

If only because you came into the debate 100% unwilling to change your mind, even if you were presented with a completely rational argument about why same sex marriage should be legal.

That's the difference between us. If I were to be presented with a rational reason to ban same sex marriage, I would have to change my mind. I find it extremely unlikely that I ever will, but, if I do, then I will.

contraceptives are way diffrent than a way of life. Consequently I take them myself for health problems. So I find it rather unusual to apply this arrgument to it.
So taking care of your health is not part of your "way of life"?

Is your entire world view dependent on such twisting of language?

.
Yeah, Catholics often do kinda forget about the no sex before marriage bit, lol.

Yeah but it doesn't really matter and while the church may be against it they don't really care, at least according to my bishop.

Indeed. The Bay Area is heavily Catholic due to historically large, and still significant, Irish-American and Italian-American populations, as well as Mexican-Americans. It is also heavily liberal. These would conflict, except that unlike what many people believe, Roman Catholics are not a real solid monolithic voting bloc. And the chances of a layman getting excommunicated for disagreeing with the church hierarchy are extremely slim.

Indeed, if it wasn't I would have been excommunicated ages ago and so to would have a lot of other members and priests over various issues.

You could be a law lecturer, make it easier to understand than some I've been in contact with haha. Then again it does seem pretty basic once you lay it all out and get to see it. I guess it's harder to understand because we have an unwritten constitution here.
Haha...if you can grasp the fun of an unwritten constitution, you can understand plenty about the US.

Now, having understood all that (I think?! heh), is there any room for the US Supreme court to get in on this? Or have they left it up to each State to decide how they deal with gay marriage?
Essentially, yes. Any law within the US can be brought up as being unconstitutional by the federal constitution. They could rule that it is a state decision, or that gay marriage must be banned/permitted.

A refusal to engage in argument on your part, does not mean we have reached a stalemate. But it does appear discussing this issue with you is pointless.

On the contrary.... It's a refusal to yield on both sides. You refuse to understand the point of view I hold and state admendly mine is irrational. It's rooted in my faith, so good luck on trying to get me to do otherwise.

I've pointed time and time again where I stand, and why I stand. And your refusal to give an inch to compromise one way or another. Is very irrational as well. You live in a world where people won't always accept your viewpoint. Same for me as well. But since I won't yield on what I define as marriage and I state I am for equal rights, but not marriage, on grounds of my religious view points.


Sorry, won't budge on that. Say it's bigoted, say what you will. Stalemate for both of us. It's not bigoted, for me. It's my faith, deal with it. You'll find others of the same mind in my LDS community.


Anyway.... why bother arguing over it We've all stated what we feel our opinons and other things. It's useless to argue when you're of the same mind/opinon still. I am moving on folks. Take your fight where you will, I am lumping the thread.

Haha...if you can grasp the fun of an unwritten constitution, you can understand plenty about the US.


Essentially, yes. Any law within the US can be brought up as being unconstitutional by the federal constitution. They could rule that it is a state decision, or that gay marriage must be banned/permitted.

I don't want the current supreme court to get in on it, though...

You could be a law lecturer, make it easier to understand than some I've been in contact with haha. Then again it does seem pretty basic once you lay it all out and get to see it. I guess it's harder to understand because we have an unwritten constitution here.

Now, having understood all that (I think?! heh), is there any room for the US Supreme court to get in on this? Or have they left it up to each State to decide how they deal with gay marriage?

Marriage has historically been left for the states to decide. The federal government typically recognizes any marriage that is recognize by one or more states. However, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, disallowed the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and permitted any state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

My point is that you can criticize the official position of a religious organization without attacking all of its members. Which is why our complaints about the LDS church's support of Prop 8 should not be construed as an attack on all Mormons.

(Also, it's my impression that American Catholics tend to be very moderate and liberal. Fundamentalist Catholics are fairly rare).

Well, liberal compared to Evangelicals, Mormons, and perhaps half of the Protestant denominations. They still tend to be, in my experience, moderately conservative to moderate, but not as unbearably so as they tend to be portrayed as.

That's my experience anyway, but that is, of course, anecdotal.

My point is that you can criticize the official position of a religious organization without attacking all of its members. Which is why our complaints about the LDS church's support of Prop 8 should not be construed as an attack on all Mormons.

I don't know about your posts but some people have said along the lines if you are a member of the church and have given money to the church then you are just as much to blame. But regardless sometimes when you criticise an organisation they belong to they may take it to heart and sometimes even attacks do seem like it is against all of them, people should be careful what they say.

(Also, it's my impression that American Catholics tend to be very moderate and liberal. Fundamentalist Catholics are fairly rare).

I would say most Catholics around the world or perhaps in the developed world tend to be more moderate.

Haha...if you can grasp the fun of an unwritten constitution, you can understand plenty about the US.
Don't get me started, lol.

Essentially, yes. Any law within the US can be brought up as being unconstitutional by the federal constitution. They could rule that it is a state decision, or that gay marriage must be banned/permitted.

I see. Okay, I think I'm up to play with it all. One last question. Why doesn't the federal court see that banning gay marriage is (well, I assume it is?) unconstitutional??

So taking care of your health is not part of your "way of life"?

Is your entire world view dependent on such twisting of language?

Way of life, lifestyle. True. But this is a pretty poor example to base an argument on.

On the contrary.... It's a refusal to yield on both sides. You refuse to understand the point of view I hold and state admendly mine is irrational. It's rooted in my faith, so good luck on trying to get me to do otherwise.

I've pointed time and time again where I stand, and why I stand. And your refusal to give an inch to compromise one way or another. Is very irrational as well. You live in a world where people won't always accept your viewpoint. Same for me as well. But since I won't yield on what I define as marriage and I state I am for equal rights, but not marriage, on grounds of my religious view points.


Sorry, won't budge on that. Say it's bigoted, say what you will. Stalemate for both of us. It's not bigoted, for me. It's my faith, deal with it. You'll find others of the same mind in my LDS community.


Anyway.... why bother arguing over it We've all stated what we feel our opinons and other things. It's useless to argue when you're of the same mind/opinon still. I am moving on folks. Take your fight where you will, I am lumping the thread.You are still failing to understand this: we don't care about your personal beliefs. I understand them: you're against gay marriage. You don't like it. You disagree with homosexuality. You don't want it in your church. I get it.

And yet, nothing that any of us have proposed would force homosexuality into your life or church.

And yet, you are adamant about your stance.

I don't want the current supreme court to get in on it, though...
Ugh...tell me about it.

On the contrary.... It's a refusal to yield on both sides. You refuse to understand the point of view I hold and state admendly mine is irrational. It's rooted in my faith, so good luck on trying to get me to do otherwise.

I've pointed time and time again where I stand, and why I stand. And your refusal to give an inch to compromise one way or another. Is very irrational as well. You live in a world where people won't always accept your viewpoint. Same for me as well. But since I won't yield on what I define as marriage and I state I am for equal rights, but not marriage, on grounds of my religious view points.


Sorry, won't budge on that. Say it's bigoted, say what you will. Stalemate for both of us. It's not bigoted, for me. It's my faith, deal with it. You'll find others of the same mind in my LDS community.


Anyway.... why bother arguing over it We've all stated what we feel our opinons and other things. It's useless to argue when you're of the same mind/opinon still. I am moving on folks. Take your fight where you will, I am lumping the thread.

What you believe about gays is your own business. You can hate them as much as you like, and your church will never have to perform any gay weddings. There's nothing to worry about.

At the same time, you have shown no reason why the beliefs of your church should be added to the secular law. The homosexual marriages that other churches and the state perform do not affect the Mormon church.

If the Mormon church had just noted that they don't believe in performing gay marriages, that would just be fine and dandy. But they went way beyond that. They donated 40% of the funds that helped take existing rights away from citizens.

That's right, gays in California already had the right to marry. It would be as if you took away the right of people to marry someone of a different race.

Marriage has historically been left for the states to decide. The federal government typically recognizes any marriage that is recognize by one or more states. However, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, disallowed the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and permitted any state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

Well that just answered my question I posed to Sarkhaan, I guess. So, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the federal government?

Way of life, lifestyle. True. But this is a pretty poor example to base an argument on.
I disagree. It appears to me that the original reductio ad absurdum counter argument to your position was right on point. You are just once again trying to wiggle out of addressing the logical problems with your argument by arbitrarily disallowing your opponent's illustrative example. And, once again, you do so without giving any reason beyond that you personally see it differently.

Which brings us right back to the one question that has been put to you over and over in various forms, and which you have ignored every single time:

Why should the way YOU see things decide what legal rights other citizens get?

Way of life, lifestyle. True. But this is a pretty poor example to base an argument on.

It's not a "way of life" and it's not a "lifestyle," any more than me being attracted to and in a relationship with a woman (I am a man, btw) is a "way of life" or a "lifestyle." My relationship does not define my life, nor does the genitalia of the person I'm in it with. It's just one aspect of my life.

It is no different for gays.

Why should the way YOU see things decide what legal rights other citizens get?

He could ask the same of you.

But then I can see this going into a debate between liberalism and democracy and the way that conflict with each other.

I don't know about your posts but some people have said along the lines if you are a member of the church and have given money to the church then you are just as much to blame. But regardless sometimes when you criticise an organisation they belong to they may take it to heart and sometimes even attacks do seem like it is against all of them, people should be careful what they say.
I actually came straight out and said it: Those who support terrorist groups are terrorists. Those who support sexist groups are sexist. Thouse who support bigoted groups are bigots.

Does that personalize the arguments? Yes. Do I continue this same argument against my Mormon friends who said "You know what? My church was wrong."? No. Because atleast they had the balls to say it.

Do I hold those who defend the church responsible? Yep. Same as you would if a group I was involved with bombed one of your temples. And I wouldn't expect anything less.

Don't get me started, lol.



I see. Okay, I think I'm up to play with it all. One last question. Why doesn't the federal court see that banning gay marriage is (well, I assume it is?) unconstitutional??

Part is that there has been a long debate over what is "federal" and what is "state"...marriage is one that has usually been left to the state, and, with the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), has been legalized. Now, it could be brought to the SCOTUS...and it should be ruled unconstitutional (given the constitution and legal precident), but then, the SCOTUS has been screwy lately.

Sorry, won't budge on that. Say it's bigoted, say what you will. Stalemate for both of us. It's not bigoted, for me. It's my faith, deal with it. You'll find others of the same mind in my LDS community.




It's not actually a stalemate when you lose.

Sorry.

Everyone whos posted here, please move over to the thread On Prop 8...Lets Get Organized NSG.

Lets do something about this aside from bitch.

Well that just answered my question I posed to Sarkhaan, I guess. So, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the federal government?

Yes. There have been challenges to it in federal courts, but it hasn't reached the US Supreme Court. There's some questions about the constitutionality of such laws. There's the 14th amendment, which affords equal protection. There's Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down bans on consensual sexual activity. And there's Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws. That's why opponents of gay marriage tried to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have enshrined discrimination in the Constitution.

Sorry, won't budge on that. Say it's bigoted, say what you will. Stalemate for both of us. It's not bigoted, for me. It's my faith, deal with it. You'll find others of the same mind in my LDS community.



Tell me. What is not bigoted about enforcing your religions narrow minded views on an entire state?


No one is forcing you to agree with gay marriage. But you dont have a right, and your church doesnt have a right, to make their narrow minded beliefs into fucking law.

Tell me. What is not bigoted about enforcing your religions narrow minded views on an entire state?


No one is forcing you to agree with gay marriage. But you dont have a right, and your church doesnt have a right, to make their narrow minded beliefs into fucking law.

Everyone has the right to try and get their beliefs religious or otherwise into law. All laws that have been implemented is based on someones beliefs.

Everyone whos posted here, please move over to the thread On Prop 8...Lets Get Organized NSG.

Lets do something about this aside from bitch.

Damnit, you're you are absolutely right. What was this whole campaign about? What was it that Obama was trying to tell us the whole time he was running? Indeed, how was it that he managed to get elected?
Our Republic works the best when we do things from the bottom up. We haven't "won" now that our guy was elected president. We have work to do. Let's do it.

It wasn't "Yes He Can" it was "Yes We Can."

Part is that there has been a long debate over what is "federal" and what is "state"...marriage is one that has usually been left to the state, and, with the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), has been legalized. Now, it could be brought to the SCOTUS...and it should be ruled unconstitutional (given the constitution and legal precident), but then, the SCOTUS has been screwy lately.

Yes. There have been challenges to it in federal courts, but it hasn't reached the US Supreme Court. There's some questions about the constitutionality of such laws. There's the 14th amendment, which affords equal protection. There's Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down bans on consensual sexual activity. And there's Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws. That's why opponents of gay marriage tried to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have enshrined discrimination in the Constitution.

You guys are awesome. Thank you heaps. Sorry for taking you away from the original argument.. But that was wicked.

Prop. 8 sucks (feel like I can say that and know what it really means, lol).

Everyone has the right to try and get their beliefs religious or otherwise into law. All laws that have been implemented is based on someones beliefs.

But nobody, religious or otherwise, has the right to enact discrimination. It is forbidden by our Constitution.

You guys are awesome. Thank you heaps. Sorry for taking you away from the original argument.. But that was wicked.

Prop. 8 sucks (feel like I can say that and know what it really means, lol).
haha...It's what I'm here for. And really, there wasn't much to take away.

I am glad to see "wicked" has spread to Oz

But nobody, religious or otherwise, has the right to enact discrimination. It is forbidden by our Constitution.

Well that's what he should have said.

Now I am not arguing that it isn't but can you show me where in the Constitution it says that? (Teach me so that I may grow or something along thse lines)

Everyone has the right to try and get their beliefs religious or otherwise into law. All laws that have been implemented is based on someones beliefs.

Yeah, beliefs that are universal and based in common sense. For example, if you didnt outlaw murder, your society wouldnt last past lunch.

Groups do not have a right to push their religion into law, especially in America were we have such laws of the land as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Everyone has the right to try and get their beliefs religious or otherwise into law. All laws that have been implemented is based on someones beliefs.

Unless it violates someones right to choice, speech, religion, expression, bodily integrity, marriage, due process, privacy...you know...those little tiny rights granted to us.

It's not actually a stalemate when you lose.

Sorry.

Already tried telling him so, he's not going to listen.

He is either a troll, or unusually stupid. Maybe he's just 12 or something.

haha...It's what I'm here for. And really, there wasn't much to take away.

I am glad to see "wicked" has spread to Oz

Unfourantly.

But I thought he was a Kiwi, oh wait never mind they are just Oz lite :p Our little brothers lol

Yeah, beliefs that are universal and based in common sense. For example, if you didnt outlaw murder, your society wouldnt last past lunch.

Groups do not have a right to push their religion into law, especially in America were we have such laws of the land as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

But how does a church saying that they want a law passed estalish a religion?

Well that's what he should have said.

Now I am not arguing that it isn't but can you show me where in the Constitution it says that? (Teach me so that I may grow or something along thse lines)

Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, for one.

But how does a church saying that they want a law passed estalish a religion?

Because that law has no basis outside of religion?

Unfourantly.

But I thought he was a Kiwi, oh wait never mind they are just Oz lite :p Our little brothers lol
Bow to your New England overlords.

And is he? Damn...I hope not. If he is, I apologise.

Because that law has no basis outside of religion?

Perhaps but not always, after all if the churches came out saying that the country should place into law "immigrants seeking to come into the coutry should be allowed to straight away" because that is inline with their religion it does have basis outside the law.

Why should the way YOU see things decide what legal rights other citizens get?

Yea I admit the argument was poorly stated. Anyway. I haven't. it's called a compromise. COMPROMISE. It's part of democracy. I guess you all forget that.

It's probably the best one you're going to get from a lot of peeps with similar views. But you all sound oddly like some other people who refuse to make a compromise.

Bow to your New England overlords.

And is he? Damn...I hope not. If he is, I apologise.

You should be apologising to me for calling him an Aussie :p

Well that's what he should have said.

Now I am not arguing that it isn't but can you show me where in the Constitution it says that? (Teach me so that I may grow or something along thse lines)

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anyway.... why bother arguing over it We've all stated what we feel our opinons and other things. It's useless to argue when you're of the same mind/opinon still. I am moving on folks. Take your fight where you will, I am lumping the thread.

i'm divided between "you keep using that word..." and 'learn2logic'

Unless it violates someones right to choice, speech, religion, expression, bodily integrity, marriage, due process, privacy...you know...those little tiny rights granted to us.

Hey! I'm not saying it isn't if a law prohibits it then they can't but even that law was placed in because of someones belief.

Yea I admit the argument was poorly stated. Anyway. I haven't. it's called a compromise. COMPROMISE. It's part of democracy. I guess you all forget that.

It's probably the best one you're going to get from a lot of peeps with similar views. But you all sound oddly like some other people who refuse to make a compromise.

Because your comprimise is shit. It is "seperate but equal". Which our supreme court has said is shit.

Yea I admit the argument was poorly stated. Anyway. I haven't. it's called a compromise. COMPROMISE. It's part of democracy. I guess you all forget that.

It's probably the best one you're going to get from a lot of peeps with similar views. But you all sound oddly like some other people who refuse to make a compromise.

Okay. Here's a compromise. You can practice all of your religion, but you have to accept gays. They can't marry in your church, but you have to accept gays. They must be permitted to be full members.

How's that for compromise?


It's the same thing. When it comes to civil rights, there is no compromise. I posed a link about the difference between civil union and marriage. There is no reason to swap "marriage" to "civil union", and plenty not to.

haha...It's what I'm here for. And really, there wasn't much to take away.

I am glad to see "wicked" has spread to Oz

Bastard. Location NEXT TO OZ, not in oz! How insulting, lol.

Because your comprimise is shit. It is "seperate but equal". Which our supreme court has said is shit.

No it's not Seperate but equal. But never mind. Never mind.

Yea I admit the argument was poorly stated. Anyway. I haven't. it's called a compromise. COMPROMISE. It's part of democracy. I guess you all forget that.

It's probably the best one you're going to get from a lot of peeps with similar views. But you all sound oddly like some other people who refuse to make a compromise.

Would you compromise your right to practice your religion? Would you compromise your right to vote?

Would you compromise your right to marry the person you love?

If the answer to those is no, then there is no reason for gays and lesbians to compromise their right to marry the person they love, or for those of us who defend equal rights to compromise on such.

Unfourantly.

But I thought he was a Kiwi, oh wait never mind they are just Oz lite :p Our little brothers lol

:rolleyes:

Lol, c'mon. Be kind!

Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, for one.

As I said I was asking a question so I can learn I wasn't arguing with you.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

Thank you I had pulled out my copy of the constitution after PC directed me there.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now this part is what I presume you would be talking about. Now doesn't a ban on same sex marriage still cover this? After all the ban doesn't discriminate against gays specifically it just says no two people can marry each other if they are of the same gender.

You should be apologising to me for calling him an Aussie :p
WWIII starts here, methinks.

Hey! I'm not saying ti isn't if a law prohibits it then they can't but even that law was placed in because of someones belief.
It could very well be my last beverage, but I think that sentence needs to be either a) redone or b) shot. Twice.
Bastard. Location NEXT TO OZ, not in oz! How insulting, lol.

How does "10 times better than Oz" sound?

:rolleyes:

Lol, c'mon. Be kind!

haha, I thought you were going to come back with something worse.

No it's not Seperate but equal. But never mind. Never mind.

It is "separate but equal." In Brown vs. Board of Education, it was decided that separate treatment under the law was inherently unequal.

Unless it is called marriage, it is not equal treatment under the law.

And you see, until a couple days ago, in California, it WAS called marriage.

No it's not Seperate but equal. But never mind. Never mind.

Yeah, because at this point it's not even equal.

How does "10 times better than Oz" sound?

Welcome back to bro-fluffle land, heh.

Anyway I'm getting way off topic. Leave y'all to it.

No it's not Seperate but equal. But never mind. Never mind.

My bad, its "seperate and less equal".


Look, you can ignorantly pretend like a civil union and a marriage are the same thing, or you can own up and admit that your "comprimise" is bigotted and your Church enforced this bigottry through funding legistlation.

WWIII starts here, methinks.

lol, just some friendly banter amongst the sooks, just becuse we beat them in a game of cricket back in 74 (?) :D

It could very well be my last beverage, but I think that sentence needs to be either a) redone or b) shot. Twice.

I have redone it, I know I bashed it out quickly and then didn't go over it.

How does "10 times better than Oz" sound?

Well they have 10 times the sheep.

As I said I was asking a question so I can learn I wasn't arguing with you.



Thank you I had pulled out my copy of the constitution after PC directed me there.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now this part is what I presume you would be talking about. Now doesn't a ban on same sex marriage still cover this? After all the ban doesn't discriminate against gays specifically it just says no two people can marry each other if they are of the same gender.

Here are the two places that argument can fail:
1) being gay is a choice. Therefore, it violates peoples right to choice from amendment 1.
2) being gay is innate. Therefore, it is no different than being black or latino or asian. There are...well...every single other anti-discrimination law.

And, let's be honest. A ban on same-sex marriage primarily discriminates against gays. Same as a ban on religions based upon Christianity, but with additional texts would be primarily against Mormons.

Bastard. Location NEXT TO OZ, not in oz! How insulting, lol.

You are still welcome to become our 7th state. Perhaps that's what you should be voting for tomorrow ;)

On the contrary.... It's a refusal to yield on both sides. You refuse to understand the point of view I hold and state admendly mine is irrational. It's rooted in my faith, so good luck on trying to get me to do otherwise.

See, I think I see the problem here. You're conflating acceptance with understanding. We understand your viewpoint rather clearly. We really do. We get it. It is the position of your system of beliefs that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, and that this is proper justification for sinking vast quantities of money into ensuring that non-Mormon homosexuals are denied this right. There's never been any dispute of that.

However, this does not necessitate that we accept this fact. No one here need be content with your viewpoint simply because you choose to adhere to it in spite of all reason to the contrary. This should hopefully make it easily understood why we continue to discuss this with you: we believe that the right to marriage is a right that should not be denied to any two consenting adults, that the right to marry should apply equally among all persons in the United States.

We do not, under any circumstances, seek to remove rights presently available to the Mormon faith. No one requires that the Mormon Church officiate same-sex marriages. No one even wishes to consider doing so, and even if one were to entertain such a notion, the freedom of religion afforded by the First Amendment makes such a thing completely impossible without a massive, massive, and wholly improbably overhaul of our current legal system. An overhaul that no one has even come close to proposing.

As you can see, then, we fully understand your viewpoint, but merely believe that your desire to restrict the rights of others, and the reasons for this desire, are irrelevant to the discussion of whether those rights should, in fact, be restricted.

I've pointed time and time again where I stand, and why I stand. And your refusal to give an inch to compromise one way or another. Is very irrational as well. You live in a world where people won't always accept your viewpoint. Same for me as well. But since I won't yield on what I define as marriage and I state I am for equal rights, but not marriage, on grounds of my religious view points.

It seems to me that, here, you misunderstand the concept of compromise. You have not given an inch yourself, merely repeated your opinion, which has been shown to be irrelevant to the discussion of the rights of other individuals, and refused to offer any concession in the granting of those rights in a way that is fair or equal. This isn't an attempt at compromise on your part, by any means.[/QUOTE]

Here are the two places that argument can fail:
1) being gay is a choice. Therefore, it violates peoples right to choice from amendment 1.
2) being gay is innate. Therefore, it is no different than being black or latino or asian. There are...well...every single other anti-discrimination law.

And, let's be honest. A ban on same-sex marriage primarily discriminates against gays. Same as a ban on religions based upon Christianity, but with additional texts would be primarily against Mormons.

1) No it doesn't they are still welcome (though I argue that it is a choice) to be gay no one is stopping them from being gay it is just stopping them from marrying someone of the same gender which applies to non-gays equally.
2) This is more credible but I still think that the argument would hold.

Yes, we could be honest but I was looking for a bit of clean debate here.

He could ask the same of you.

But then I can see this going into a debate between liberalism and democracy and the way that conflict with each other.
BE, that remark is total bullshit.

I am NOT imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am NOT asking the Mormon church to live by MY rules. I am NOT asking any church that opposes homosexuality or any particular form of marriage to participate in such things.

All I AM asking is that they return the favor and NOT impose their beliefs on me, or ask me to live by THEIR rules.

I do not believe you cannot see the difference.

EDIT: Also, liberalism and democracy do not conflict with each other. Don't act dense. You're not good at it.

Now this part is what I presume you would be talking about. Now doesn't a ban on same sex marriage still cover this? After all the ban doesn't discriminate against gays specifically it just says no two people can marry each other if they are of the same gender.

Aha, see. Exactly. It is discrimination based on gender, which is just as unconstitutional as discrimination based on race.

Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Is there a substantive legal difference between gender classifications and racial classifications? No.

BE, that remark is total bullshit.

I am NOT imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am NOT asking the Mormon church to live by MY rules. I am NOT asking any church that opposes homosexuality or any particular form of marriage to participate in such things.

All I AM asking is that they return the favor and NOT impose their beliefs on me, or ask me to live by THEIR rules.

I do not believe you cannot see the difference.

Yes you are you want a society that gives freedom to all people over a wide range of issues. That is your belief and you want them to abide by that belief system and how society is run. You do indeed want them to live by your rules. Now I'm not saying your way is wrong I prefer individual freedom too but you do want them to accept and live in a society that abides by your belief system.

I didn't see your edit but hang on I will add to this soon.

1) No it doesn't they are still welcome (though I argue that it is a choice) to be gay no one is stopping them from being gay it is just stopping them from marrying someone of the same gender which applies to non-gays equally.
2) This is more credible but I still think that the argument would hold.

Yes, we could be honest but I was looking for a bit of clean debate here.

Except that this line of reasoning doesn't hold much water in other contexts.
Is it ok for slavery to be legal if anyone can be a slave?
By that same token, is slavery only wrong if it is legal in the case of one particular arrangement (blacks can own whites, and whites and own blacks, but blacks can't own blacks and whites can't own whites)?

Yes you are you want a society that gives freedom to all people over a wide range of issues. That is your belief and you want them to abide by that belief system and how society is run. You do indeed want them to live by your rules. Now I'm not saying your way is wrong I prefer individual freedom too but you do want them to accept and live in a society that abides by your belief system.

I didn't see your edit but hang on I will add to this soon.

What are you on about? Saying everyone should be able to live as they see fit is not enforcing your views on someone else. Its saying no one should enforce their views on someone else.

Welcome back to bro-fluffle land, heh.

Anyway I'm getting way off topic. Leave y'all to it.
haha...banging. Though, feel free to stick around. This topic did need a bit of levity before it sparked.
lol, just some friendly banter amongst the sooks, just becuse we beat them in a game of cricket back in 74 (?) :D



I have redone it, I know I bashed it out quickly and then didn't go over it.



Well they have 10 times the sheep.
*smacks*
Hey! I'm not saying it isn't if a law prohibits it then they can't but even that law was placed in because of someones belief.
Yes, laws were placed in because of beliefs. And even the constitution is because of beliefs.

BUT, and this is a big but, the founding principles of this nation were on freedom, equality, all that good fun stuff. Our Constitution has lasted over 200 years for a reason...because it protects our minorities from opression.

Do you have a right to push your beliefs? Well, yeah. No one can stop you. Does that make it right when it passes? No. Is it okay for donors in Utah to influence the election in California? Well, legally, it seems so. Realistically though? no.

And more importantly, is it okay to change a constitution to add in a bigoted provision? I say no. And I will say no untill someone shows me decent reason otherwise. That is both unconstitutional and, yes, I'm going to say it for one of the first times in my life, unAmerican.

Yes you are you want a society that gives freedom to all people over a wide range of issues. That is your belief and you want them to abide by that belief system and how society is run. You do indeed want them to live by your rules. Now I'm not saying your way is wrong I prefer individual freedom too but you do want them to accept and live in a society that abides by your belief system.

I didn't see your edit but hang on I will add to this soon.

Our belief system is in the principle of America as a secular democracy that enshrines liberty and justice for all in its Constitution. That is the only possible basis for a pluralistic society that permits diverse beliefs and lifestyles to coexist.

See, I think I see the problem here. You're conflating acceptance with understanding. We understand your viewpoint rather clearly. We really do. We get it. It is the position of your system of beliefs that homosexuals should not have the right to marry, and that this is proper justification for sinking vast quantities of money into ensuring that non-Mormon homosexuals are denied this right. There's never been any dispute of that.

However, this does not necessitate that we accept this fact. No one here need be content with your viewpoint simply because you choose to adhere to it in spite of all reason to the contrary. This should hopefully make it easily understood why we continue to discuss this with you: we believe that the right to marriage is a right that should not be denied to any two consenting adults, that the right to marry should apply equally among all persons in the United States.

We do not, under any circumstances, seek to remove rights presently available to the Mormon faith. No one requires that the Mormon Church officiate same-sex marriages. No one even wishes to consider doing so, and even if one were to entertain such a notion, the freedom of religion afforded by the First Amendment makes such a thing completely impossible without a massive, massive, and wholly improbably overhaul of our current legal system. An overhaul that no one has even come close to proposing.

As you can see, then, we fully understand your viewpoint, but merely believe that your desire to restrict the rights of others, and the reasons for this desire, are irrelevant to the discussion of whether those rights should, in fact, be restricted.



It seems to me that, here, you misunderstand the concept of compromise. You have not given an inch yourself, merely repeated your opinion, which has been shown to be irrelevant to the discussion of the rights of other individuals, and refused to offer any concession in the granting of those rights in a way that is fair or equal. This isn't an attempt at compromise on your part, by any means.

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That's not compromise either. Not in the ways you try to explain it away. So it's not much of a compromise either way. This is what you are posting. But my views and the views of others are just as important as yours. Even if they be irrational. That's democracy. So it just gets in a headlock, but again Democracy. Democracy. *sighs*

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That's not compromise either. Not in the ways you try to explain it away. So it's not much of a compromise either way. This is what you are posting. But my views and the views of others are just as important as yours. Even if they be irrational. That's democracy. So it just gets in a headlock, but again Democracy. Democracy. *sighs*

Yeah, let's compromise on civil rights!

We can give them 3/5 of a marriage!

Yea I admit the argument was poorly stated. Anyway. I haven't. it's called a compromise. COMPROMISE. It's part of democracy. I guess you all forget that.
Just like I guess you forgot the part where Prop 8, which your church financed to victory, took away ALL householding rights from gays in California. It didn't create civil unions to replace marriages. Nope. It took away marriage and left them with NOTHING. Took away a legal right they already had and left them with NOTHING in its place. Where was your compromise there? What did you offer the gays of California to make up for what you were taking away from them? Oh, that's right, NOTHING. Do you even know what compromise means? It's supposed to go both ways, not just your way.

It's probably the best one you're going to get from a lot of peeps with similar views. But you all sound oddly like some other people who refuse to make a compromise.
Saying something always beats implying it. If you have an insult to lob, do it already. But please don't waste our time pussyfooting around a meaning.

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That isn't what we are saying. We are saying that the legal aspect of marriage is seperate from the religious aspect. Every citizen deserves the right to marry whomever they choose. I don't care about your religious views because they don't impact me. If I was mormon, or even religious, I might care. But I don't. take it is a compliment. It means that I want nothing to do with them. I don't want to interfere. I don't want to change them. I just don't want you to step into the public, legal realm.

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That's not compromise either. Not in the ways you try to explain it away. So it's not much of a compromise either way. This is what you are posting. But my views and the views of others are just as important as yours. Even if they be irrational. That's democracy. So it just gets in a headlock, but again Democracy. Democracy. *sighs*

But that's just it, and you've missed it in its entirety. You've offered nothing in exchange, not even a modicum of compromise to meet you halfway with. How can you expect us to be willing to compromise when you make clear your own unwillingness to do so?

No it's not Seperate but equal. But never mind. Never mind.
Exactly. Because it's not equal.

Yeah, let's compromise on civil rights!

We can give them 3/5 of a marriage!

Missing the point again. You won't yield so why should I? You don't give me a reason to yield.

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That's not compromise either. Not in the ways you try to explain it away. So it's not much of a compromise either way. This is what you are posting. But my views and the views of others are just as important as yours. Even if they be irrational. That's democracy. So it just gets in a headlock, but again Democracy. Democracy. *sighs*

so what, exactly, is this fetish for 'compromise'?
suppose you want to live in peace and i want to torture you. should we compromise and i'll just torture you a little bit?

Aha, see. Exactly. It is discrimination based on gender, which is just as unconstitutional as discrimination based on race.

Loving v. Virginia:


Is there a substantive legal difference between gender classifications and racial classifications? No.

Well is it? After all it is based to both genders equally and irrespective of sexuality you are denied by the law.

so what, exactly, is this fetish for 'compromise'?
suppose you want to live in peace and i want to torture you. should we compromise and i'll just torture you a little bit?

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I? You all don't give me really too much reason to yield.

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I?

argument does not work that way

What are you on about? Saying everyone should be able to live as they see fit is not enforcing your views on someone else. Its saying no one should enforce their views on someone else.

Well yes that's right if it is your belief that people should live their lives as they see fit and you get that into law then you have gone and made the law to fit in with your beliefs.

Missing the point again. You won't yield so why should I? You don't give me a reason to yield.

Sorry, but this is the United States of America, and equal rights are not open to compromise.

Yes you are you want a society that gives freedom to all people over a wide range of issues. That is your belief and you want them to abide by that belief system and how society is run. You do indeed want them to live by your rules. Now I'm not saying your way is wrong I prefer individual freedom too but you do want them to accept and live in a society that abides by your belief system.

I didn't see your edit but hang on I will add to this soon.
I see, so your defense of your argument is that you really are as dense as you're acting?

In case, you don't get it, that means I'm not interested at the moment in getting sucked into one of your little thought experiments where you pretend to have zero knowledge of nor even to have ever heard of law or history or social conditions or anything just so you can baby-step your way through obvious points and call it "educating yourself" or whatever.

Yes, laws were placed in because of beliefs. And even the constitution is because of beliefs.

BUT, and this is a big but, the founding principles of this nation were on freedom, equality, all that good fun stuff. Our Constitution has lasted over 200 years for a reason...because it protects our minorities from opression.

Do you have a right to push your beliefs? Well, yeah. No one can stop you. Does that make it right when it passes? No. Is it okay for donors in Utah to influence the election in California? Well, legally, it seems so. Realistically though? no.

And more importantly, is it okay to change a constitution to add in a bigoted provision? I say no. And I will say no untill someone shows me decent reason otherwise. That is both unconstitutional and, yes, I'm going to say it for one of the first times in my life, unAmerican.

Does it make it right was not America also founded on allowing the people to be able to say what happens in their country?

Now it may not be ok in your eyes but if it is ok in the eyes of the law then yes it is ok, you can disagree with it but it is ok. You can try and get the law and the constitution changed to fit in with your beliefs to make it not ok.

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I? You all don't give me really too much reason to yield.

And our entire point is that people who favor civil liberty should not compromise with people who favor discrimination.

I say Mormons should not be allowed to vote.
You say Mormons should be.

Do we compromise and give you 3/5 a vote?

No. In this hypothetical case, I'm wrong. If I don't like you being allowed to vote, then tough shit.

Except that this line of reasoning doesn't hold much water in other contexts.
Is it ok for slavery to be legal if anyone can be a slave?
By that same token, is slavery only wrong if it is legal in the case of one particular arrangement (blacks can own whites, and whites and own blacks, but blacks can't own blacks and whites can't own whites)?

No it doesn't. But do we always need the same line of reasing for other arguments?

Someone said I should be honest, well partly I am and partly I m just looking for some clean debate and to offer other ways of thinking (some of which may be wrong)

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I? You all don't give me really too much reason to yield.

You're the one complaining about a lack of compromise. You give no incentive to do so if you offer nothing in return.

Well is it? After all it is based to both genders equally and irrespective of sexuality you are denied by the law.

And anti-miscegenation laws applied to all races "equally." Your point?

I see, so your defense of your argument is that you really are as dense as you're acting?

In case, you don't get it, that means I'm not interested at the moment in getting sucked into one of your little thought experiments where you pretend to have zero knowledge of nor even to have ever heard of law or history or social conditions or anything just so you can baby-step your way through obvious points and call it "educating yourself" or whatever.

ok, that's fine but when people put in laws or lobby for laws they are putting them in because it fits in with their belief. If you don't want to argue that's alright.

Does it make it right was not America also founded on allowing the people to be able to say what happens in their country?

Now it may not be ok in your eyes but if it is ok in the eyes of the law then yes it is ok, you can disagree with it but it is ok. You can try and get the law and the constitution changed to fit in with your beliefs to make it not ok.

No, American government was designed specifically to prevent a tyranny of the majority. True democracy requires equal protection for the rights of minorities.

And anti-miscegenation laws applied to all races "equally." Your point?

My point is in reagrds to the 14th amnedment where it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" they are being treated the same under the law.

By LDS standards, a marriage outside of a temple is a marriage. But.... that doesn't change the fact that homosexual marriage is not recognized.

By Mormons. My religion, and many others, DO recognize them. Why do you get to deny me MY religious rights?

ok, that's fine but when people put in laws or lobby for laws they are putting them in because it fits in with their belief. If you don't want to argue that's alright.

Yes, and this case those beliefs are wrong, discriminatory, and contrary to the fundamental idea of America.

Does it make it right was not America also founded on allowing the people to be able to say what happens in their country?

Now it may not be ok in your eyes but if it is ok in the eyes of the law then yes it is ok, you can disagree with it but it is ok. You can try and get the law and the constitution changed to fit in with your beliefs to make it not ok.

First of all, I'm going to send you a message in a sec. Just a heads up.

Second of all, I am all for the democratic process, so long as it isn't tyranny of the majority. There is a reason it is so difficult to amend the US constitution. You can do all you can to change it, but it is set up to protect minorities. Prop 8 does violate the federal constitution.

I don't disagree that law is based on peoples opinions and world views. What I disagree with is a minority managing to push its opinions upon the largely uneducated majority through deceit.

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I? You all don't give me really too much reason to yield.

Because you offer nothing. You offer what gays already have, and considerably less than they had three days ago.

I ask again, would you compromise on your right to practice your religion? Your right to vote?

Would you compromise your right to marry the person you love?

If the answer to these is no, then you should see why gays won't compromise the right to marry who they love, and we who defend their rights will not either.

Yes, and this case those beliefs are wrong, discriminatory, and contrary to the fundamental idea of America.

To the last two points I agree with but something isn't wrong just because you don't agree with it.

My pint is in reagrds to the 14th amnedment where it says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" they are being treated the same under the law.

That logic goes against an unanimous Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Sorry, but this is the United States of America, and equal rights are not open to compromise.

Perhaps so.

I agree no buts on this....


However, people won't respect my view points or consider them and I get ramrodded with viewpoints I don't agree with. And vice versa. I accept that. Compromise is much nicer than a nasty fight. But since you won't accept a compromise based on the viewpoints that some others do share, as well as me. Than, you leave it open for me to do the same that you are doing. I will fight back as well. My right as well. You should have no problem with my fighting back on my view and my chruch and my faith.

Again missing the point. You won't yeild so why should I? You all don't give me really too much reason to yield.
You started it -- with Prop 8. You opened this whole can of worms -- with Prop 8.

You took civil rights to marriage away from gays in California.

You gave them nothing in return for what you took away.

And now you dare to complain that no one wants to compromise with you on this? That's not how it works. You got your way at someone else's expense. Now it is your responsibility to offer to give them something as a compromise (which I would advise them to reject, but that's beside the present point).

You offer nothing. You only demand. That is not compromise. And it is not our fault. You should be the one offering to meet us half way.

To the last two points I agree with but something isn't wrong just because you don't agree with it.

So you agree that it's discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental idea of America. That makes it "wrong" within the purview of American law.

Perhaps so.

I agree no buts on this....


However, people won't respect my view points or consider them and I get ramrodded with viewpoints I don't agree with. And vice versa. I accept that. Compromise is much nicer than a nasty fight. But since you won't accept a compromise based on the viewpoints that some others do share, as well as me. Than, you leave it open for me to do the same that you are doing. I will fight back as well. My right as well. You should have no problem with my fighting back on my view and my chruch and my faith.

Actually, I must comment.

I think it is literally impossible to compromise on equal rights, and here's why:

Either you have equal rights, or you do not. You can't be "sorta" equal, because that's not what equal means. The word for "sorta" equal is unequal.
Therefore, any compromise on equal rights is, by definition, automatically a win for the anti-equality side.

I ask you again:
If I said Mormons should not be allowed to vote, would you be okay with a compromise? We could give you 3/5 of a vote. Sounds fair, right?

You started it -- with Prop 8. You opened this whole can of worms -- with Prop 8.

You took civil rights to marriage away from gays in California.

You gave them nothing in return for what you took away.

I agree it wasn't right.

And now you dare to complain that no one wants to compromise with you on this? That's not how it works. You got your way at someone else's expense. Now it is your responsibility to offer to give them something as a compromise (which I would advise them to reject, but that's beside the present point).

You offer nothing. You only demand. That is not compromise. And it is not our fault. You should be the one offering to meet us half way.

Demand, just as much as you demand back.

Actually, I must comment.

I think it is literally impossible to compromise on equal rights, and here's why:

Either you have equal rights, or you do not. You can't be "sorta" equal, because that's not what equal means. The word for "sorta" equal is unequal.
Therefore, any compromise on equal rights is, by definition, automatically a win for the anti-equality side.

I ask you again:
If I said Mormons should not be allowed to vote, would you be okay with a compromise? We could give you 3/5 of a vote. Sounds fair, right?

Yea walk into this one. with my eyes wide open. Give me a break.

Not really - but sofar Mormons have not bothered me overly much.
However, if your group would become a pest in my neighbourhood, I would indeed hold you partly responsible since you have chosen to be a part of it. If you dislike your chosen groups behaviour - leave it. If you don't - stop whining about how people hate you. Choices have consequences.

Of course, I myself have been attacked for this position in the past.

Most cultists lack the ability to think for themselves. That ability is robbed by them from the cult leadership in order to maintain a grip on the members' collective minds. Most of their decisions are based on cult doctrine and the will of the leadership. Cult members need exit counseling, its only the leadership that truly deserves to be punished.

This answers the OP's question in the best way possible. (http://www.rickross.com/coping.html)

That logic goes against an unanimous Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Hang on wasn't that court case dealing with races? And if it does apply to gender as well then surely people are getting their knickers into a twist over nothing as Prop8 was a waste of time and cannot be enforced by the State if it runs counter to Federal law.

I'm assuming that when SCOTUS comes to a conclusion it acts as a ruling on federal law.

I agree it wasn't right.

If you agree Prop 8 was wrong, then why are you defending it?

So you agree that it's discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental idea of America. That makes it "wrong" within the purview of American law.

I thought we were talking about the idea of banning same-sex marriage?

I agree it wasn't right.
Then you should want it overturned.



Demand, just as much as you demand back.
We are demanding only what your church took away. You have no right to demand anything, as you have already taken.

Offering civil unions is an offer of nothing. We already had that, and for the last several months, actual marriage for our gay citizens here.

So far you have demanded compromise, but have offered absolutely nothing for such. You taking away the rights of gay citizens and then offering them nothing in return is not compromise. It is theft.

And the same for you. Good day. Tis (really) the last time I post in this thread.

Are you ignoring my points because you have no answer for them or what?

I agree it wasn't right.
Then why are you defending it?

Demand, just as much as you demand back.
This is ridiculous. YOU came in and screwed over the gays of California. Did you do that in response to something they did to you? What did they take away from you that you were getting some back on with Prop 8? Nothing? You just decided to take away their rights?

And when people say, "hey, give those back," you demand that we compromise with you?

You got your way. You destroyed same sex marriage in California. It is up to YOU, not us, to offer something in return to make up for that. What are you offering?

Spread the hate, and don't wait around to be held accountable?

Oh, if ONLY that tactic was original.

I'd say I smell Kimchi, but Hotwife is still posting, and AFAIK isn't Mormon.

Hang on wasn't that court case dealing with races? And if it does apply to gender as well then surely people are getting their knickers into a twist over nothing as Prop8 was a waste of time and cannot be enforced by the State if it runs counter to Federal law.

I'm assuming that when SCOTUS comes to a conclusion it acts as a ruling on federal law.

It's not that simple. But the principle is the same.

Hang on wasn't that court case dealing with races? And if it does apply to gender as well then surely people are getting their knickers into a twist over nothing as Prop8 was a waste of time and cannot be enforced by the State if it runs counter to Federal law.

I'm assuming that when SCOTUS comes to a conclusion it acts as a ruling on federal law.
that is, IF the supreme court will hear the case. They have been content to leave it to the states thusfar.

If you agree Prop 8 was wrong, then why are you defending it?

I am stating that it was wrong not to give somthing comparable to what was taken.

I am stating that it was wrong not to give somthing comparable to what was taken.

Which is what Prop 8 did. So you agree that Prop 8 was wrong.

Yea walk into this one. with my eyes wide open. Give me a break.
So you refuse to answer him? Why is that?

Is it because the only possible answer is, no, you would not compromise and accept only 3/5 of a vote?

And if you give that answer, you know you won't be able to continue insisting that gays should accept less equality and fewer rights to suit you?

I am stating that it was wrong not to give somthing comparable to what was taken.
Not just comparable. Equal. It must be equal.

And seperate is rarely equal. See my link about civil union vs. marriage.

Are you ignoring my points because you have no answer for them or what?

I don't have an answer. And since I am being speared on the altar. It doesn't really matter. I run into something head on and....bam.... bam.... bam.... Okay. I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.

Hang on wasn't that court case dealing with races? And if it does apply to gender as well then surely people are getting their knickers into a twist over nothing as Prop8 was a waste of time and cannot be enforced by the State if it runs counter to Federal law.

I'm assuming that when SCOTUS comes to a conclusion it acts as a ruling on federal law.
In theory, yes.

Which is what Prop 8 did. So you agree that Prop 8 was wrong.

Of course, the only thing equivalent to marriage is...

marriage.

So you refuse to answer him? Why is that?

Is it because the only possible answer is, no, you would not compromise and accept only 3/5 of a vote?

And if you give that answer, you know you won't be able to continue insisting that gays should accept less equality and fewer rights to suit you?


Because I'd say no it's not fair and then you'd kill me with your rhetoric. So there. And their are what? How many people argueing against me? Gee talk about minority. pfff....

I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.

Yes, it's nice to have rights, isn't it.

So you refuse to answer him? Why is that?

Is it because the only possible answer is, no, you would not compromise and accept only 3/5 of a vote?

And if you give that answer, you know you won't be able to continue insisting that gays should accept less equality and fewer rights to suit you?
^this


I don't have an answer. And since I am being speared on the altar. It doesn't really matter. I run into something head on and....bam.... bam.... bam.... Okay. I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.

Yes, but the whole point of debate is to learn. That, I've found, is one of the most important things I have ever come to understand, and if ever I have said something that could be considered intelligent, that's a good candidate for it.
If you cannot counter an argument, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it's something to be proud of.

I don't have an answer. And since I am being speared on the altar. It doesn't really matter. I run into something head on and....bam.... bam.... bam.... Okay. I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.
There is a difference. We STILL aren't arguing against your churches beliefs. We are arguing against the churches actions. What was done in CA was deplorable...with or without LDS's involvement. The fact that LDS was heavily (and I do mean HEAVILY) involved is the reason for this thread. Most of us don't care what you believe. You could have a swastika tattoo and we really wouldn't give a damn. It is when these ideals encroach upon the law that an issue arises. Especially when these encroachments are based upon fallacy.

Because I'd say no it's not fair and then you'd kill me with your rhetoric. So there. And their are what? How many people argueing against me? Gee talk about minority. pfff....

Your church already demonstrated that it doesn't care about minority rights. Your church has the right to practice as it sees fit.

But it didn't do that, it came into my state and took the rights away from my citizens. We are not angry at the Mormon church for being Mormon. We are angry at an organization that has taken away the rights of human beings. That is my only problem here.

And yes, we have been killing you with our rhetoric. Because our position is founded on equal rights, justice, and precedent. The position of the Mormon church, the position you are defending, is based on lies and discrimination. I would remind you that just because you're a part of the church and believe in Jesus Christ, doesn't mean you have to agree with its leaders. If you find you can't come up with a counter argument, perhaps you should think about whether the position you've been arguing is really right or not.

So, I ask again. Would you compromise if someone took away your right to marry? Or would you be insulted?

I don't have an answer.
I think most of us figured that out.

And since I am being speared on the altar. It doesn't really matter. I run into something head on and....bam.... bam.... bam....
The reason for that is that your arguments don't hold water. You evidently entered this thread completely unprepared to debate, and yet you persisted in trying to argue against people who had come prepared. That was foolish of you.

Okay. I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.
So are you at last abandoning your thin pretense of wanting compromise? Are you at last admitting that the only thing you want is to strip gays of civil rights by making state law conform to your personal religious beliefs? Are you at last retracting your apparently bogus claims that you believe everyone should be able to live the way they want, and instead acknowledging that you really want everyone to follow your religion's rules, whether we're believers or not? And are you at last coming right out and saying that you are not willing to give anybody anything, rights-wise?

I hope so, because then, at least, you'd be speaking honestly.

^this




Yes, but the whole point of debate is to learn. That, I've found, is one of the most important things I have ever come to understand, and if ever I have said something that could be considered intelligent, that's a good candidate for it.
If you cannot counter an argument, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it's something to be proud of.


Well I've 'reafirmed my beliefs' as I choose to call it. And I have learned something very intresting. You people won't yield, marriage or nothing. We shall overcome, right?

I have my viewpoint, you hold it. I can read it. See it. But doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You have a long battle ahead I think. I choose to disagree on the matter of my princpals. Okay. And a person can have that, right? Princpals. Since it disagrees with my 'world-view' per say. That's the parting of the argument.

that is, IF the supreme court will hear the case. They have been content to leave it to the states thusfar.

But if that Loving vs Brown (?) also applies to races then surely the SCOTUS has already made a decision or has a new decision been made since that case?

Also check your TG.

Because I'd say no it's not fair and then you'd kill me with your rhetoric. So there. And their are what? How many people argueing against me? Gee talk about minority. pfff....
Like I said in my other post, next time show up with better arguments, and you might fare better. Otherwise, welcome to the adult-swim pool.

Well I've 'reafirmed my beliefs' as I choose to call it. And I have learned something very intresting. You people won't yield, marriage or nothing. We shall overcome, right?

I have my viewpoint, you hold it. I can read it. See it. But doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You have a long battle ahead I think. I choose to disagree on the matter of my princpals. Okay. And a person can have that, right? Princpals. Since it disagrees with my 'world-view' per say. That's the parting of the argument.

We won't yield because, in our position, you wouldn't either.

If you were told that you weren't allowed to marry the person you loved anymore, and then they demanded that you give them more in "compromise," you'd be pissed, you'd be insulted.

That is why there can be no compromise. There can't be any common ground when you take everything and give nothing.

Like I said in my other post, next time show up with better arguments, and you might fare better. Otherwise, welcome to the adult-swim pool.

Sorry. All my arguments are based on my religion. So there. And since you define them as irrelevant than, I really have nothing to stand on.

I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I.

If it harms you - certainly. But since the Mormon and State definition of marriage already differ, there is not even "harm by association". Even if all state marriages would consider being covered in custard and throwing lemon pies at one another an acceptable alternative to exchanging vows it would not affect what the mormons call a marriage.

So, the "thing you do not believe in" is that homosexuals are human beings with equal rights. Not the sanctity of marriage or anything like that.

We won't yield because, in our position, you wouldn't either.

If you were told that you weren't allowed to marry the person you loved anymore, and then they demanded that you give them more in "compromise," you'd be pissed, you'd be insulted.

That is why there can be no compromise. There can't be any common ground when you take everything and give nothing.

*I* It's all * I*. Well....I have my viewpoint and I hardly call it *nothing* But that's you.

So, the "thing you do not believe in" is that homosexuals are human beings with equal rights. Not the sanctity of marriage or anything like that.

I have never said that. Don't put words into my mouth that I haven't said.

As for sanctity of marriage, well duh.... that's part of a Mormon viewpoint.

But if that Loving vs Brown (?) also applies to races then surely the SCOTUS has already made a decision or has a new decision been made since that case?

Also check your TG.
Loving v. Virginia (yes, I admit. The only way I remember this is from my friends tshirt that says "Virginia is for lovers".)

Now, the issue with the SCOTUS decision is that it must be extended. There is the implication, of course, same as with all of the amendments and SCOTUS decisions. Over time, these are challenged and the decisions are refined. The decision may very well apply to same-sex marriages...but that must be firmly stated by another SCOTUS decision. I believe that Loving v. Virginia does cover same-sex marriage. I'm not sure that the current SCOTUS would agree.

And writing back now.

Sorry. All my arguments are based on my religion. So there. And since you define them as irrelevant than, I really have nothing to stand on.

They're irrelevant because one person's religion isn't a valid basis for state law. Your religion says certain things about gays. My religion says different things. Who is right? I think I am right, you think you are right. It cannot be resolved.

That is why I argue from the position of secular law, not religious law. Secular law is the basis for our legal system, because to base it on any one religion would be favoritism to that one and unfair discrimination to all the others.

If you have no basis besides your religion for your argument, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

As said before, legal gay marriage will not force anyone to change their religious beliefs or practices. It just means that gay couples can get a marriage license from the state. If they want a religious ceremony, they'd still have to find a church (such as mine) that performs marriage ceremonies for gay couples. It would have no effect on the Mormon church.

But if that Loving vs Brown (?) also applies to races then surely the SCOTUS has already made a decision or has a new decision been made since that case?

That's not how the Supreme Court works. Loving v. Virginia found that marriage is a right, and Lawrence v. Texas found that it's unconstitutional to deny legal rights to homosexual couples that are given to heterosexual couples. So I'm arguing that there is a constitutional basis for upholding gay marriage.

But the Supreme Court has since been filled with conservative activist judges, and it's unlikely that they'd want to rule on such a politically divisive issue.

Well I've 'reafirmed my beliefs' as I choose to call it. And I have learned something very intresting. You people won't yield, marriage or nothing. We shall overcome, right?

I cannot even begin to tell you how deeply it offends me that you used those words.

I have attacked, dismissed, torn apart and been angered by your arguments. I have become disillusioned with you by your behavior here. But until now, I did not feel any personal anger towards you.

But to see a bigot -- a person who defends stripping civil rights away from an oppressed minority -- use THOSE words, the title and lyrics of the anthem of civil rights in America, sung by people who GAVE THEIR LIVES for equality and freedom and full and equal protection of the law --

You should be ashamed of yourself. You should choke on those words.

*I* It's all * I*. Well....I have my viewpoint and I hardly call it *nothing* But that's you.

And your viewpoint would not have to change if gays were allowed to get marriage licenses from the government. No one would force the LDS church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or change their beliefs. For you, things would be just as they were three days ago, when gay marriage was legal.

For gays, they would have equal rights.

Why not? You do it to me all the time.

Hypocrisy never gets old, does it?

How about this? Instead of complaining we presume to tell you your motivations for defending prop 8 you explain what your motivations are. Do so without resorting to the explanation "my religion says gay marriage is bad" (because if that were a valid reason for a law then it would be an equally valid reason to for non-Mormons to ban your religion).

I accept the latter.

I also think that the prohibition on necrophilia is mainly concerened with the fact that corpses cannot give consent.

Neither can dildos.

<Damn it! Now I have to file down my horns again, this always happens when I play Devil's Advocate!>

I cannot even begin to tell you how deeply it offends me that you used those words.--

You should be ashamed of yourself. You should choke on those words.

I respect that right. You have the right to fight. As much as I do. I know the song. I've sung it as well. I know it's the anthem for civil rights. I was commenting on that as your anthem as well. I meant not to offend and for that I appologize.

Neither can dildos.

<Damn it! Now I have to file down my horns again, this always happens when I play Devil's Advocate!>

Not going to argue about this besides saying that dildos weren't living human beings at any point.

But that's not the point.

I respect that right. You have the right to fight. As much as I do. I know the song. I've sung it as well. I know it's the anthem for civil rights. I was commenting on that as your anthem as well. I meant not to offend and for that I appologize.

Tyger, see my earlier post.

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage? Why are you so adment on calling it that.

Call it a civil union. Call it Living rights.

Lets try this analogy on for size. How about instead of calling Mormons a religion we call them a religious cult?

That's not how the Supreme Court works. Loving v. Virginia found that marriage is a right, and Lawrence v. Texas found that it's unconstitutional to deny legal rights to homosexual couples that are given to heterosexual couples. So I'm arguing that there is a constitutional basis for upholding gay marriage.

But the Supreme Court has since been filled with conservative activist judges, and it's unlikely that they'd want to rule on such a politically divisive issue.

Well ok so if those two cases have already been ruled on then why did this Prop8 thing even come to vote? Surely it is know that under the eyes of the law it is wrong and cannot be put into place.

And your viewpoint would not have to change if gays were allowed to get marriage licenses from the government. No one would force the LDS church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or change their beliefs. For you, things would be just as they were three days ago, when gay marriage was legal.

For gays, they would have equal rights.

True and point given.

I have never said that. Don't put words into my mouth that I haven't said.

Really ? Then what DO you think ? Because any claims that you are protecting the sanctity of marriage as Mormons view it are nonsense, as already shown.

... You should be ashamed of yourself. You should choke on those words.

First sentence, legit comment. Second sentence, wishing harm, however metaphorical.

Keep it cool, Muravyets.

Well ok so if those two cases have already been ruled on then why did this Prop8 thing even come to vote? Surely it is know that under the eyes of the law it is wrong and cannot be put into place.

As I said, the precedent isn't directly applicable, only in principle. And there's nothing to stop anyone from passing unconstitutional laws until they struck are down by the courts.

True and point given.

So there's nothing to be worried about and no reason not to extend secular marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Well, re-extend, rather, since they had those rights just a few days ago.

If they want a religious ceremony, they'll just have to find a church that will agree to one. State marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Gays and lesbians just want the legal right to marry as recognized by the state. They're not trying to make religions that don't want to perform marriage ceremonies for them.

And if they want religious ceremonies, they can always go for Unitarian Universalist, liberal Christian or several other religious faiths that are fine with it.

Lets try this analogy on for size. How about instead of calling Mormons a religion we call them a religious cult?

After all, the REAL Bible dictates that the Mormon bible is an abomination, therefore we should fight to take away it's status as a recognized religion.

Lets try this analogy on for size. How about instead of calling Mormons a religion we call them a religious cult?

Heard it. Some call us a cult others a faith and religion. It's nothing new. Stick and stones etc.

What minority? At what point did sexual preference constitute a minority? This is the part that blows my mind. This artificial minority status given to a group of people based on who they are sexually attracted to.

Do you know the definition of the word minority?

Sorry. All my arguments are based on my religion. So there. And since you define them as irrelevant than, I really have nothing to stand on.

The problem with basing one's arguments on religion is that not all people subscribe to the same religion. Forcing them to conform to your beliefs or even debating you on religious grounds is unfair, and frankly its against the Constitution.
By the way, Muravyets may have gone overboard in wishing you harm, but you most definately have no right to use those words to rationalize discrimination. Its shameful and indicative of just how little progress has been made in America.

Heard it. Some call us a cult others a faith and religion. It's nothing new. Stick and stones etc.

And what if your legal right to practice your religion was taken away?

You would be angry, yes?

That is how gays and lesbians, and those of us who support equal treatment under the law feel right now.

After all, the REAL Bible dictates that the Mormon bible is an abomination, therefore we should fight to take away it's status as a recognized religion.

No, it does not. You're speaking on the bit from Revelations I assume. No scripture added or deleated. Only applies to that book. But really irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But you're really just resorting to Mormon Bashing now.

Tyger, you didn't respond to my earlier post where I replied to your statement that your arguments came only from your religion, and noted that we all were calling such basis irrelevant. Here is why:

They're irrelevant because one person's religion isn't a valid basis for state law. Your religion says certain things about gays. My religion says different things. Who is right? I think I am right, you think you are right. It cannot be resolved.

That is why I argue from the position of secular law, not religious law. Secular law is the basis for our legal system, because to base it on any one religion would be favoritism to that one and unfair discrimination to all the others.

If you have no basis besides your religion for your argument, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

As said before, legal gay marriage will not force anyone to change their religious beliefs or practices. It just means that gay couples can get a marriage license from the state. If they want a religious ceremony, they'd still have to find a church (such as mine) that performs marriage ceremonies for gay couples. It would have no effect on the Mormon church.

After all, the REAL Bible dictates that the Mormon bible is an abomination, therefore we should fight to take away it's status as a recognized religion.

That's neither logical nor workable. If, on that basis, we took away it's status as a recognized religion, we would have to deny recognition to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Ba'hai, Buddhism and multiple scores of other religions.

If you look on the thread about fighting proposition 8, you'll find a list of Mormon controlled business, a good start would be boycotting them, since Mormonism seems to be as much a business as a religion.

new tactic!

I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I.

no, you do not. prove me wrong.

No, it does not. You're speaking on the bit from Revelations I assume. No scripture added or deleated. Only applies to that book. But really irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But you're really just resorting to Mormon Bashing now.

Many religions would have your faith outlawed because they believe it is wrong. That is discrimination.

It's also why we can't base the laws of governments on any one religion's views.

The problem with basing one's arguments on religion is that not all people subscribe to the same religion. Forcing them to conform to your beliefs or even debating you on religious grounds is unfair, and frankly its against the Constitution.
By the way, Muravyets may have gone overboard in wishing you harm, but you most definately have no right to use those words to rationalize discrimination. Its shameful and indicative of just how little progress has been made in America.


People wanted to know my viewpoints and my church's. I gave it to them, unwatered down (well to the best of my ability) But I can't say it's all my church's viewpoint. The Gospel according to Tygereyes might not be my full chruch's positon. I felt myself very tolerant of others. I try to be. Faith and civil rights don't always go hand and hand. I am sorry I used the verse of a song that is in many hearts almost as religious as I am. I DEEPLY APPOLOGIZE from the bottom of my heart.

As for it being arguments. There is little to be rational to religious faith. It's based on guts and faith. Nothing more. Feelings and passion.

I respect that right. You have the right to fight. As much as I do. I know the song. I've sung it as well. I know it's the anthem for civil rights. I was commenting on that as your anthem as well. I meant not to offend and for that I appologize.
By even implying that you were commenting on that song as your anthem as well, you only make the insult worse.

Here's the big difference between me and you, T:

YOU are fighting to take away people's rights. You are fighting to oppress people you don't like. You are fighting to make our society unequal and unfair.

I, on the other hand, am fighting FOR equal rights for everyone. I am fighting to end oppression of all people, regardless of whether I like them or not. For instance, I don't like you at all right now, and I don't have a nice word to say for your church, either. I firmly believe you to be the antithesis of everything that I think is right. I think you are both closed-minded, bigoted, and ignorant. But I will still fight for your right to be ignorant bigots according to the context of your religious beliefs. I would never allow anyone to ban the Mormon church or restrict the civil rights of Mormon citizens, or in any way force Mormons to engage in actions that are an affront to their religion. By that same token, I will never allow anyone -- not even Mormons -- to ban or restrict the civil rights of gays. Equal rights means EQUAL rights, and that includes the SAME marriage rights for all citizens. And I will not stop being an advocate for that until every gay citizen in the US has the exact same marriage rights as every hetero citizen.

If anyone is going to overcome in this battle, it will be the gays. I promise you that. You may believe you have your god on your side, but I know I have history on mine.

So you can keep your apologies.

People wanted to know my viewpoints and my church's.

no, they didn't. they wanted you to argue in favor of them. you know, defend them using reason and whatnot.

That's neither logical nor workable. If, on that basis, we took away it's status as a recognized religion, we would have to deny recognition to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Ba'hai, Buddhism and multiple scores of other religions.

i think you missed the point...

Back to the main topic.

How about a constitutional amendment that states Mormons can be used as public urinals ?

No, it does not. You're speaking on the bit from Revelations I assume. No scripture added or deleated. Only applies to that book. But really irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But you're really just resorting to Mormon Bashing now.

Then you missed the point.

That's neither logical nor workable. If, on that basis, we took away it's status as a recognized religion, we would have to deny recognition to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Ba'hai, Buddhism and multiple scores of other religions.

If you look on the thread about fighting proposition 8, you'll find a list of Mormon controlled business, a good start would be boycotting them, since Mormonism seems to be as much a business as a religion.

That's my actual plan.

Many religions would have your faith outlawed because they believe it is wrong. That is discrimination.

It's also why we can't base the laws of governments on any one religion's views.


This.

i think you missed the point...

Perhaps, 49 pages of this is a long read, I could have missed a lot of points.

Back to the main topic.

How about a constitutional amendment that states Mormons can be used as public urinals ?

i'm free soviets, and i approve this plan. sometimes you just gotta go.

gentlefolks, lets not stoop to their level; keep the discussion about the issue and don't just knock Mormons for being Mormons.

This.

Oooh, yay! I love it when I make a post that someone quotes like that.

So you can keep your apologies.

And I'll still offer them. I am sorry. I spoke out of turn. and it was wrong of me.

*white flag of surrender/truce*

Back to the main topic.

How about a constitutional amendment that states Mormons can be used as public urinals ?

Okay, I think that crosses the line.

Public hat-racks, perhaps.

gentlefolks, lets not stoop to their level; keep the discussion about the issue and don't just knock Mormons for being Mormons.

Agreed. I do not bear Mormons any ill will for simply being what they are, religiously.

My anger is purely over the grossly political and dishonest actions in my state that recently deprived my friends and fellow Californians of their rights.

Tyger, you didn't respond to my earlier post where I replied to your statement that your arguments came only from your religion, and noted that we all were calling such basis irrelevant. Here is why:

It got buried, sorry.

I have my viewpoints. I agree they may not be right or proper. And I agree people need rights. Just hard on my viewpoints.

Oooh, yay! I love it when I make a post that someone quotes like that.

That's your fault for making an intelligent point on the true nature of this debate.

lets just let it go everyone. Working ourselves into a rage about it won't help change the fact that this terrible tragedy of a law passed. All we can do now is re-double our efforts to overturning these bans, and electing more and more democrats to legislate better laws.

And I'll still offer them. I am sorry. I spoke out of turn. and it was wrong of me.

*white flag of surrender/truce*

Look, Tyger, I don't think you're at heart a bad person.

But you need to understand that we can't base our laws off of what your Church believes. It would be just as wrong if we based our laws on what a church that wants yours outlawed believes. It's just not fair, and any way you do it, basing state law on any religion results in favoritism to that religion and discrimination to everybody else.

At the same time, nobody's going to make the Mormon church marry gay people.

We're not mad at your church because it believes as it does, but because it took away the rights of citizens who were not hurting it at all.

The ability for gay couples to get a legally binding marriage license from the government is all we're asking for here. We're just asking for them to get that right back.

Already tried telling him so, he's not going to listen.

He is either a troll, or unusually stupid. Maybe he's just 12 or something.

Now, now, she could be all three.





(I say she because of a remark about taking contraceptives for health reasons. I've never heard of a male doing so.)

Did you notice the ad for an LDS Weight Loss program?

Agreed. I do not bear Mormons any ill will for simply being what they are, religiously.

My anger is purely over the grossly political and dishonest actions in my state that recently deprived my friends and fellow Californians of their rights.
^^ This.

Seriously, it's bad enough for me to lose my cool because someone who can't be bothered to give serious thought to the words they put out in the world says the one thing they really shouldn't have said around me, but there is no reason to turn this into a juvenile bash-party against a whole religion. Flaming doesn't become legitimate just because it's done against a group instead of a poster.

And I'll still offer them. I am sorry. I spoke out of turn. and it was wrong of me.

*white flag of surrender/truce*
Don't apologize. Improve.