NationStates Jolt Archive

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?

Well, it goes to show that Benedict is a disappointment when it comes to equal rights for people of different orientations compared to the last pope. I hope the next pope will chose to take a different stance.

of all the things we need to be saved from isnt "the gay" pretty much the least of it?

supposing that we would ever agree with the notion that its wrong...

Well, it goes to show that Benedict is a disappointment when it comes to equal rights for people of different orientations compared to the last pope. I hope the next pope will chose to take a different stance.

The Pope is almost universally a disappointment on every issue, no matter who he is.

As for the whole homosexual things. The very people who call for equality, peace, and tolerance are almost universally a disappointment on every issue, no matter who they are.

:mad:

This topic is like racists back 60-70 years ago who were always talking about how not all black people are bad and how they have black friends.

"Yeah, homosexuality is disgusting and perverse but why not just allow them their privacy?"

They aren't fighting for privacy. They're fighting for equality. Ya know, like the rights that everyone else has. Marriage and military service and etc.

I'm a heterosexual, white male Republican and I know that, so there's no excuse for not knowing it.

But I detect a whiff of satire in the whole post, The Alma Mater. I think you're messing around with everyone. Granted, I'm new, so maybe I'm wrong.

:p

:mad:

This topic is like racists back 60-70 years ago who were always talking about how not all black people are bad and how they have black friends.

"Yeah, homosexuality is disgusting and perverse but why not just allow them their privacy?"

They aren't fighting for privacy. They're fighting for equality. Ya know, like the rights that everyone else has. Marriage and military service and etc.

I'm a heterosexual, white male Republican and I know that, so there's no excuse for not knowing it.

But I detect a whiff of satire in the whole post, The Alma Mater. I think you're messing around with everyone. Granted, I'm new, so maybe I'm wrong.

:p
read the OP again and add a bit of anger to it.

I don't want to be angry on here, though, Ashmoria. I'm not entirely familiar with the board rules as yet and I'd prefer to be on the politer side for the time being.

Especially if someone mis-argued and said something different than what they meant, which is prone to happen in longer, more complex debates.

I have a friend who makes 6 figures a year making sure that instruction manuals for airplane pilots actually say what they are meant to say. It's called Human Factors.

I'm not joking. It's true.

I'm a heterosexual, white male Republican and I know that, so there's no excuse for not knowing it.


Stay here long enough, and one of those will change. republicans become Libertarians, Men become women, and I am sure there is at least one case somewhere of a change of race.

Stay here long enough, and one of those will change. republicans become Libertarians, Men become women, and I am sure there is at least one case somewhere of a change of race.

I used to be Aborigine

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

I don't want to be angry on here, though, Ashmoria. I'm not entirely familiar with the board rules as yet and I'd prefer to be on the politer side for the time being.

Especially if someone mis-argued and said something different than what they meant, which is prone to happen in longer, more complex debates.

I have a friend who makes 6 figures a year making sure that instruction manuals for airplane pilots actually say what they are meant to say. It's called Human Factors.

I'm not joking. It's true.
its a good job, qin

what i meant was that you had misread the OP. its pretty clear what he is asking.

I don't want to be angry on here, though, Ashmoria. I'm not entirely familiar with the board rules as yet and I'd prefer to be on the politer side for the time being.

Especially if someone mis-argued and said something different than what they meant, which is prone to happen in longer, more complex debates.

I have a friend who makes 6 figures a year making sure that instruction manuals for airplane pilots actually say what they are meant to say. It's called Human Factors.

I'm not joking. It's true.

She was meaning add anger to the tone of the post.

So as a heterosexual white male republican do you have any problems with homosexuals (white male and otherwise) wanting to be allowed to love each other?

Stay here long enough, and one of those will change. republicans become Libertarians, Men become women, and I am sure there is at least one case somewhere of a change of race.

Do I still qualify as a Republican if I voted for Obama almost primarily because of his foreign policy vs. McCain's?

Cuz that's what happened. I'm mostly interested in global news.

And I will most certainly not become a Libertarian. I'm familiar with Ron Paul and the libertarian argument. I don't agree with any part of it. Not about the elimination of central banks, not about foreign policy, not about any of it.

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

I used to be Aborigine

My point is proven completely then.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

and we're off, the horse has left the gates.

Before I actually engage this, I just have one question. Which God?

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

So treating each other as human beings, with respect and dignity regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation is overrated?

She was meaning add anger to the tone of the post.

So as a heterosexual white male republican do you have any problems with homosexuals (white male and otherwise) wanting to be allowed to love each other?

I think people should have equal rights regardless of what set of genitalia they're turned on by. Marriage, armed services, all of it. If it makes a guy happy to be with another guy, who am I to say what's right for them?

Screw it, go for it. I say buona fortuna to them. Life is hard, and you gotta do what you can to eek out a little happiness.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.
caholics ARE a majority of christians

and i wouldnt say that he represents them. its not like if he says it all catholics believe it.

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.
thats odd. i love those words.

Do I still qualify as a Republican if I voted for Obama almost primarily because of his foreign policy vs. McCain's?

Cuz that's what happened. I'm mostly interested in global news.

And I will most certainly not become a Libertarian. I'm familiar with Ron Paul and the libertarian argument. I don't agree with any part of it. Not about the elimination of central banks, not about foreign policy, not about any of it.

Libertarian Economics = fail for sure. But Libertarian views on human rights I find quite agreeable.

As for political leanings, it is your own personal politics that decide what you are my freind. You can be a Republican and vote for a Democrat if you feel that the Democrat is a better candidate, it don't matter how you register or vote. I wish more people would think like you seem to though, you realize you can vote for anyone, not just the party you register for, or not someone who has a label such as 'republican' or 'democrat' put on them. This is totally outside the OP right now though.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians.

Over 50% of all Christians is Roman Catholic. Therefor the pope represents a majority of Christians.
If you wish to claim the Roman Catholics are not Christians, I fear you are outnumbered.

Second, marriage is for a man and a woman.

No, marriage traditionally is for a man with several underage girls. Thankfully we abandoned tradition a long time ago.

One of the main tenants of being Catholics is the infallibility of the pope which, in itself, separates Catholics and Christians. Catholicism abandoned Christianity 1000 years ago.

One of the main tenants of being Catholics is the infallibility of the pope which, in itself, separates Catholics and Christians. Catholicism abandoned Christianity 1000 years ago.
tsk tsk tsk

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

We don't have to condone them, but we certainly have no right to prevent them. If God doesn't want it to happen he'll just kill all the faggots, since it hasn't happened yet then I guess its all fine and dandy with him eh?

One of the main tenants of being Catholics is the infallibility of the pope which, in itself, separates Catholics and Christians. Catholicism abandoned Christianity 1000 years ago.
so there are like what? 10,000 TRUE christians inthe world. all of which go to your church?

I think people should have equal rights regardless of what set of genitalia they're turned on by. Marriage, armed services, all of it. If it makes a guy happy to be with another guy, who am I to say what's right for them?

Screw it, go for it. I say buona fortuna to them. Life is hard, and you gotta do what you can to eek out a little happiness.

Bingo! You're ok in my book.

One of the main tenants of being Catholics is the infallibility of the pope which, in itself, separates Catholics and Christians. Catholicism abandoned Christianity 1000 years ago.

Ehh actually, The Pope is only infallible when he comments on Church Doctrine, or when he's on the seat of St. Peter, I dunno which one it is, it may be both.

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

Larry Craig got arrested and pled guilty and then denied the charges and wants to change his plea.

How is he free to do whatever he wants? Who's even arguing that Larry Craig should be able to do that in an airport bathroom? Nobody. A straight person would be arrested for that kind of nonsense, too.

I assume you think the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of the separation of state and religion: The Bible institutes marriage whereas the Government dictates civil unions.

So then let me ask you this: If there is to be such a clear distinction between the governmental and religious, do you feel that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in schools? Do you feel that Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools? What's your view on abstinence education and its success in preventing teen pregnancy?

Please, sir. Thrall me with your acumen.

Ehh actually, The Pope is only infallible when he comments on Church Doctrine, or when he's on the seat of St. Peter, I dunno which one it is, it may be both.


Neither. No one is infallible, no matter where they are sitting. We are all human.. and we are all sinners, like it or not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VlRUIHwygc

ie we are all equal. I don't go for hailing a person cause he was ordained or whatever.. you are the same as me.

Larry Craig got arrested and pled guilty and then denied the charges and wants to change his plea.

How is he free to do whatever he wants? Who's even arguing that Larry Craig should be able to do that in an airport bathroom? Nobody. A straight person would be arrested for that kind of nonsense, too.

I assume you think the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of the separation of state and religion: The Bible institutes marriage whereas the Government dictates civil unions.

So then let me ask you this: If there is to be such a clear distinction between the governmental and religious, do you feel that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in schools? Do you feel that Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools? What's your view on abstinence education and its success in preventing teen pregnancy?

Please, sir. Thrall me with your acumen.

I like you, if you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll give you a glass of Mead. :)

Neither. No one is infallible, no matter where they are sitting. We are all human.. and we are all sinners, like it or not.

True, but I was going by Church Doctrine. I found that with certain people, if you don't quote the Bible or Dogma, they're not going to listen. Sometimes you have to speak their language.

I say buona fortuna to them.
Thank you. And a Merry Christmas to you!
Life is hard
Not as often as when I was younger :p

Good point about Larry Craig: He is charged with Indecently Propositioning for Sex, the same thing prostitutes get arrested for.

The charge was changed to Lude Behavior or some shit.

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

What exactly do you find so disagreeable about equality?

of all the things we need to be saved from isnt "the gay" pretty much the least of it?

supposing that we would ever agree with the notion that its wrong...

[Lewis Black]

Gay marriage? Really? On the list of things that we really need to worry about, gay marriage is on page six, right behind "are we eating too much garlic as a people".

[/Lewis Black]

:mad:

This topic is like racists back 60-70 years ago who were always talking about how not all black people are bad and how they have black friends.

"Yeah, homosexuality is disgusting and perverse but why not just allow them their privacy?"

They aren't fighting for privacy. They're fighting for equality. Ya know, like the rights that everyone else has. Marriage and military service and etc.

I'm a heterosexual, white male Republican and I know that, so there's no excuse for not knowing it.

But I detect a whiff of satire in the whole post, The Alma Mater. I think you're messing around with everyone. Granted, I'm new, so maybe I'm wrong.

:p

No offense, but I find it difficult to take anything you type after the bolded line seriously. 60-70 years ago would be 1939-1949. Civil rights movement was effectively a small fetus at the time. Nobody was trumpeting their Black friends loudly outside of the areas like large cities where it was possible to have Black friends. Grab a hold of some history and look harder.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

That's your opinion. Many disagree. The point is, what problem is it to you? Isn't the notion of freedom and equality meant to apply to everyone? If many don't subscribe to what your version of God is said to have meant in words not written by God, but by his most ardent fans, are they to be governed by rules that you agree with, but that they don't? Especially when what they want costs you nothing? Open your eyes. Then your mind.

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

You hate equality and tolerance. Noted.

I don't have to condone anything that you might get to do because of the laws and freedoms this nation grants, but I've no reason to stop you from doing them, have I? So long as what you're doing doesn't impinge on my rights in any way, you're free to do whatever you like within the bounds of law.

I ask again (because I never get a satisfactory answer), how are YOU harmed by two people looking to get the same marriage benefits you take for granted?

I can answer it for you: YOU AREN'T. Case closed.

Larry Craig got arrested and pled guilty and then denied the charges and wants to change his plea.

How is he free to do whatever he wants? Who's even arguing that Larry Craig should be able to do that in an airport bathroom? Nobody. A straight person would be arrested for that kind of nonsense, too.

I assume you think the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of the separation of state and religion: The Bible institutes marriage whereas the Government dictates civil unions.

So then let me ask you this: If there is to be such a clear distinction between the governmental and religious, do you feel that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in schools? Do you feel that Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools? What's your view on abstinence education and its success in preventing teen pregnancy?

Please, sir. Thrall me with your acumen.

Marriage was around long before the Bible, but do go on.

I ask again (because I never get a satisfactory answer), how are YOU harmed by two people looking to get the same marriage benefits you take for granted?

I can answer it for you: YOU AREN'T. Case closed.

But its endangering family values! :rolleyes:

Marriage was around long before the Bible, but do go on.

No no, he is making the argument that United Anacreon thinks that...

I like when I get a general time frame wrong and the whole of my argument gets dismissed.

I used to work for a newspaper and we screwed up a paper about why Che Guevara shouldn't have his image on tshirts because he was a psychopath.

It was a really good article, but instead of putting his first name as "Ernesto" we put "Eduardo". And we received several letters to the editor bashing the columnist for being stupid and not knowing what she was talking about because she got his first name wrong.

That despite the fact that it was otherwise a really good article and she knew exactly what she was talking about and if people had read it they might be convinced or at least swayed by it.

Kind of sad, really.

True, but I was going by Church Doctrine. I found that with certain people, if you don't quote the Bible or Dogma, they're not going to listen. Sometimes you have to speak their language.

No beef =)

vid! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_1RqyNdzbE

No no, he is making the argument that United Anacreon thinks that...

Oops. RETRACTED. Good call. I read the post and missed a colon. Thank you for the help.

Where is the mandatory 50 Phelps Post?

I like when I get a general time frame wrong and the whole of my argument gets dismissed.

I used to work for a newspaper and we screwed up a paper about why Che Guevara shouldn't have his image on tshirts because he was a psychopath.

It was a really good article, but instead of putting his first name as "Ernesto" we put "Eduardo". And we received several letters to the editor bashing the columnist for being stupid and not knowing what she was talking about because she got his first name wrong.

That despite the fact that it was otherwise a really good article and she knew exactly what she was talking about and if people had read it they might be convinced or at least swayed by it.

Kind of sad, really.

Yes. Very sad. Sad that you think a misspelling or mis-remembering of a name is in any way the same as saying that race relations were, in the 30s and 40s, the way that they are now ("I have Black friends, I can't be racist" started in the 70s and continues to this day). I'd never have written in about Ernesto vs. Eduardo because I don't give a shit. However, you're basing an entire argument around a gross misperception of time. That needs comment. Sorry. I did say "no offense".

Yes. Very sad. Sad that you think a misspelling or mis-remembering of a name is in any way the same as saying that race relations were, in the 30s and 40s, the way that they are now ("I have Black friends, I can't be racist" started in the 70s and continues to this day). I'd never have written in about Ernesto vs. Eduardo because I don't give a shit. However, you're basing an entire argument around a gross misperception of time. That needs comment. Sorry. I did say "no offense".

I'm not offended. I didn't mean that you are sad.

It's sad that you can lose an otherwise good argument so easily. But it's the way it should be. Details are important. Any writer will tell you that. If you screw up on even just a minor detail your whole big picture can get lost.

Writing is a lot like working in a sewer. When you do it right no one knows what you're doing, but when you do it wrong everything's full of shit.

Catholic Church says ignorant and homophobic things. Also, water is wet.

I'm not offended. I didn't mean that you are sad.

It's sad that you can lose an otherwise good argument so easily. But it's the way it should be. Details are important. Any writer will tell you that. If you screw up on even just a minor detail your whole big picture can get lost.

Writing is a lot like working in a sewer. When you do it right no one knows what you're doing, but when you do it wrong everything's full of shit.

Your post was still worthwhile, as it succinctly presents the "what's the problem with it" argument in an equality context. I applaud you.

Details are important.
Details are irrelevant, the big picture is the only thing that matters. :p



The solution I propose for gay marriage issue is removing the concept of marriage from legalese altogether and replacing the concept with, for example, unions instead.

That way religions could stick to their definition of marriage and let others enjoy full benefits of being united.

Details are irrelevant, the big picture is the only thing that matters. :p



The solution I propose for gay marriage issue is removing the concept of marriage from legalese altogether and replacing the concept with, for example, unions instead.

That way religions could stick to their definition of marriage and let others enjoy full benefits of being united.

I like my idea of removing religion instead.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

Yeah...you see, equal protections and equal rights tends to mean we have the same institutions, and sorry to say, but marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT, not just a religious ceremony. Even if it was, no ONE religious group has a monopoly on something like marriage, that's part of the constitution stating that no one religion shall take precidence over any other. :P

I really hate those words... Equality, and Tolerance. It's enough that we Tolerate, we don't have to condone gay marriages. Schools have no right to teach or talk about marriage, and Larry Craig has every right to do what he wants. Tolerance is too overrated.

Yes, tolerance IS overrated, seeing as though queers and their allies tolerate opinions contrary to them even though those said opposing opinions typically take on the role of removing our rights and trying to make our actions criminal.
Tolerance is overrated in your book, so should we just start killing those we disagree with? Because I could totally go for that...don't think there are enough conservatives around to stop us all.
Also, your arguments about schools and Larry Craig are completely made of fail, as schools don't talk about marriage at all, and Larry Craig's actions are illegal no matter what gender and sexual orientation the parties are.

I like my idea of removing religion instead.

Winner, you give the word and I'll help.

I like my idea of removing religion instead.
People need their opium....

Besides, I find it kinda cool - in Abrahamic religions - that contrary to any measurable evidence and logic people are still willing to believe in omnipotent benevolent creator and everlasting life because someone tells them to and convince them that they need to believe in order to be happy.

Overall, I think more people are happier with their delusions than without them...After all, similar mechanic of lying to yourself makes economy, democracy and ultimately the whole society function.

Marriage, religion, money....People don't really need them, they just think they do :p

People need their opium....

Besides, I find it kinda cool - in Abrahamic religions - that contrary to any measurable evidence and logic people are still willing to believe in omnipotent benevolent creator and everlasting life because someone tells them to and convince them that they need to believe in order to be happy.

Overall, I think more people are happier with their delusions than without them...After all, similar mechanic of lying to yourself makes economy, democracy and ultimately the whole society function.

Marriage, religion, money....People don't really need them, they just think they do :p

The only thing that elevates religion above humanity's other terrible creations is that it inspired epic amounts of awesome art on all sides.

And that, my friends, is the main reason I would hesitate to get rid of it. That and I need it to will the eternal reccurance of the same.

People need their opium....

Besides, I find it kinda cool - in Abrahamic religions - that contrary to any measurable evidence and logic people are still willing to believe in omnipotent benevolent creator and everlasting life because someone tells them to and convince them that they need to believe in order to be happy.

Overall, I think more people are happier with their delusions than without them...After all, similar mechanic of lying to yourself makes economy, democracy and ultimately the whole society function.

Marriage, religion, money....People don't really need them, they just think they do :p

Truth.

I find it both funny (and sad) that people still cling to the idea that the USA is a "Christian" nation.

Weren't most of the founding fathers at least Agnostic, Deist, or Atheist?

I find it both funny (and sad) that people still cling to the idea that the USA is a "Christian" nation.

Weren't most of the founding fathers at least Agnostic, Deist, or Atheist?

Yes.


No one informed clings to this notion.

Yes.


No one informed clings to this notion.

You would think that if it was a Christian Nation, we wouldn't have the separation of Church and state.

You would think that if it was a Christian Nation, we wouldn't have the separation of Church and state.

Or things like the quote in my sig. Or the Constitution might mention God, or...


I could go on and on. Like I said, no one informed thinks we were founded as a "Christian Nation".

Wow, you guys are hilariously serious. Satire is all the more hilarious when it angers people.

So treating each other as human beings, with respect and dignity regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation is overrated?

Yeah, and so is Subway Sandwiches and quite possibly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but lets not get into that.

Yes, tolerance IS overrated, seeing as though queers and their allies tolerate opinions contrary to them even though those said opposing opinions typically take on the role of removing our rights and trying to make our actions criminal.
Tolerance is overrated in your book, so should we just start killing those we disagree with? Because I could totally go for that...don't think there are enough conservatives around to stop us all.
Also, your arguments about schools and Larry Craig are completely made of fail, as schools don't talk about marriage at all, and Larry Craig's actions are illegal no matter what gender and sexual orientation the parties are.

Yes Sir, but i'm afraid i had too much bathroom sex.

Larry Craig got arrested and pled guilty and then denied the charges and wants to change his plea.

How is he free to do whatever he wants? Who's even arguing that Larry Craig should be able to do that in an airport bathroom? Nobody. A straight person would be arrested for that kind of nonsense, too.

I assume you think the difference between a marriage and a civil union is one of the separation of state and religion: The Bible institutes marriage whereas the Government dictates civil unions.

So then let me ask you this: If there is to be such a clear distinction between the governmental and religious, do you feel that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in schools? Do you feel that Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools? What's your view on abstinence education and its success in preventing teen pregnancy?

Please, sir. Thrall me with your acumen.

Ten Commandments should be there, Show me where it says "separation of church and state" in those exact words in the constitution. Plus, I am against Abstinence Sex ED, I actually believe in teaching masturbation as I believe it will help. I personally am against Intelligent Design.

Ten Commandments should be there, Show me where it says "separation of church and state" in those exact words in the constitution. Plus, I am against Abstinence Sex ED, I actually believe in teaching masturbation as I believe it will help. I personally am against Intelligent Design.

I'm surprised by the latter part of this, but unsurprised by the separation of church and state view. As regards finding it in the Constitution, give me a break. We both know it's not there. Neither is the right to privacy, just so you're aware.

But it's a logical fallacy that you're committing in your argument. It's called reaffirming the consequent.

Essentially you're saying that only what is specifically in the constitution is valid, but there is no specific clause in the constitution for separation of church and state. Therefore, the separation of church and state is invalid.

With your logic I could invalidate all kinds of rights you currently enjoy. But I suspect that only the things you don't like have to be specifically specified in the Constitution. I doubt the things you like have to meet that test.

:rolleyes:

Damn me for being too serious. Look at my NS nation and tell me I'm religious.

Someone mentioned that homosexuality should not be mentioned in schools. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is mentioned in schools every day by the very people you are trying to protect. The only thing is, that the kids are speaking about it in a very negative and misnformed way, which leads to bullying and demoralisation of all those kids who 'know' or 'suspect' they may be gay themselves. It also gives out the message that it is okay to discriminate.

When I was a kid at school, I knew I was gay but I hid it because I saw how all the other kids picked on one brave/foolish individual who was open about his sexuality. However, teachers were forbidden to talk about homosexuality, so it 'appeared' that they supported the bullying that went on. They simply turned a blind eye to it, as they really could not get involved in the whole 'gay topic' by law.

I think it is disgusting that people are still under the disillusion that 'not talking about it' will make 'it' go away. This is so far from the truth that it is almost laughable, and it would be if it were not for the fact that there are kids out there who do not understand what is 'wrong' with them and why they cannot recieve help or understanding from their peers.
The truth is, there is nothing 'wrong' with these kids. The only thing wrong is the way they are percieved and denied any form of education which is relevant to their sexuality. This means that the majority of gay kids are actually at risk of suffering from long-term trauma, suicide, abuse.... all because people dont want to talk about it. And before people ask for evidence for risk of trauma, suicide and abuse in gay kids... I have no evidence because people dont talk about it. However, I do have my life experiences which are all I can offer.

Its like people are 'protecting' the hetero kids by putting the 'gay kids' in harms way. No wonder gays are stereotyped as permiscuous and with a lack of respect for themselves. After all, we are treated like second-class citizens throughout life and it is lawful to discriminate against us, apparantly.

*takes a chill pill*

Now, where was I? Oh yes... ranting.
To all the people that want to cling to the "But the bible says..." argument..... I reply with "poppycock and balderdash". Yes, thats right! Poppycock AND Balderdash! I learned those words from a talking snake.

Hmm, the chill pill seems to be working now. Ooh, pretty colours. *slump*

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.


At the risk of seeming unnecessarily pedantic, I believe that the phrase you're looking for is 'representative of a plurality of Christians'. Catholics are the largest single Christian denomination, but not a majority.

Perhaps a majority of Christians belong to churches with officially homophobic views - though I can't provide figures - but that's not quite the same thing.

Apologies if this does seem pedantic, but it's a version of what I term the 'Pinochet fallacy'* - that by inserting a misleading or incorrect statistic, you potentially undermine the central core of your argument by allowing those who disagree to call you up on a tangential error.



*More specifically, that those who opposed Pinochet's takeover of Chile (which includes me) often - correctly - argued that Allende was democratically elected, but also thereby implied - incorrectly - that Allende was elected by a majority rather than a bare plurality, and that he enjoyed widespread majority support, thereby vastly oversimplifying the pre-coup political situation in Chile.

Catholic Church says ignorant and homophobic things. Also, water is wet.

News at 11!

News at 11!

That's "Moscow in flames, missiles headed towards New York, news at 11!"

That's "Moscow in flames, missiles headed towards New York, news at 11!"

Actually 11:30, they always talk about the unimportant crap first so that they get ratings and can sell more commercial spots.

I find it very disgustingly inhumane to punish a person because they have a different sexual orientation than your own - also - not being able to say something akin to "We believe that homosexuality shouldn't be criminalised says a helluva lot about a government.

Tyranny by majority isn't right...
=[

I don't want to be angry on here, though, Ashmoria. I'm not entirely familiar with the board rules as yet and I'd prefer to be on the politer side for the time being.

Especially if someone mis-argued and said something different than what they meant, which is prone to happen in longer, more complex debates.

I have a friend who makes 6 figures a year making sure that instruction manuals for airplane pilots actually say what they are meant to say. It's called Human Factors.

I'm not joking. It's true.

Fuck it man, its the Pope. Go in with the studs raised.

At the risk of seeming unnecessarily pedantic, I believe that the phrase you're looking for is 'representative of a plurality of Christians'. Catholics are the largest single Christian denomination, but not a majority.

According to the figures I have seen, the Roman Catholics have slightly over 50%. That makes them a majority ;)
However, those figures date back to the 90s. Do you have something more up to date ?

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages,

An effort consistent with the language of Prop 8.


that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality,

No good reasons to do so.

the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

The Pope is not swayed by PC notions that hold sway in some quarters.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?

If all "they" wanted was "their privacy," there would be little problem. If "they" were content to "love each other" behind closed doors, there would be little problem. The problem is, "they" don't want "privacy", but coerced societal approval and proclamations that "they" and all of their activities and relationships are, and should be, indistinguishable from heterosexual activities and relationships.

The question itself reflects another aspect of the problem. The focus is not, and should not be, on the selfish desires of any two individuals and what does or does not make them "happy." Some things are more important that the narcisism of certain individuals and dissatisfied groups. Like the fundamental structuring of society. Or the right of voters to have a say in that structuring, without the judicial branch depiving them of that say by formulating hitherto unknown "fundamental rights."

Well, it goes to show that Benedict is a disappointment when it comes to equal rights for people of different orientations compared to the last pope. I hope the next pope will chose to take a different stance.

The pope has the canon law of the Roman Catholic church to uphold. His personal views mean nothing when it comes to the stance the church takes. In this case, I refer you to canticle 2375 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here is the excerpt proving this point:

"...Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."


You see, the papacy is not a political position, or even a position that is waned by the wants of the people. It is that of a leader of a church of God, the church of St. Peter, the one Jesus Christ Himself created. It is to that church that the pope (whoever he is) owes his tireless devotion and utmost protection.

The question itself reflects another aspect of the problem. The focus is not, and should not be, on the selfish desires of any two individuals and what does or does not make them "happy." Some things are more important that the narcisism of certain individuals and dissatisfied groups. Like the fundamental structuring of society. Or the right of voters to have a say in that structuring, without the judicial branch depiving them of that say by formulating hitherto unknown "fundamental rights."

Nonsensical reasoning. Following that, women and blacks should not have been given rights. The non-aristocracy should not have been given rights. The USA should not have been allowed to rebel against England. Computers, electricity and hell - every piece of machinery should be outlawed.

And hey - even Christianity should not be allowed to exist. Back to pre-Christian times, this change of society is wrong !

The idea that "the fundamental structure of society" should not be allowed to change is bollocks.
Aside from which, several countries do not discriminate against homosexuals. Their societies have not collapsed.

I find it both funny (and sad) that people still cling to the idea that the USA is a "Christian" nation.

Weren't most of the founding fathers at least Agnostic, Deist, or Atheist?

No, that isn't the truth at all.....although I'm sure many are taught that.
It was Thomas Jefferson himself who said that you should question your religion; not in a way to cast dispersion, rather to get to embrace it, and your true beliefs as well.

I wish all those religious people would stop trying to impress their lifestyle on me through lobbying for laws and brainwashing (commonly called 'religious education' at schools and/or 'divine service' at their indoctrination camps aka churches).
The bible is all about love and do no harm and stuff (except for the few chapters that deal with adulteration, homicide, plagues and similar niceties).. so how can honest christians justify harming me through their treacherous methods?

I love whom I love, and this person happens to be the same gender as I am. It's nothing I can change, and even if I'd be able to bear living together with someone of the opposite sex, I would have to deny a crucial part of my identity, of my life. This is not going to happen.

The media keep on mixing up several demands and issues of homosexuals, oftentimes deliberately destroying context to get better headlines - and it seems to work, even if the side effect is that they're playing into the hands of homophobes and other intolerant (mostly religious) people.

I know I am not entitled to speak for all homokind, but those gays that I know, we do not demand full equality in religious issues, but we demand equality in law issues. Keep marriages in church to those heteros "as god demanded", but let homosexuals marry by law to get the same duties and rights as mixed couples get.
Even in most of the states where such a thing as a "gay marriage" is present, it bars us from many legal rights like inheritance progression, tax levels, child adoption, healthcare issues (guardian duty on physical or mental disability of the partner), and many more. These issues are far more important to be resolved than being officially recognized equal by some weird infallible guy in Rome.

Nonsensical reasoning. Fowllowing that, women and blacks should not have been given rights. The non-aristocracy should not have been given rights. The USA should not have been allowed to rebel against England. Computers and electricity should be outlawed.

The idea that "the fundamental structure of society" is not allowed to change is bollocks.

No, the idea that "the fundamental structure of society" is changed without the consent of the people is "bollocks."

And please, the women/blacks analogy is both tired and inapt. Women were given the vote by constitutional amendment, approved by votes of the people. Blacks acquired their rights in the North by virtue of escaping to or being born or freed there, and in the South by virtue of the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments, the latter again approved by votes of the peopls. Blacks were never generally deprived of rights throughout the US. Miscegenation laws in particular were never universal in the US, and were contrary to, or at the least not prescribed by, virtually every religious and moral code (outside the South at least), as well as biological reality. The same cannot be said for laws defining marriage as man+woman.

As for the "non-aristocracy", US independence and the invention of computers, all I can say is such analogies are far-fetched at best and have little to do with voters' rights or judicial overreach.

I wish all those religious people would stop trying to impress their lifestyle on me through lobbying for laws and brainwashing (commonly called 'religious education' at schools and/or 'divine service' at their indoctrination camps aka churches).
The bible is all about love and do no harm and stuff (except for the few chapters that deal with adulteration, homicide, plagues and similar niceties).. so how can honest christians justify harming me through their treacherous methods?

I love whom I love, and this person happens to be the same gender as I am. It's nothing I can change, and even if I'd be able to bear living together with someone of the opposite sex, I would have to deny a crucial part of my identity, of my life. This is not going to happen.

The media keep on mixing up several demands and issues of homosexuals, oftentimes deliberately destroying context to get better headlines - and it seems to work, even if the side effect is that they're playing into the hands of homophobes and other intolerant (mostly religious) people.

I know I am not entitled to speak for all homokind, but those gays that I know, we do not demand full equality in religious issues, but we demand equality in law issues. Keep marriages in church to those heteros "as god demanded", but let homosexuals marry by law to get the same duties and rights as mixed couples get.
Even in most of the states where such a thing as a "gay marriage" is present, it bars us from many legal rights like inheritance progression, tax levels, child adoption, healthcare issues (guardian duty on physical or mental disability of the partner), and many more. These issues are far more important to be resolved than being officially recognized equal by some weird infallible guy in Rome.

I refer you to CCC #2357. However it seems like many in today's society have to attempt to put down people who follow a rule of law, rather than make the tougher choice of following it themselves. That "weird infallable guy in Rome" was put there by God, not by choice.

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?

As long as Catholic teachings do not become law (in other words, Prop H8 needs to go), can't we leave the Church alone to teach what it wants to teach? It amazes me that "progressive" people want to be free to screw whatever they want while citing privacy concerns, but if a religious group has beliefs they deem offensive, they want to destroy the religious group.

I don't mean kill them, that's not what you want (or not what you'll admit you want)--what you want instead is to water them down so much they really don't exist anymore as a distinct social group. Muslims and Catholics seem to be the favorite whipping boys of late. You know, they're not obligated to change their beliefs for you any more than you are for them.

As long as Catholic teachings do not become law (in other words, Prop H8 needs to go), can't we leave the Church alone to teach what it wants to teach? It amazes me that "progressive" people want to be free to screw whatever they want while citing privacy concerns, but if a religious group has beliefs they deem offensive, they want to destroy the religious group.

I don't mean kill them, that's not what you want (or not what you'll admit you want)--what you want instead is to water them down so much they really don't exist anymore as a distinct social group. Muslims and Catholics seem to be the favorite whipping boys of late. You know, they're not obligated to change their beliefs for you any more than you are for them.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

No, the idea that "the fundamental structure of society" is changed without the consent of the people is "bollocks."

And please, the women/blacks analogy is both tired and inapt. Women were given the vote by constitutional amendment, approved by votes of the people. Blacks acquired their rights in the North by virtue of escaping to or being born or freed there, and in the South by virtue of the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments, the latter again approved by votes of the peopls. Blacks were never generally deprived of rights throughout the US. Miscegenation laws in particular were never universal in the US, and were contrary to, or at the least not prescribed by, virtually every religious and moral code (outside the South at least), as well as biological reality. The same cannot be said for laws defining marriage as man+woman.

As for the "non-aristocracy", US independence and the invention of computers, all I can say is such analogies are far-fetched at best and have little to do with voters' rights or judicial overreach.

Women had to fight tooth and nail to even get that amendment considered, and many went to jail, if not for voting illegally then for protesting. And then we had to fight some more to gain the right to own property, the right not to BE property (once upon a time marriage laws made us that way), the right to work, the right to have children or to choose not to have children, the right to retain custody of children, and we're still fighting for the right to equal pay for equal work and experience. When male kindergarten teachers make more than female do even though they are far outnumbered, there is something wrong with the way we do things in this country.

Please do not presume to speak for the black experience and how much they've been oppressed. It's obvious merely from what you've written here that you need to learn a lot more about that than you have.

At least gay people know where they stand, or did until recently (marriage laws are no longer universal on that point, if you count civil unions as marriage), whereas as a black or a woman you might have had rights, in the past, almost equal to those of a white man in one state and then be sold into slavery or deprived of your property and children in the next. If you think that's somehow a superior existence to yours, you must be a white guy.

Yep, I went there. Am beyond tired of the white guy whining. What's next after we secure equal rights for gay men (let's face it, you don't care about lesbians)--are you going to decide you're oppressed 'cause women expect you to bathe more than once a week?

Couldn't have said it better myself!

And I'm neither Catholic (though born into a Catholic family) nor Muslim (despite my chosen name here). In fact I have identified as progressive for most of my adult life. I think I tend more toward anarchism now. But I see religion as the modern version of tribal culture, and I see efforts to water down religious teachings as the modern equivalent of killing off indigenous tribes via conversion to Christianity or Islam or any number of other things. If progressives think it's wrong to destroy indigenous culture then they need to leave religious culture alone too. I am all for keeping the state secular, so that people of diverse faiths can live alongside one another in peace. I am not for forcing religious people to abandon their beliefs, which will not achieve the same goal.

Personally I think we should define all state "marriages" as civil unions regardless of the genders involved, strip religious leaders of their ability to perform legally binding marriages and let religions define marriage however which way they will, that way everybody's happy. At least in theory. Catholics have already historically done something like this in the U.S., whereas they didn't recognize state marriages as valid unless they were performed within the auspices of the Church with a priest officiating. I believe it is the same among Muslims, only insert "imam" for "priest" and "mosque" or "masjid" for "church."

The beauty of the Constitution is how vague it is. That's why when it says nothing about the right to privacy our Courts can read that in it and no one can argue. Its a very mutable document. Which is also the reason it has only ever been amended, never changed. Some countries (Italy, I'm looking at you) go through Constitutions like you and I do toilet paper - and each of theirs is about as useful.

This also plays into the US's amazing ability to change. I know a lot of people complain about how slow the government works, but that's not a bad thing, and when it does work it usually gets the job done. And let me stress something here - CHANGE IS ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY. Did I say that loud enough? Let me stress it again - CHANGE = DEMOCRACY. Do you get the point?

The world is a constantly changing place. Who could have imagined the cell phone or laptop or internet or anything we have today 50 years ago? Thus, government is in place to create laws that address this change. So when an issue comes along like gay marriage, government will address it. And I know we all want the change to come immediately, but look at how long it took blacks to get rights - and we can see their difference. It might not be a pretty or an easy process, but gays aren't going away. It'll come eventually, we just need to educate and create more and more advocates for change.

And what is change? Mhm.

First, the pope represents Catholics, not a majority of Christians. Second, marriage is for a man and a woman. As for civil unions and equal protection I am all for it. I have no problem with anyone being gay and I think all people should be afforded equal rights but marriage is before God and He is pretty clear on the man and woman thing.

Actually the two statements are synonymous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

As you can see, Catholics make up a majority of Christians worldwide. Therefore, if the pope represents all Catholics, he represents a majority of Christians.

Now that isn't to say he represents ALL Christians.

Women were given the vote by constitutional amendment, approved by votes of the people.

Uh, I was unaware that constitutional amendments were sent directly to the people.

Uh, I was unaware that constitutional amendments were sent directly to the people.

"An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, before it can come into effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Special_requirements_in_federations

I'm not entirely sure, but I'd imagine the constitutional conventions specially elected in each state could be handled by a popular vote within the state. However, the 19th Amendment in particular was put before the House and Senate and then ratified by the state legislatures, meaning New Mit is incorrect.

"An amendment to the United States Constitution must be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, before it can come into effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Special_requirements_in_federations

I'm not entirely sure, but I'd imagine the constitutional conventions specially elected in each state could be handled by a popular vote within the state. However, the 19th Amendment in particular was put before the House and Senate and then ratified by the state legislatures, meaning New Mit is incorrect.

Oops. Consider that statement inoperative.

What I intended was that the people, by virtue of electing their state representatives, approved of the amendment. So indirectly, rather than directly, the people did vote on the amendment. The point remains that the people had a say in the matter through voting.

Blacks were never generally deprived of rights throughout the US.

Wait, WHAT?

Women had to fight tooth and nail to even get that amendment considered, and many went to jail, if not for voting illegally then for protesting.

The point remains that the democratic process provided for getting that amendment considered and ultimately ratified.


we're still fighting for the right to equal pay for equal work and experience. When male kindergarten teachers make more than female do even though they are far outnumbered, there is something wrong with the way we do things in this country.

Identical pay for identical work is presently the law. If it's not being enforced, that's a problem.

Please do not presume to speak for the black experience and how much they've been oppressed. It's obvious merely from what you've written here that you need to learn a lot more about that than you have.

Please do not presume to lecture me on what I need to learn or how "it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand." One need not be black to comment on historical developments affecting blacks.

At least gay people know where they stand, or did until recently (marriage laws are no longer universal on that point, if you count civil unions as marriage),

If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I favor invalidating so-called "civil unions" as well. Hopefully, once Prop 8 is finalized into constitutional authority, it will provide the basis for doing so. Any individuals who seek inheritance, visitation or similar rights afforded legitimately married couples can do so via contract.

whereas as a black or a woman you might have had rights, in the past, almost equal to those of a white man in one state and then be sold into slavery or deprived of your property and children in the next.

News flash: the Civil War ended in 1865, along with slavery.

If you think that's somehow a superior existence to yours, you must be a white guy.

"Say it loud, I'm white and I'm proud."

I don't recall making any such assertion about a "superior existence." Nice try. And your playing the race card does little to advance your position.

Yep, I went there. Am beyond tired of the white guy whining.

I am tired of seeing "white guy" used as a slur.

What's next after we secure equal rights for gay men

A large assumption on your part.

(let's face it, you don't care about lesbians)

Really? On what basis do make that assertion? I have certainly never made such a distinction.

--are you going to decide you're oppressed 'cause women expect you to bathe more than once a week?

And now the typical attempted put-down. Well, I refuse to be flame-baited.

Oops. Consider that statement inoperative.

What I intended was that the people, by virtue of electing their state representatives, approved of the amendment. So indirectly, rather than directly, the people did vote on the amendment. The point remains that the people had a say in the matter through voting.

Hey, didn't people have a say through voting when the Cali SC found that gay marriage was permissible under their constitution? They elected Arnie, he appointed the judges, the judges made their findings, or whatever.

Ten Commandments should be there, Show me where it says "separation of church and state" in those exact words in the constitution. Plus, I am against Abstinence Sex ED, I actually believe in teaching masturbation as I believe it will help. I personally am against Intelligent Design.

Aricle VI, section 3.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Emphasis added. The framers didn't want religion to be a part of the qualification process for those serving government. No, the words "separation of church and state" aren't there verbatim, but that's close enough for me. Some states violate this on an ongoing basis, either directly or de facto.

I'm surprised by the latter part of this, but unsurprised by the separation of church and state view. As regards finding it in the Constitution, give me a break. We both know it's not there. Neither is the right to privacy, just so you're aware.

But it's a logical fallacy that you're committing in your argument. It's called reaffirming the consequent.

Essentially you're saying that only what is specifically in the constitution is valid, but there is no specific clause in the constitution for separation of church and state. Therefore, the separation of church and state is invalid.

With your logic I could invalidate all kinds of rights you currently enjoy. But I suspect that only the things you don't like have to be specifically specified in the Constitution. I doubt the things you like have to meet that test.

:rolleyes:

Bullseye! Well said.

An effort consistent with the language of Prop 8.

Which itself may prove to be unconstitutional.

No good reasons to do so.

In your opinion. Mine holds that extending rights and protecting them is far more Christlike than revoking or restricting them. Such is the problem with religious posturing on topics like this. One guy's God is always a bit different than the other's. That difference doesn't appear to be harming you or curtailing your rights at the moment, but when it does, will you feel the same way?

The Pope is not swayed by PC notions that hold sway in some quarters.

Sure he isn't. He is human, after all. Unless you're into the whole RoboPope conspiracy theory.

If all "they" wanted was "their privacy," there would be little problem. If "they" were content to "love each other" behind closed doors, there would be little problem. The problem is, "they" don't want "privacy", but coerced societal approval and proclamations that "they" and all of their activities and relationships are, and should be, indistinguishable from heterosexual activities and relationships.

So no holding hands on the street or other minor displays of affection in public? Y'know, you can imagine all you like that it's "coerced societal approval" all you want. But reality seems to disagree. Show me one protest sign that says "YOU MUST LIKE US!" You can't. Gay people, much like you, NM, do not give a shit if we like them. They merely want the rules to apply the same way to all citizens. As of now, they don't.

The question itself reflects another aspect of the problem. The focus is not, and should not be, on the selfish desires of any two individuals and what does or does not make them "happy."

Stop right there. "Selfish?" How about the "selfish" desires of the obnoxiously religious to never, EVER see or hear about something that makes them personally uncomfortable. Hell, remember John Ashcroft covering the nude statue of Justice? As Attorney General? Ridiculous. And so is the notion that you or anyone has the right to be protected from things that offend without doing harm. How exactly is love selfish?

Some things are more important that the narcisism of certain individuals and dissatisfied groups.

You're absolutely right here. However, that's not the topic. It isn't narcissism to want to kiss the one you love at the bus stop without fear of getting your head smashed in by someone using the Bible (or Qur'an, or name your book) as permission to do so. How is it narcissistic to want to grant and receive the right to make decisions for your loved one in cases of medical incapacity? What about the myriad of rights that married couples receive that would take forever and cost much more to be implemented by separate legal documents rather than a marriage license granted by the state, which is Constitutionally bound to exclude religion from its deliberations?

Like the fundamental structuring of society. Or the right of voters to have a say in that structuring, without the judicial branch depiving them of that say by formulating hitherto unknown "fundamental rights."

Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS precedent blows your "unknown" comment out of the water -- your refusal to acknowledge that notwithstanding. Again, denying one segment of the population a right or privilege granted to every other citizen of the age of majority is discrimination, pure and simple. I know you dislike the notion, but that doesn't make it false.

The pope has the canon law of the Roman Catholic church to uphold. His personal views mean nothing when it comes to the stance the church takes. In this case, I refer you to canticle 2375 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here is the excerpt proving this point:

"...Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complimentarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Wow. I knew the Church played fast and loose with reality sometimes, but that bolded bit is just plain silly. Where does it say, specifically that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered? It doesn't. That's an interpretation, as many canon law pronouncements are. That being the case, surely there's room for broader interpretations -- and to realize the fact that "sacred scripture" was written LONG AGO for people whose mindset was VASTLY DIFFERENT than those of even a thousand years later, let alone two thousand. Otherwise, why aren't any of the other Leviticus prohibitions in law? Gone to jail or been stoned to death for mixing fabrics lately?

You see, the papacy is not a political position, or even a position that is waned by the wants of the people. It is that of a leader of a church of God, the church of St. Peter, the one Jesus Christ Himself created. It is to that church that the pope (whoever he is) owes his tireless devotion and utmost protection.

Right. That's why Pope Pius XII remained diplomatically silent during Nazi atrocities (even in Catholic Poland), but spoke out vehemently against Communism and Stalin after the war.

Nonetheless, he did not utter "words of fire" in condemnation of Nazi abuses admitting as much as early as 1940, fearing his denunciation would make things worse. (10) Critics contrast this cautious conduct to his vocal crusade against Stalin's Soviet Union in the postwar period when he disdained silence. "Can, may the Pope be silent?," Pius asked the assembled crowd in St. Peter's Square in February 1949 adding "Can you imagine a successor to Peter who would bow to such demands?" The crowd shouted an unequivocal "No! (11) There followed a decree of 1 July. 1949, (Responsa ad dubia de communismo) excommunicating those who supported communism, a condemnation never before launched against adherents of Nazism or Fascism. (12) Some assumed this reflected the pope's view that Bolshevism posed a greater threat than Nazism, ignoring that the condemnation of Communism followed the end of the war, while during its course Pius had been "silent" about Bolshevik atrocities as well as those of the Nazis. Though it was illogical to discount the differences between the wartime period and the postwar one, the stark contrast between Pius XII's conduct during the Second World War and the Cold War contributed to the call for a re-evaluation of this pontiff.

Source (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3244/is_3_50/ai_n30972400/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1).

No, the idea that "the fundamental structure of society" is changed without the consent of the people is "bollocks."

Right. The people all consented to slavery. The people consented to miscegenation laws, etc., etc. The people were rarely, if ever, asked!

And please, the women/blacks analogy is both tired and inapt. Women were given the vote by constitutional amendment, approved by votes of the people.[/quote]

You must hate America to so willfully disregard both its history and the process of Constitutional Amendment. "The people" did not vote for the Emancipation Proclamation or 19th Amendment.

Blacks acquired their rights in the North by virtue of escaping to or being born or freed there,[/quote]

Except when they were returned. Or was Uncle Tom a complete fiction?

and in the South by virtue of the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments, the latter again approved by votes of the peopls.

How do you type this crap without laughing at yourself for being so amusingly incorrect? The Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation just *poof* magically allowed Blacks freedom from any kind of harassment or mistreatment? I think you need to tell that to descendants of sharecroppers. I'd love to see that conversation. Once more -- "the people" do not, and haven't ever, approved Amendments. This is why you'll always be considered a troll. An amusing one, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless.

Blacks were never generally deprived of rights throughout the US.

Uh...so all that business with "separate but equal" was just for fun?

Miscegenation laws in particular were never universal in the US,

Wait -- not being "universal" makes ANY of them okay? Wow. You are one hell of a moral gymnast. I thought you hated relativism?

and were contrary to, or at the least not prescribed by, virtually every religious and moral code (outside the South at least), as well as biological reality.

Not prescribed in public -- and CERTAINLY not OPPOSED in public.

The same cannot be said for laws defining marriage as man+woman.

You mean besides in-vitro fertilization (which God-ordained-sterile hetero couples use), and adoption? A loving home doesn't need opposing gender parents. It needs to raise children as free from conflict and stress as possible. Which is worse, sparring/abusive/absent hetero parents or loving/attentive/present homo parents? I know your answer, but I want to see you admit it "out loud".

As for the "non-aristocracy", US independence and the invention of computers, all I can say is such analogies are far-fetched at best and have little to do with voters' rights or judicial overreach.

That's all nice to say, but why? Just because you say so? Is it only "judicial overreach" when you disagree with the decision? There's debate, and there's autocratic pronouncements.

I refer you to CCC #2357. However it seems like many in today's society have to attempt to put down people who follow a rule of law, rather than make the tougher choice of following it themselves. That "weird infallable guy in Rome" was put there by God, not by choice.

Then what's with all the voting and white/black smoke out of the Vatican chimney? Nobody's putting down those who follow the rule of law -- honestly, you're a better debater than that, you shouldn't need to get maudlin on us. If the rule of law is incorrect, it must be examined and potentially revamped. If Prop 8 stands up to judicial review, then those in opposition will have to start their own campaign to repeal it or pass their own laws, which will also be subject to judicial review for constitutionality.

As long as Catholic teachings do not become law (in other words, Prop H8 needs to go), can't we leave the Church alone to teach what it wants to teach? It amazes me that "progressive" people want to be free to screw whatever they want while citing privacy concerns, but if a religious group has beliefs they deem offensive, they want to destroy the religious group.

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing some who demand that if a church violates the part of law that grants them tax-free status, that they should surrender that tax-free status or stop breaking the law.

I don't mean kill them, that's not what you want (or not what you'll admit you want)--what you want instead is to water them down so much they really don't exist anymore as a distinct social group. Muslims and Catholics seem to be the favorite whipping boys of late. You know, they're not obligated to change their beliefs for you any more than you are for them.

Wow. Persecution complex much? How about you let "us" tell you what "we" want on a case-by-case basis, rather than doing exactly what you accuse "us" of doing -- generalization and lumping everyone together. For MYSELF, I say that if churches want in on direct influence of political events, they should pay their admission like everyone else, via taxes. They're only tax-exempt because the law states they get that privilege by abstaining from direct support of political causes over and above prescribed amounts. Getting by those provisions by not documenting in-kind contributions and other indirect support (a church sends followers to CA to work for Prop 8 -- where did they stay, how did they travel, who paid for food, etc. -- this is all the same questions that get asked on Public Disclosure Commission forms, NOT some special church inquisition).

Uh, I was unaware that constitutional amendments were sent directly to the people.

So was I.

Hey, didn't people have a say through voting when the Cali SC found that gay marriage was permissible under their constitution? They elected Arnie, he appointed the judges, the judges made their findings, or whatever.

Or when they voted Sauron- er Obama into the White House?

:D

Hey, didn't people have a say through voting when the Cali SC found that gay marriage was permissible under their constitution? They elected Arnie, he appointed the judges, the judges made their findings, or whatever.

Don't confuse NM with the facts.

No, that isn't the truth at all.....although I'm sure many are taught that.
It was Thomas Jefferson himself who said that you should question your religion; not in a way to cast dispersion, rather to get to embrace it, and your true beliefs as well.

Yes, they were actually, and to say otherwise is utterly false. See my sig.

Wait, WHAT?

Hey now, dont argue with him, he's a lawyer.

Don't confuse NM with the facts.

Awwww, but I like to be right.

I'm fed up of all this will of the people rubbish being used to argue against gay rights. Screw the will of the people. Lets try that whole rule of law stuff instead and see how that turns out.

The question itself reflects another aspect of the problem. The focus is not, and should not be, on the selfish desires of any two individuals and what does or does not make them "happy."

This is hilarious. People like you talk about selfish, and then crusade to make sure that anything they find icky is shunned, degraded, or criminalized. You know whats more important then protecting you and your sensabilities from things that offend you? The law.

Some things are more important that the narcisism of certain individuals and dissatisfied groups.

Yeah, like equality under law. Again, this is hilarious. Who is the religious right, of all people, to talk about "the narcisism of certain individuals and dissatisfied groups"?

Like the fundamental structuring of society. Or the right of voters to have a say in that structuring, without the judicial branch depiving them of that say by formulating hitherto unknown "fundamental rights."

Here is whats awesome. The "will of the people" is irrelevent when it violates the law. And guess what? The founding fathers intended it to be that way.

I must say, despite all this New Mitanni, its refreshing to see you making actual arguements now as opposed to youre usual homophobic drive bys. Its a....pleasent?...change.

Oops. Consider that statement inoperative.

What I intended was that the people, by virtue of electing their state representatives, approved of the amendment. So indirectly, rather than directly, the people did vote on the amendment. The point remains that the people had a say in the matter through voting.

By that token, the Judges themselves were voted in, as they were appointed by governors who were elected by the people, and approved by legislators who were also elected by the people.

Meaning the California Supreme Court decision that ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional was the will of the people.

News flash: the Civil War ended in 1865, along with slavery.

News flash: It took another hundred years to bring down segregation. Second news flash: Using "news flash" doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look like a douche, and you don't need any help there.

Hey, didn't people have a say through voting when the Cali SC found that gay marriage was permissible under their constitution? They elected Arnie, he appointed the judges, the judges made their findings, or whatever.

Judges are not directly responsible to the people once in power. Their abuses of power can't easily be reversed, nor can they easily be removed from the bench once installed. State legislators and US representatives are directly responsible and can be removed.

Silly papists. Gotta say, the comparison between the danger of getting rid of the rainforests and the danger posed by "teh gay" is so ridiculous that when I first heard of this I initially had the story down as a joke or satire. To be that out of touch with reality...just wow. Benedict, the Hitler Youth evidently taught you well.

Still, I'm glad he got that whole 'men should act like men' 'women should act like women' thing in there along with assorted uninformed nonsense ramblings on gender roles. Us trannies were feeling very left out and ignored by recent ignorant hatespeak. Its good to know we haven't been forgotten.

I can't say I was especially surprised by il papa. He is the head of a major christian denomination, not a civil rights activist.

By that token, the Judges themselves were voted in, as they were appointed by governors who were elected by the people, and approved by legislators who were also elected by the people.

Meaning the California Supreme Court decision that ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional was the will of the people.

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

And the will of the people cannot violate the law.

I'm fed up of all this will of the people rubbish being used to argue against gay rights. Screw the will of the people. Lets try that whole rule of law stuff instead and see how that turns out.

The "rule of law" includes limiting the judicial branch to its legitimate scope.

No, the rule of law rules people, and the rule of law demands equal rights as STATED by the California Constitution.

Tyranny by majority shouldn't rule the people, but obviously you think differently.

The "rule of law" includes limiting the judicial branch to its legitimate scope.

Now if only people could agree how big the scope is. But they can't.

The "rule of law" includes limiting the judicial branch to its legitimate scope.

I dont think you understand the role of the courts. Their JOB is to strike down laws that violate the Consititution, the Law of the Land. Just because they strike down laws you like doesnt mean they are exceeding their role.

Judges are not directly responsible to the people once in power. Their abuses of power can't easily be reversed, nor can they easily be removed from the bench once installed. State legislators and US representatives are directly responsible and can be removed.

Nope. They're responsible to the law. Something I trust far more than any mob.

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

Wow, you're two for two here! You're right! They don't rule the people, they interpret law and set precedent.

The "rule of law" includes limiting the judicial branch to its legitimate scope.

Three out of three! And look! The judicial branch IS limited by the rule of law. Unless you can show otherwise.

Silly papists. Gotta say, the comparison between the danger of getting rid of the rainforests and the danger posed by "teh gay" is so ridiculous that when I first heard of this I initially had the story down as a joke or satire. To be that out of touch with reality...just wow. Benedict, the Hitler Youth evidently taught you well.

Still, I'm glad he got that whole 'men should act like men' 'women should act like women' thing in there along with assorted uninformed nonsense ramblings on gender roles. Us trannies were feeling very left out and ignored by recent ignorant hatespeak. Its good to know we haven't been forgotten.
yeah at least he acknowledges y'all's role in bringing down western society. it so much better than being ignored.

I dont think you understand the role of the courts. Their JOB is to strike down laws that violate the Consititution, the Law of the Land. Just because they strike down laws you like doesnt mean they are exceeding their role.

no no, don't you understand? It's the job of the court to agree with some guy who pretends to be a lawyer on the internet!

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

Constitutional democracy, Constitutional democracy, Constitutional democracy. Are you gone yet?

How about this: I'll collect however many signatures I need to for a proposition to strip you of the right to vote, in the "better interest of society", and that will be the will of the people. Sound like a deal?

no no, don't you understand? It's the job of the court to agree with some guy who pretends to be a lawyer on the internet!

My ignorance has been corrected. I see the light now *bows deeply*.


God, remember when athiests were the biggest threat to society? I really miss those days.

no no, don't you understand? It's the job of the court to agree with some guy who pretends to be a lawyer on the internet!

He is NOT. pretending. to be a lawyer. Is he? Tell me it isn't so. I've got illiterate five-year-old students who could make more sense of the constitution.

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

Wrong as usual. They overrule the will of the people when the will of the people runs contrary to the constitution. And when the people attempt to alter the constitution in a way that is farther reaching than the means they employ can allow, as is the case with Proposition 8, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to step in.

He is NOT. pretending. to be a lawyer. Is he? Tell me it isn't so. I've got illiterate five-year-old students who could make more sense of the constitution.

We should all be so lucky if he's pretending, imagine the pain and suffering if he was a real lawyer..

He is NOT. pretending. to be a lawyer. Is he? Tell me it isn't so. I've got illiterate five-year-old students who could make more sense of the constitution.

In an earlier thread he claimed to be a member of two state bars.

yeah at least he acknowledges y'all's role in bringing down western society. it so much better than being ignored.

For sure. People talk so much about the "gay agenda". But what about the "trans agenda"? We sneak into teaching positions and brainwash the boys with gender-bending nonsense into thinking that its ok to have emotions and the girls that there are alternatives to a homemaker role. Before you know it, the boys are wearing dresses and lipgloss, and the girls shaving their heads. And then the Western world collapses as we are defeated and sodomised by nations of 'real men'. All this evil and I think we deserve this little mention by the papist church.

We should all be so lucky if he's pretending, imagine the pain and suffering if he was a real lawyer..

Yes, the court room would probably suffer split sides and repetitive strain injury to the jaw from all that laughing....

... or is it just me? :D

See, I knew YOU of all people would understand my concerns Fennijer, now lets have hot gay sex and prove why we need equal rights to do nasty, perverted shit in public like the straights do.

See, I knew YOU of all people would understand my concerns Fennijer, now lets have hot gay sex and prove why we need equal rights to do nasty, perverted shit in public like the straights do.

Remind me once again, when I fucked a woman in public in front of hundreds of witnesses.

we know you didn't mean it, but you have to promise not to do it again, unless its on the roof of a tall building and is meant to cause a spectacle.

See, I knew YOU of all people would understand my concerns Fennijer, now lets have hot gay sex and prove why we need equal rights to do nasty, perverted shit in public like the straights do.

*gasp* I am British! I do not even hold hands in public.

......

.....

This could be one reason why I am single.

But seriously, I have never agreed with public displays of affection whether gay, straight or 'other'. I am not one for rubbing my homosexuality in other peoples faces, and I wish people would not rub their heterosexuality in my face.
Maybe I should rephrase that last sentence.

I think it would be appreciated if that last statement was rephrased, though at least you didn't say they were hanging around you while rubbing their heterosexuality in your face...

Wrong again. The will of the people was clearly expressed in the passage of Prop. 22. The will of the people was reaffirmed in the passage of Prop. 8.

Unelected judges don't rule the people.

It's "The Will of the People" when Props 22 and 8 get passed, but when they elect Barack "Sauron" Obama into office, you're screaming "FORT SUMTER!! FORT SUMTER!!"

How convenient.

It's "The Will of the People" when Props 22 and 8 get passed, but when they elect Barack "Sauron" Obama into office, you're screaming "FORT SUMTER!! FORT SUMTER!!"

How convenient.

Duh, the will of the people only matters when the do it the right way

It's "The Will of the People" when Props 22 and 8 get passed, but when they elect Barack "Sauron" Obama into office, you're screaming "FORT SUMTER!! FORT SUMTER!!"

How convenient.

Awesome.

No, the idea that "the fundamental structure of society" is changed without the consent of the people is "bollocks."

And please, the women/blacks analogy is both tired and inapt. Women were given the vote by constitutional amendment, approved by votes of the people. Blacks acquired their rights in the North by virtue of escaping to or being born or freed there, and in the South by virtue of the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments, the latter again approved by votes of the peopls. Blacks were never generally deprived of rights throughout the US. Miscegenation laws in particular were never universal in the US, and were contrary to, or at the least not prescribed by, virtually every religious and moral code (outside the South at least), as well as biological reality. The same cannot be said for laws defining marriage as man+woman.

As for the "non-aristocracy", US independence and the invention of computers, all I can say is such analogies are far-fetched at best and have little to do with voters' rights or judicial overreach.

Basic civics phail. Amendments to the US constitution are not approved by a vote of "the people" they must be ratified by lawmakers, not citizens.

Oh, and this is just a preemptive strike in case any Christians come on here and claim that Christianity is being persecuted by not banning gay marriage or outlawing homosexuality:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo134/unhealthytruthseeker/persecution.jpg?t=1230071024

Well, it goes to show that Benedict is a disappointment when it comes to equal rights for people of different orientations compared to the last pope. I hope the next pope will chose to take a different stance.

VHAT DID YOU EXPECT VIS ZEES POPE?
I mean, he also looks really scary.
Those eyes.
Eyeeeeeeees.
*fetal position*

Duh, the will of the people only matters when the do it the right way

America is a simple "one man, one vote" democracy. New Mitanni is the man, and he gets the vote. Everything else is an opinion poll.

For sure. People talk so much about the "gay agenda". But what about the "trans agenda"? We sneak into teaching positions and brainwash the boys with gender-bending nonsense into thinking that its ok to have emotions and the girls that there are alternatives to a homemaker role. Before you know it, the boys are wearing dresses and lipgloss, and the girls shaving their heads. And then the Western world collapses as we are defeated and sodomised by nations of 'real men'. All this evil and I think we deserve this little mention by the papist church.
big time. the pope is so very vigilant in his defense of humanity.

LIP GLOSS ON BOYS! for god's sake what could be more damaging?

i tear up at the thought of each and every dangerous one of you working so hard every day to send us all to hell. its an inspiration, i tells ya.

Wrong as usual. They overrule the will of the people when the will of the people runs contrary to the constitution. And when the people attempt to alter the constitution in a way that is farther reaching than the means they employ can allow, as is the case with Proposition 8, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to step in.

Four rogue justices were wrong on the issue and usurped the role of the people.

This is an excellent example of why voters nationwide need to amend their state constitutions: to prevent agenda-driven judges from manufacturing imaginary "rights".

Four rogue justices disagreed with me on the issue and usurped my opinion.

This is an excellent example of why voters nationwide need to amend their state constitutions: to prevent agenda-driven judges from doing their jobs.

Fixed.

Constitutional democracy, Constitutional democracy, Constitutional democracy. Are you gone yet?

How about this: I'll collect however many signatures I need to for a proposition to strip you of the right to vote, in the "better interest of society", and that will be the will of the people. Sound like a deal?

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution. A "right" to same-sex "marriage" is neither explicitly nor implicitly present, four foolish judges to the contrary notwithstanding.

As for collecting signatures, feel free.

Four rogue justices were wrong on the issue and usurped the role of the people.

This is an excellent example of why voters nationwide need to amend their state constitutions: to prevent agenda-driven judges from manufacturing imaginary "rights".

Fixed.

This. The fact that the ruling was contrary to your own agenda doesn't render the ruling invalid.

Four rogue justices were wrong on the issue and usurped the role of the people.

This is an excellent example of why voters nationwide need to amend their state constitutions: to prevent agenda-driven judges from manufacturing imaginary "rights".

It amuses me that Arnold Schwarzenegger, a republican, would appoint justices with such agendas. Evidently the people who elected him are foolish.

Oh, and they didn't manufacture the right of gays to marry, they declared a ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Very different thing, as I'm sure a law-talkin-guy like yourself can understand.
An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.
Is it?

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution. A "right" to "equality" is neither explicitly nor implicitly present, anyone else's opinion contrary notwithstanding.

As for collecting signatures, feel free.

Fixed again.

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution. A "right" to same-sex "marriage" is neither explicitly nor implicitly present, four foolish judges to the contrary notwithstanding.

As for collecting signatures, feel free.

Not true, actually.

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

What annoy's me is the blatant hypocrisy. Christianity is all about "love" "Peace" blah de blah blah, and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who's anti-gay that (if asked this first) will say he or she thinks equal rights for all are a bad thing. If you add that afterwards, they'll quickly change direction. Let's face it, this come down to Relgion V The Law/Rationalism/Humanism (I THINK that's it. The philosophy that often goes hand in hand with atheism) and relgion, as alway's retains it's trump card. What is up with these special rights for relgions? Wife beating is part of "Islamic culture" and we should "respect that." Let's change that. Wife beating is part of, let's say, a political party/movement. What's the difference? And yet, many would allow relgious wife-beating, but condem political wife-beating. I, for one, am advocating the end of religion

Wow, that was a rant and a half

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

There's a reason that when you lie and pretend to be a lawyer...we don't believe you.

Four rogue justices were wrong on the issue and usurped the role of the people.

This is an excellent example of why voters nationwide need to amend their state constitutions: to prevent agenda-driven judges from manufacturing imaginary "rights".

No rights were manufactured. A law was declared unconstitutional. If youre going to pretend to be a lawyer, you really should at the very least understand how this works.

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

Ah yes, member of two state bars...

A "right" to same-sex "marriage" is neither explicitly nor implicitly present, four foolish judges to the contrary notwithstanding.


Apperantly, they felt it was, and they are certianly not alone. And, given that many people who disagree with you are SC Judges, and you are...some guy on the internet (who doesnt even understand the difference between 'creating rights' and 'striking down unconstitutional laws') who do you think Im going to believe?

Ill give you a hint. Its the guys who actually were lawyers.

There's a reason that when you lie and pretend to be a lawyer...we don't believe you.

Hey Neo, shut up. Hes a lawyer. Who the fuck are you?


;)

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?

Look, everyone! Over there! The topic! Quick, don't let it get away!

And avoid the personal in your arguments. The post, not the poster, remember?

Look, everyone! Over there! The topic! Quick, don't let it get away!

*looks where the Mod is pointing and scampers after the topic with a butterfly net*

**chases after Fennijer with a slightly smaller net**
Have we proven yet that the Cali SC judges weren't wrong and that we don't need rescuing yet?

An individual's right to vote is explicitly set forth in the Constitution. A "right" to same-sex "marriage" is neither explicitly nor implicitly present, four foolish judges to the contrary notwithstanding.


Um. Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution?

Only the latter is relevant to the rightness or wrongness of In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf).

As to the former, your insistence on only "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 120 years of Supreme Court decisions.

The following examples of rights not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but nonetheless protected by it:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

No good reasons to do so.

And that would be your opinion since you approve of capital punishment for homosexuality as well as little things like extrajudicial executions of homosexuals, I guess. Not for homosexual acts, not for homosexual marriage, but simply for being a homosexual.

Nice.

The following examples of rights not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but nonetheless protected by it:

I may be mistaken, but doesn't it say somewhere in the US constitution rather specifically that the rights of the people are not limited to those set out in the constitution? It occurs to me that just because there isn't an explicit right for gays to marry that certainly doesn't mean that gays don't have the right to marry.

I may be mistaken, but doesn't it say somewhere in the US constitution rather specifically that the rights of the people are not limited to those set out in the constitution? It occurs to me that just because there isn't an explicit right for gays to marry that certainly doesn't mean that gays don't have the right to marry.

Yeppers. Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In addition to that, you have the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty--which includes fundamental, unenumerated rights.

EDIT: See also Griswold v. Connecticut (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=381&invol=479), 381 U.S. 479, 488, 491, 492 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring):

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.

The following examples of rights not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but nonetheless protected by it:
[list]
the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens

nuh uh, they're explicitly stated in the constitution, he said so himself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14330952&postcount=137)

nuh uh, they're explicitly stated in the constitution, he said so himself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14330952&postcount=137)

It is written, so it must be true!

Also, to repeat myself from another thread:

1. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect a fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

From In re Marriage Cases:

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ‘privacy’ ”]; Williams v. Garcetti(1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 [“we have . . . recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”]; Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303 [“under the state Constitution, the right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the privacy right in this case as the right to marry”]; In re Carrafa (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [“[t]he right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right”].)

2. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons -- including homosexuals. See, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996); In re Marriage Cases, supra.

3. Neither the U.S. Consittution nor the California Constitution is limited in its protection of rights to those specifically enumerated therein. (Don't make me drag out further citations.)

4. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution is limited in its guarantee of equal protection to just race and religion. (ditto)

Yeppers. Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In addition to that, you have the 14th Amendment's protection of liberty--which includes fundamental, unenumerated rights.

EDIT: See also Griswold v. Connecticut (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=381&invol=479), 381 U.S. 479, 488, 491, 492 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring):

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.

*makes mental note of 9th majigger*
*skims case-y stuff and assumes you're right*

And from the dwindling rainforests of course.

Yes people, in this wonderful time of the year where American lawyers try to annul a few thousand same-sex marriages, that jolly old time when the USA decided to not sign a statement to decriminalise homosexuality, the Pope, representative of the majority of Christians, has also made his contribution to the general joy of the world in his traditional Christmas speech. Saving the world from homosexuality and transgenders is just as important as saving the rainforests.

Quite.

So, we all know gayness is icky and that several books attributed to supreme beings seem to condemn it. But can someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is so world shattering about two adults loving eachother at Christmas that we now have three completely seperate reasons for having a topic on them ? Can we not just let them have their privacy ?


As a Bible believing Christian, I can understand your ire.

The popes statement, which for the record I do agree with but not in scope. I feel that it must be stressed that such a moral requirement can only apply to those who profess to be believing christians and who have given their lives to Jesus Christ.

The Bible clearly teaches against homosexuality, and for a Christian to be in such a relationship, such is classified as sin. For any believing Christian, you would want to be moving away from such an emotional and physical environment as soon as possible. But for those who do not believe, the church must not impose its moral stances upon those who do not want them. Instead, it should be pointing towards the glorry of God, shining a light through love and compassion rather than fruitless rambling which only serve to cause damaging upset.

I feel, that many Christians must realise that Jesus does not demand from those who do not want to follow him, conformation to his truth, or all would be saved. Now I make it a point to say that it is his desire but not a demand.

Such a methodology of thinking is purely from the lips of mankind. Instead, Christ allows for every man to make his own choices. The Pope has missused his time, and should have used the opportunity instead to declare the glorry of Christ and his sacrifice rather than a demand of moral imposition upon all of mankind.

Conformation to a moral code is not the same as belief. Homosexuality could end tomorrow on planet earth, but the satus of peoples hearts would not have changed. Only glazed over by oppression from mankind professing to be doing the will of God.

Let me assure NS general. The Bible does not teach all must conform, it teaches that all can love God, as God cares deeply for all.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but NM fails to respond to that which he cannot even invent a defense.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14330445&postcount=93

I shouldn't be proud, though. It's kinda like lapping the fat kid when running in gym class.

Also, to repeat myself from another thread:

1. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect a fundamental right to marry. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967); In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).

From In re Marriage Cases:

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.] . . . These rights are aspects of the right of privacy which . . . is express in section 1 of article I of the California Constitution which includes among the inalienable rights possessed by all persons in this state, that of ‘privacy’ ”]; Williams v. Garcetti(1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 577 [“we have . . . recognized that ‘[t]he concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government . . . extends to . . . such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution [as] the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” ’ ”]; Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1303 [“under the state Constitution, the right to marry and the right of intimate association are virtually synonymous. . . . [W]e will refer to the privacy right in this case as the right to marry”]; In re Carrafa (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 788, 791 [“[t]he right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right”].)

2. Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons -- including homosexuals. See, e.g., Loving, supra; Romer v. Evans (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html), 517 U.S. 620 (1996); In re Marriage Cases, supra.

3. Neither the U.S. Consittution nor the California Constitution is limited in its protection of rights to those specifically enumerated therein. (Don't make me drag out further citations.)

4. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution is limited in its guarantee of equal protection to just race and religion. (ditto)

The question is the definition of unenumerated.

I don't think it would be difficult to read what you've posted as allowing for polygamy, or marrying children to adults.

The question is the definition of unenumerated.

Not enumerated.

The question is the definition of unenumerated.

I don't think it would be difficult to read what you've posted as allowing for polygamy, or marrying children to adults.

Setting aside the question of context, if you can't think of a rational distinction between two adults in a consenting same-sex marriage and "polygamy or marrying children to adults," the failure is not in what I posted, but in your thoughts.

Setting aside the question of context, if you can't think of a rational distinction between two adults in a consenting same-sex marriage and "polygamy or marrying children to adults," the failure is not in what I posted, but in your thoughts.

Which is a lot more common than most want to admit.

Setting aside the question of context, if you can't think of a rational distinction between two adults in a consenting same-sex marriage and "polygamy or marrying children to adults," the failure is not in what I posted, but in your thoughts.

It doesn't say two consenting adults in the 14th amendment.

If you're saying that there are unspecified and unnamed rights, then I can make up any rights I can think of at random.

Really, if you're going to arbitrarily say, "two consenting adults", why not "twenty"?

Really, if you're going to arbitrarily say, "two consenting adults", why not "twenty"?

for one the laws dont work with more than 2 (3 if you count "government")

You go into coma. You have 2 wives/husbands. Who gets to decide on pulling the plug?

It doesn't say two consenting adults in the 14th amendment.

Among the many problems with this assertion is that there is a difference between something being a right and that right being absolute. The right to marry, for example, can be limited if government has a compelling legitimate interest and the limitation is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Even if the right to marry could be construed to include children, it could be limited to not include children.

If you're saying that there are unspecified and unnamed rights, then I can make up any rights I can think of at random.

And yet the Founders clearly said their are unenumerated rights, the authors of the 14th Amendment said the same, and SCOTUS has consistently differentiated between rights made up at random and unenumerated fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.

P.S. SCOTUS and the California Supreme Court write these things called opinions where they explain there analysis -- usually at length. They don't just think of things at random and call them rights.

Really, if you're going to arbitrarily say, "two consenting adults", why not "twenty"?

Really, if your arbitrarily going to say "two consenting adults of different genders," why not "two consenting adults of the same race"?

The question is the definition of unenumerated.

I don't think it would be difficult to read what you've posted as allowing for polygamy, or marrying children to adults.

Could you please not compare homosexuality to polygamy and pedophilia? Thanks.

Miscegenation laws in particular were never universal in the US, and were contrary to, or at the least not prescribed by, virtually every religious and moral code
Nobody got around to correcting this egregious error of NM's.

Miscegenation laws were very nearly universal in the US. Massachusetts allowed mixed-race couples to marry, but made a special provision that couples from outside Massachusetts could move in to take advantage of this, to avoid interfering with the miscegenation laws of other states. In several laws, starting with California, the miscegenation laws were struck down by the courts, against the will of the majority of the people.

And of course, religion DID prescribe the miscegenation laws: indeed, as with same-sex marriage, the argument from the Bible was the only rationale ever offered.

and we're off, the horse has left the gates.

Before I actually engage this, I just have one question. Which God?

Isn't it "there's not point closing the gate after the horse has bolted" or some such thing? I sure know I don't get my horse in the gates, for semantic reasons mostly. ;)

Over 50% of all Christians is Roman Catholic. Therefor the pope represents a majority of Christians.
If you wish to claim the Roman Catholics are not Christians, I fear you are outnumbered.



No, marriage traditionally is for a man with several underage girls. Thankfully we abandoned tradition a long time ago.

You obviously don't share the same dreams as me. :p

Isn't it "there's not point closing the gate after the horse has bolted" or some such thing? I sure know I don't get my horse in the gates, for semantic reasons mostly. ;)

Wilgrove may be a gamblin' man who spends time round racetracks -- or he may be a closet Australian, because any Ocker would recognise the racing reference. Gates away ... aaaand .... they're off!

(This OT aside brought to you by Christmas Spirit, please resume your normal tasks.)

Wilgrove may be a gamblin' man who spends time round racetracks -- or he may be a closet Australian, because any Ocker would recognise the racing reference. Gates away ... aaaand .... they're off!

(This OT aside brought to you by Christmas Spirit, please resume your normal tasks.)
You beat me to it. Also, the old saw he was thinking of is "closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out."

Wilgrove's simile was correct in the context.

I may be mistaken, but doesn't it say somewhere in the US constitution rather specifically that the rights of the people are not limited to those set out in the constitution? It occurs to me that just because there isn't an explicit right for gays to marry that certainly doesn't mean that gays don't have the right to marry.
One would think that would be obvious, wouldn't one? Since it's right there in the Bill of Rights and all. But the fact that some like to argue that it isn't, like to pretend that the 9th doesn't exist, or like to argue that the 9th doesn't mean what its words say, or that it was somehow a mistake that doesn't belong there in the first place, goes to show -- me, at least -- that they know perfectly well that the right they claim doesn't exist, actually does. Whatever that right happens to be (whatever the topic of the given moment is), these people who make these kinds of arguments know perfectly well that they are trying to strip rights away from a minority group in order to place themselves in a superior or more privileged position over them. That's what it really boils down to in the end. In reference to the OP's question of why we can't just let gays have their privacy -- easy, if we let them have their privacy, how can we push them around?*

(Note: Of course, by "we" I mean "they", the people who argue against the right to marry, etc.)

The Pope is not swayed by PC notions that hold sway in some quarters.


Its not being PC to recognize people's rights.


If all "they" wanted was "their privacy," there would be little problem. If "they" were content to "love each other" behind closed doors, there would be little problem. The problem is, "they" don't want "privacy", but coerced societal approval and proclamations that "they" and all of their activities and relationships are, and should be, indistinguishable from heterosexual activities and relationships.

They should be indistinguishable. The government has no right sticking its nose in the private lives of citizens and telling them they can't marry another adult man/woman. Next thing you know California will be passing laws that state when you can have sex in what positions and at what time of day.

What I find humerous is that none of anti-gay Christians here seems to be able to explain why God hates "the ebil gayz" so much - other than with reasoning they are unwilling to apply consistently.

Come on people - it is the evening of your Lord. Surely you can manage such an explanation ?
Or do you admit your God is worthless filth :p

What I find humerous is that none of anti-gay Christians here seems to be able to explain why God hates "the ebil gayz" so much - other than with reasoning they are unwilling to apply consistently.

Come on people - it is the evening of your Lord. Surely you can manage such an explanation ?
Or do you admit your God is worthless filth :p

I could try and explain why God is against the act of homosexuality, but the reality of the matter is that the bible does not give the why, only the reason.

I would counter your claim that we are unwilling to apply the reasoning consistently, that is quite a bold challenge you made, though for some Christians and more so those of the liberal branch it is a very fair comment. But to make it all-encompassing I think is a little bit of an extreme.

I would not say the God hates those who are of homosexual orientation, but I will say that he cares deeply enough for them to send his son to die on the cross for all.

What I find humerous is that none of anti-gay Christians here seems to be able to explain why God hates "the ebil gayz" so much -

The obvious answer is....

He doesn't. The point of reference that they keep dragging up is from a book written BY humans FOR humans. To imply that God hates anyone based on a natural occurence which HE must have created, would mean that God is capable of hatred, maliciousness, spite, persecution, bigotry and that He made a mistake when he created homos.
I choose not to believe those things, because after all, we were given free choice. I was raised to believe that all those negative emotions were ungodly and thus created by man. Therefore, anything remotely negative in 'the book' was also made by man.
God did not write the bible. If he did, then I like to think it would not have so many errors and contradictions. Certainly, He was not the one who edited it on numerous occasions throughout history (despite that instruction to never edit it)

The less obvious answer is....

He hates "the ebil gayz" because we dress better than him and we know how to party.

Disclaimer - Please note... I am not 'bashing' religion, or intending offence to anyone. I am answering a question which was asked with my honest opinion (and trying to keep it light hearted with the addition of my brand of humour). You are free to agree or disagree with my opinion. People are free to believe what they want to believe, so long as they do not expect others to unquestioningly live by their 'teachings' against their will.
I am really a nice person, and to prove it.... come here for a Grope Hug.
Yikes. I meant a Group Hug!! ;)

edit - Oh, I should add that I am not an anti-gay Christian. I am a Gay Pagan who was raised Christian.

What I find humerous is that none of anti-gay Christians here seems to be able to explain why God hates "the ebil gayz" so much - other than with reasoning they are unwilling to apply consistently.

Come on people - it is the evening of your Lord. Surely you can manage such an explanation ?
Or do you admit your God is worthless filth :p

Y'see someone influential has decided somewhere along the way that sex was for reproduction purpose only. From that decision a lot of things has then been looked as not morally correct. Sex before marriage is now bad, sex between gays is now bad, sex is now generally bad except when you're making babies.

From then, they went in the good book, found a few passages that looked like what they decided and they went on to spread the good news.

Now, a few hundred years later, we're still stuck with that decision.

I choose not to believe those things, because after all, we were given free choice. I was raised to believe that all those negative emotions were ungodly and thus created by man. Therefore, anything remotely negative in 'the book' was also made by man.
God did not write the bible. If he did, then I like to think it would not have so many errors and contradictions. Certainly, He was not the one who edited it on numerous occasions throughout history (despite that instruction to never edit it)

I think that it’s here where I disagree with you. Many would claim that the bible contains countless contradictions, however, I believe that is not the case. Each book must be studied in its own individual context, then placed into the picture of the whole. After a significant amount of research and time I have found that the bible resolves these “errors” itself.

I think that, our lack of understanding to the cultural context can lead many of us to make rapid assumptions as to biblical err. Though any reasonable scholar would and must surely make any attempt to do as much research as possible. Rather than reading a website or webpage. So I would not agree with your above statement as I do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God.

Anything can be made to appear to contradict itself. I could make Lord of the Rings contradict itself if I chose to by taking verses out of context, and I’m afraid that, that is the charge I have to lay against a large section of liberal academia.

I think that it’s here where I disagree with you. Many would claim that the bible contains countless contradictions, however, I believe that is not the case. Each book must be studied in its own individual context, then placed into the picture of the whole. After a significant amount of research and time I have found that the bible resolves these “errors” itself.

I think that, our lack of understanding to the cultural context can lead many of us to make rapid assumptions as to biblical err. Though any reasonable scholar would and must surely make any attempt to do as much research as possible. Rather than reading a website or webpage. So I would not agree with your above statement as I do believe that the bible is the inspired word of God.

Anything can be made to appear to contradict itself. I could make Lord of the Rings contradict itself if I chose to by taking verses out of context, and I’m afraid that, that is the charge I have to lay against a large section of liberal academia.
Perhaps, when a Bible discussion thread comes up, I would be interested to see your explanation of how the apparently contradictory parts of the Bible do not actually contradict each other.

Because I think the opposite of what you say. The Bible is a compilation of separate books from different original sources. As such, it cannot avoid containing contradictions and discrepancies. Until recently, those contradictions and discrepancies were left in place, and it was up to the readers to figure out what the real story was, if any, and whether any given discrepancy mattered or not. It is only relatively recently that some people have argued that there are no discrepancies and that the Bible is a seamless and unified whole. If you are one of those, then I will keep my eye out for your demonstration of that in an appropriate thread.

The Bible is a compilation of separate books from different original sources that have been translated, copied, recopied, retranslated, copied some more, then translated again

Fixed

Perhaps, when a Bible discussion thread comes up, I would be interested to see your explanation of how the apparently contradictory parts of the Bible do not actually contradict each other.

Because I think the opposite of what you say. The Bible is a compilation of separate books from different original sources. As such, it cannot avoid containing contradictions and discrepancies. Until recently, those contradictions and discrepancies were left in place, and it was up to the readers to figure out what the real story was, if any, and whether any given discrepancy mattered or not. It is only relatively recently that some people have argued that there are no discrepancies and that the Bible is a seamless and unified whole. If you are one of those, then I will keep my eye out for your demonstration of that in an appropriate thread.

I am one of those. And I look forward to the discussion!

Fixed
That's not fixing. That's adding. *mutters "lawyers...always have to get their 2 cents in..."*

I am one of those. And I look forward to the discussion!
I'll remember you said that, when the day comes.

That's not fixing. That's adding. *mutters "lawyers...always have to get their 2 cents in..."*

That will be three hundred dollars please

That will be three hundred dollars please

when asking for payment, do you have to estimate how long it will take you to finish asking and add that in to the price?

when asking for payment, do you have to estimate how long it will take you to finish asking and add that in to the price?

Nope. That's an additional $500 as a "lawyerin'" fee.

And now you owe an additional $200 for this answer.

1) The position of the Catholic Church:

Marriage: Christians have recognized marriage as ordained by God for the lifelong period of time for a man and a woman.

"God himself is the author of marriage," which is his way of showing love for those he created. Because a marriage is a divine institution it can never be broken, even if the partners are legally divorced: as long as they are both alive, the Church considers them bound together by God"

essential: They intend to have children if the bride is of childbearing age
= christian moral human condition/nature
Purpose of sexuality is the creation of children, not having fun.

Homosexuals can't make children, don't intend to serve their "moral christian human condition" so they make a "capital sin" related to lust/adultry.

2) Does it make sense? Yes of course, it sounds logical for heterosexuals who don't have much knowledge of biology and live in the middle ages.

But the earth is not flat. Scientists have proven that homosexuality is a true human condition for a minority of people and animals in nature. The position of those who interpret the bible should be under fire. The bible itself is (of course) unclear on this issue. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3205727.stm

when asking for payment, do you have to estimate how long it will take you to finish asking and add that in to the price?

I'd answer that question, but you couldn't afford me to.

1) The position of the Catholic Church:

Marriage: Christians have recognized marriage as ordained by God for the lifelong period of time for a man and a woman.

"God himself is the author of marriage," which is his way of showing love for those he created. Because a marriage is a divine institution it can never be broken, even if the partners are legally divorced: as long as they are both alive, the Church considers them bound together by God"

essential: They intend to have children if the bride is of childbearing age
= christian moral human condition/nature
Purpose of sexuality is the creation of children, not having fun.

So, as I asked before:
If, thanks to the miracles of science, it becomes possible for two men or two women to conceive children within their same-sex relationship, their marriage and lifestyle would be fine in the eyes of the RC Church ? Or would the goalposts then be moved ?

Nobody got around to correcting this egregious error of NM's.

Miscegenation laws were very nearly universal in the US. Massachusetts allowed mixed-race couples to marry, but made a special provision that couples from outside Massachusetts could move in to take advantage of this, to avoid interfering with the miscegenation laws of other states. In several laws, starting with California, the miscegenation laws were struck down by the courts, against the will of the majority of the people.

And of course, religion DID prescribe the miscegenation laws: indeed, as with same-sex marriage, the argument from the Bible was the only rationale ever offered.

Actually, I addressed that one, but as usual, NM refused to acknowledge my direct replies to his dreck.

Um. Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution?

Only the latter is relevant to the rightness or wrongness of In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008) (pdf).

As to the former, your insistence on only "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 120 years of Supreme Court decisions.

The following examples of rights not explicit in the U.S. Constitution, but nonetheless protected by it:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Sam: In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; 'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.' So the Framers knew...

Harrison: Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?

Sam: I wasn't calling you a fool, sir. The brand new state of Georgia was.

Sam: In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; 'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.' So the Framers knew...

Harrison: Were you just calling me a fool, Mr. Seaborn?

Sam: I wasn't calling you a fool, sir. The brand new state of Georgia was.

ooh, west wing, nice job.

ooh, west wing, nice job.

I wonder if anyone's ever tried to bribe Aaron Sorkin with enough coke to make him their speechwriter.

We don't have to condone them, but we certainly have no right to prevent them. If God doesn't want it to happen he'll just kill all the faggots, since it hasn't happened yet then I guess its all fine and dandy with him eh?
That was by far the smartest thing i've heard in this thread. If God really does hate the "faggots" why doesn't he just strike them down with lightning and send them to hell?
I'm hetero and, btw, christian, and nowhere near believing some of the things the catholics believe, and I think that homosexuality is perfectly okay.

So, as I asked before:
If, thanks to the miracles of science, it becomes possible for two men or two women to conceive children within their same-sex relationship, their marriage and lifestyle would be fine in the eyes of the RC Church ? Or would the goalposts then be moved ?

1) It's hypothetical
2) Since church is hesitant about the use of artificial (read: things that weren't available in the stone age) tools, I guess they will reject it.

1) It's hypothetical

Not really. Two women is already feasible in theory.
Two men is trickier.

2) Since church is hesitant about the use of artificial (read: things that weren't available in the stone age) tools, I guess they will reject it.

Aw. No joy to the world then :(

well, the church will reject a lot of things, you have to admit, things that most of us would find normal things

Aw. No joy to the world then :(
:fluffle: You don't need church to have joy and decent morals.

:fluffle: You don't need church to have joy and decent morals.

that was the second smartest thing i heard

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to homosexuality...Exodus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have BOTH committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands" Exodus 20:13 HCSB
Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.
Tolerance is something that the "politically correct" world has dreamed up. For those of us who are Christians, this is a central belief to us, and not denying someone "equal" rights, but denying SPECIAL rights

according to the UN Deceleration of Human Rights homosexuality is a right, s is homosexual marriage, so every country that says they follow/enforce the laws of the UN must allow homosexual marriage. Thus America is a hypocritical pond of scum.

they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.

Where do they request special rights? Show me an example of homosexuals, as a group, asking for special treatment.

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to homosexuality...Exodus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have BOTH committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands" Exodus 20:13 HCSB

Yeah - but WHY ? Do you not wish to UNDERSTAND God - or are you content with mindlessly obeying ?

Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX.

I am a man. I have the right to marry a woman.
My sister is a woman. She does not have the right to marry a woman (in certain countries. She does in mine).

Why is that ?

according to the UN Deceleration of Human Rights homosexuality is a right, s is homosexual marriage, so every country that says they follow/enforce the laws of the UN must allow homosexual marriage. Thus America is a hypocritical pond of scum.We've been that since the day we rebelled back in the 1700s. :rolleyes:

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to homosexuality...Exodus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have BOTH committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands" Exodus 20:13 HCSB
Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.
Tolerance is something that the "politically correct" world has dreamed up. For those of us who are Christians, this is a central belief to us, and not denying someone "equal" rights, but denying SPECIAL rights

not all christians focus that as a central belief.
as i have learned, there are two types of christians.
there are the catholic christians, and then the just plain christians, who have different beliefs, but a common thread runs through both.

Where do they request special rights? Show me an example of homosexuals, as a group, asking for special treatment.

Gay marriage is a special right... Like I said they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex

Where do they request special rights? Show me an example of homosexuals, as a group, asking for special treatment.

And he's claiming that they think they're better than us... Of course, if they did, I could hardly blame them, considering the way they've been treated. And religion is a totally irrelevant argument when it comes to government.

I agree.
Marriage should be between two people who love each other dearly and wish to celebrate their passion with the world. I think it is selfish for heterosexuals to ban this union, when they so happily celebrate their own. If gay marriage does turn out to be sinful, I think we should let God decide what to do himself when the homosexuals die. Who are we to take a stand on the Bible? Let the Lord decide.

Proposition 8, in my opinon, is unconstitutional. Let people be happy and celebrate love. If you disagree with those practices, that is fine, and you are entitled to that opinion, but don't stand in the way of those who are fine with it. Please.

STOP THE H8

Yeah - but WHY ? Do you not wish to UNDERSTAND God - or are you content with mindlessly obeying ?



I am a man. I have the right to marry a woman.
My sister is a woman. She does not have the right to marry a woman.

Why is that ?

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman... Look at Adam & Eve... Read Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:9-21 in entirety... It outlines very well why God designed sex between 1 man and 1 woman

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman...

The Bible disagrees with you there - unless the polygamic Abraham was a sinning piece of filth of course.

Besides, that still does not answer the question why he hates it so much. What is wrong with doing things one was not designed to do ? I use lots of tools that way. It is called "being creative".

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to poly/cotton blends

fixed

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to homosexuality...Exodus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have BOTH committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands" Exodus 20:13 HCSB
Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.
Tolerance is something that the "politically correct" world has dreamed up. For those of us who are Christians, this is a central belief to us, and not denying someone "equal" rights, but denying SPECIAL rights

I DARE you to watch this whole clip. Leviticus has been superseded, and you know it.

You probably don't have the guts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU).

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman... Look at Adam & Eve... Read Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:9-21 in entirety... It outlines very well why God designed sex between 1 man and 1 womanThat's nice. Should the Bible have any influence whatsoever in the United States government? No, it should not, because that's unconstitutional.

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman... Look at Adam & Eve... Read Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:9-21 in entirety... It outlines very well why God designed sex between 1 man and 1 woman

Of course the Bible should be made law right?:rolleyes:

That whole "gay marriage is a special right" argument is absolute bullshit. They say "gays already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights, so the rights are the same." By that SAME EXACT logic, if we allow gays to have gay marriage, then STRAIGHT PEOPLE CAN GET GAY MARRIED! Wow, that was really hard wasn't it. See children, this is called "thinking." It requires the use of a very unappreciated organ called the "brain," which is something that certain institutions (read: all institutions) have a vested interest in preventing you from using.

Whaddya think? A little too sardonic?

fixed

You forgot people with glasses daring to attend mass. Or women having the audacity to be raped within the borders of a city - the sinning whores.

The only part of the Bible that condemns same-sex marriage is the book of the Bible we do not follow anymore, anyways. Do we still have limitations on haircuts and blood sacrifices? No, of course not. So if we disregard everything BUT that one part, what kind of Christians are we?

Also, this is a government problem.
WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY
IF WE WANT TO TAKE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES AND MAKE THEM LAWS, THEN HOW CAN WE CLAIM TO HAVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?!?!?!?!?!


let's think here, people.

God's design is for A (1) Man to be with A (1) woman... Look at Adam & Eve... Read Genesis 2 and Exodus 20:9-21 in entirety... It outlines very well why God designed sex between 1 man and 1 woman

Ever play football? Leviticus 11:7 says you're a sinner. Get over it.

The Bible does many things, but "outlining very well" is never one of them.

When multiplication was important, and the world relatively empty, that's when those words applied. Seven billion people would kinda invalidate the need for constant multiplication, no matter WHAT the plumbing. Thus, sex for pleasure. That simple explanation is clearer than the Bible ever has been, or ever will be. Why? Because the document is inflexible unless twisted by ignorance, greed or lust for power or control into a shape it was never intended to take. It's a guide now. Biblical literalism is a fool's paradise.

Irrespective of the doctrinal powers of the incumbent pontiff, the Bible is explcit in it's censure and prohibition of homosexuality; despite my being neither Catyolic, nor homophobic, I'm pleased the papacy has the spine to endorse what is fundamental Christian doctrine, and not modulate it to seek popularity.

That's nice. Should the Bible have any influence whatsoever in the United States government? No, it should not, because that's unconstitutional.

Amazingly enough, my post said NOTHING about the government...and was mainly meant to clarify the Bible's (and MOST Christians) position, as there had been debate about it... I made no mention of California Prop 8... And in actuality it was THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA that passed it... and if the Supreme Court of Cali supercedes the will of the voter, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS...

Irrespective of the doctrinal powers of the incumbent pontiff, the Bible is explcit in it's censure and prohibition of homosexuality; despite my being neither Catyolic, nor homophobic, I'm pleased the papacy has the spine to endorse what is fundamental Christian doctrine, and not modulate it to seek popularity.

Explicit? Really? Chapter and verse, please. Also, nothing from the Old Testament, please. Jesus kinda voided all that nonsense.

Amazingly enough, my post said NOTHING about the government...and was mainly meant to clarify the Bible's (and MOST Christians) position, as there had been debate about it... I made no mention of California Prop 8... And in actuality it was THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA that passed it... and if the Supreme Court of Cali upholds the state constiution, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS...

Fixed.

Fixed.

So you have the right to change what comes out of people's mouths?

The Bible is VERY CLEAR when it comes to homosexuality...Exodus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have BOTH committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands" Exodus 20:13 HCSB
Gays must be very thankful that we are not under biblical rule, however... as far as "civil rights" goes... they have THE SAME RIGHTS as the rest of us... to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX. They are not asking for CIVIL RIGHTS, but SPECIAL RIGHTS. They think that somehow they are better than us... more enlightened maybe.
Tolerance is something that the "politically correct" world has dreamed up. For those of us who are Christians, this is a central belief to us, and not denying someone "equal" rights, but denying SPECIAL rights(emphasis mine)

Untrue. I am a Christian. As a result, I follow Jesus Christ. He didn't preach: "I have come to offer salvation for all, except the gays, for they are icky." Nor did he condemn anyone for their natural tendencies. He even made it absolutely clear he was in favour of separating the legal sphere from the religious one.

As a result, I do not oppose same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I believe God made them just like he made straight people, etc., and that he would not condemn anyone to a lifetime of loneliness and abstinence because their natural desires were for another gender.

Taking another tack, even if it is wrong, I do not see how it is the business of the government to be legislating my morality on people. The government must be non-discriminatory, and thus has to legally permit same-sex marriage. Even if you think it is wrong, you cannot deny someone else legal rights for no good legal reason.*

I take massive offense at the bolded statement in your post. Jesus went and spoke to sinners, to the poor and downtrodden, to those rejected by society. And he accepted them, he healed them, he helped them. He didn't stone them, but forgave them. The dictionary definition of tolerance. If you somehow think that tolerance is non-christian, I simply don't know what to do, other than to shake my head in despair.

*Note, please, that this argument works quite smoothly whether or not homosexuality is a choice --- legally speaking, the situation should be identical (see my sig).

not all christians focus that as a central belief.
as i have learned, there are two types of christians.
there are the catholic christians, and then the just plain christians, who have different beliefs, but a common thread runs through both.

Nonsense. There are catholics who accept same-sex marriage, and there are non-catholics who are completely opposed to it.

Gay marriage is a special right... Like I said they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex

This, unfortunately, is not what the right to marry is about. The right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's preference. If I am denied the right to marry the person I love, then we have a fundamentally unequal situation.

Amazingly enough, my post said NOTHING about the government...and was mainly meant to clarify the Bible's (and MOST Christians) position, as there had been debate about it... I made no mention of California Prop 8... And in actuality it was THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA that passed it... and if the Supreme Court of Cali supercedes the will of the voter, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS...

The courts, for the last fucking time, DO NOT MAKE LAWS. They judge laws' constitutionality. If the morons who draft laws can't be bothered to make the laws fit within the bounds prescribed by their own constitution, the judiciary is there to tell them so.

Go back to listening to Rush and Hannity -- I think you need more talking points.

YOU ARE demanding a theocracy when you DEMAND that US LAW be exactly like outdated Biblical doctrine. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes about you.

Irrespective of the doctrinal powers of the incumbent pontiff, the Bible is explcit in it's censure and prohibition of homosexuality; despite my being neither Catyolic, nor homophobic, I'm pleased the papacy has the spine to endorse what is fundamental Christian doctrine, and not modulate it to seek popularity.

Actually, what the Church should be doing is examining and explaining doctrine. Perhaps the doctrine is outdated. Perhaps there are excellent reasons for it that never occured to the silly atheists.

What it should not be doing is calling for blind obedience and ONLY blind obedience.

So you have the right to change what comes out of people's mouths?

No. He has the right to correct your lies.

Explicit? Really? Chapter and verse, please. Also, nothing from the Old Testament, please. Jesus kinda voided all that nonsense.

See one of my previous posts... but Exodus 20:13... And No. Jesus did not void the OT. Chapter and verse please?

Amazingly enough, my post said NOTHING about the government...and was mainly meant to clarify the Bible's (and MOST Christians) position, as there had been debate about it... I made no mention of California Prop 8... And in actuality it was THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA that passed it... and if the Supreme Court of Cali supercedes the will of the voter, THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS...Wait, wait, what? When does what the majority says make it okay to suppress/deny rights of others?

So you have the right to change what comes out of people's mouths?

I believe it was your claim that the court didn't have the right to do their job if it didn't fit the agenda of the Christian Right.

(emphasis mine)

Untrue. I am a Christian. As a result, I follow Jesus Christ. He didn't preach: "I have come to offer salvation for all, except the gays, for they are icky." Nor did he condemn anyone for their natural tendencies. He even made it absolutely clear he was in favour of separating the legal sphere from the religious one.

As a result, I do not oppose same-sex marriage or homosexuality. I believe God made them just like he made straight people, etc., and that he would not condemn anyone to a lifetime of loneliness and abstinence because their natural desires were for another gender.

Taking another tack, even if it is wrong, I do not see how it is the business of the government to be legislating my morality on people. The government must be non-discriminatory, and thus has to legally permit same-sex marriage. Even if you think it is wrong, you cannot deny someone else legal rights for no good legal reason.*

I take massive offense at the bolded statement in your post. Jesus went and spoke to sinners, to the poor and downtrodden, to those rejected by society. And he accepted them, he healed them, he helped them. He didn't stone them, but forgave them. The dictionary definition of tolerance. If you somehow think that tolerance is non-christian, I simply don't know what to do, other than to shake my head in despair.

*Note, please, that this argument works quite smoothly whether or not homosexuality is a choice --- legally speaking, the situation should be identical (see my sig).

THIS. In SPADES.

isnt the Bible an interpretation of God's will, after all?

and i know that a good percentage of those married are not religious at all. so why should religious laws ban a practice that is not always religious?

Wait, wait, what? When does what the majority says make it okay to suppress/deny rights of others?

Does that make it My right to call John McCain "My President"? No. Democracy from the beginning of this country means "For the People, BY the People" Sounds like majority rules to me... I don't like our new President. But the WILL OF THE PEOPLE has Obama as the President, therefor HE IS STILL THE PRES. Whether I like it or not

See one of my previous posts... but Exodus 20:13... And No. Jesus did not void the OT. Chapter and verse please?

If you're going to take any part of the Pentateuch as LAW, then you're sinning every day. Eating shellfish? Ham? Mixing fabrics? Planting differing crops in the same plot? Working on the Sabbath? The list is endless and ridiculous. Christ is the new covenant and came to signify an end to God's direct smiting and meddling in the affairs of man by making Christ the sole avenue to salvation. You're telling me you don't believe your own faith's teachings? Hell, I've been to church a total of a dozen times in my life, and I got that much out of it.

isnt the Bible an interpretation of God's will, after all?

nah

Does that make it My right to call John McCain "My President"? No. Democracy from the beginning of this country means "For the People, BY the People" Sounds like majority rules to me... I don't like our new President. But the WILL OF THE PEOPLE has Obama as the President, therefor HE IS STILL THE PRES. Whether I like it or not

What if the "Will of the people" was to, let's say, kill all illegal immigrants or something similarly atrocious. Would it be ok then?

See one of my previous posts... but Exodus 20:13... And No. Jesus did not void the OT. Chapter and verse please?

By the way, if you keep quoting the Pentateuch without addressing all the other prohibitions that you've conveniently ignored, you look like a worse hypocrite than any Pharisee.

isnt the Bible an interpretation of God's will, after all?

and i know that a good percentage of those married are not religious at all. so why should religious laws ban a practice that is not always religious?

Actually, what the Pope is calling on us to do is not merely denying marriage rights - he in fact considers the mere act of kissing between two men to be a massive danger to the world, on par with destroying the environment and far greater than the current financial crisis.

I believe it was your claim that the court didn't have the right to do their job if it didn't fit the agenda of the Christian Right.

I said nothing of the sort... In fact Cali is by vast majority a BLUE state... Or did this change since the election? The court does not have the right to overturn a measure voted on by the population of that state

What if the "Will of the people" was to, let's say, kill all illegal immigrants or something similarly atrocious. Would it be ok then?

No... that would violate a law against murder... We can "what if" this to death...

I said nothing of the sort... In fact Cali is by vast majority a BLUE state... Or did this change since the election? The court does not have the right to overturn a measure voted on by the population of that state

*sigh*

It has a right to do its job. That job is to review all legislation, whether from Sacramento or the ballot box, and make sure it conforms to Constitutional requirements. If it doesn't, the law itself, regardless of its popularity, is invalid. How hard is that to understand? All courts do this, every day. It is their function.

Explicit? Really? Chapter and verse, please. Also, nothing from the Old Testament, please. Jesus kinda voided all that nonsense.

I'm pretty sure that is Catholic doctrine though. Sure, you can demand chapter and verse and all that, but face it, religious texts are just empty vessels into which people pour their own prejudice.

No doubt if you argued about this with the Pope, he'd have a bazillion reasons why he's right on this one. Demanding proof from the bible that the pope is right accomplishes nothing, because I am sure he won't read it the same way you will, and he'll just conclude whoever decided that it doesn't say what he wants it to say doesn't understand it properly in the first place.

And as long as you accept that there should be freedom of religion and such jazz, you have to accept that people are going to have silly, often disgusting, beliefs. You just have to put up with them.

In any event, claiming that jesus voided the nonsense doesn't alter the truth of the original proposition that this sort of stuff is Catholic tradition, because it most certainly is.

By the way, if you keep quoting the Pentateuch without addressing all the other prohibitions that you've conveniently ignored, you look like a worse hypocrite than any Pharisee.

What do you mean "conveniently ignored"? I have been responding to specific posts. What have I "conveniently ignored"

Sparty, did you even read this thread? Or did you just see the title and shit all over it without looking for answers to your arguments within its many posts?

What do you mean "conveniently ignored"? I have been responding to specific posts. What have I "conveniently ignored"

The fact that Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch prohibit a whole lot of things that Christian society have chosen to ignore, and yet they seem all too willing to invoke those words when it suits them. What do you say to that? Isn't that picking and choosing from "God's Word" to suit your own needs? How is THAT okay?

What do you mean "conveniently ignored"? I have been responding to specific posts. What have I "conveniently ignored"Does the whole town really have to be together for me to kill my brother for planting two different kinds of crops in the same field? (Really, can't, like, a few be missing? Maybe the police?)

Oh, and if I have a daughter, how much do you think she'd be worth if she knew three languages? Got any good price suggestions?

No... that would violate a law against murder... We can "what if" this to death...

Exactly. The Supreme Court has the right to uphold the law, regardless of the will of the people.

I really find these arguments from scripture to be hilarious. Sure, the bible was wrong when it posits that rain comes from God opening a floodgate in the heavens, as opposed to evaporation, condensation, precipitation, etc.. And the bible was wrong when it puts forth the cosmology that the Earth is the center of the universe, or when it proposes the existence of the solid dome over the Earth called the firmament, or when it condones slavery, or selling your daughter into slavery, or when it commands mass genocides committed against civilizations that were on land you wanted (of course remembering that "all the female children who have not known a man by lying with him, keep for yourselves" care to guess why?), when it says that breeding animals while they look at striped patterns will cause their offspring to be striped, or when it condemns wearing clothing made of more than one type of fabric, or when it says we should stone to death disobedient children, or when a non-virgin is raped, she is to be put to death, or when a virgin is raped, she is to marry he rapist, or even on the Christian right's attitude toward abortion. (If a men hits a women in such a way that she miscarries, he has to pay a fine. Sounds like that's not even as bad as planting two crops in the same soil, a "crime" worthy of death. Also, on many of the Hebrew's totally justified conquests, God supposedly instructs soldiers to cut open pregnant women, which is unnecessary anyway, as a dead mother pretty much ensures that the fetus will day, especially with the bible's limited medical technology.)

Yeah, the same bible which is supposedly wrong on all those things, many of them moral things, is still somehow a legitimate an unquestionable authority when it comes to homosexuality being a sin.

Many of these morals come from the Old Testament, and many Christians like to respond that "oh, those laws don't apply anymore." This is a non-answer. Such morally repugnant laws are NEVER acceptable in any time or place anywhere. That's just an attempt at dismisal that never really answers the question of how those laws could ever be considered moral, especially if they're dictated by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent supreme being.

Some also like to respond that I'm "misinterpreting" biblical science claims when I read them literally. Sorry, but even biblical scholars up until the 1700's and later thought that the bible was literally correct when it posited that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that was in a time and place with much more advanced science and math than was available to the Jews when they wrote this stuff. Hell, even the ancient Greeks, who were able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of its actual value long before Jesus arrived on the scene, believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Trust me, the much less scientifically and mathematically advanced Hebrews ACTUALLY BELIEVED the ridiculous scientific claims made in the book. Maybe y'all are the ones not reading the book honestly.

Forgive the length, but please don't tl;dr.

The fact that Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch prohibit a whole lot of things that Christian society have chosen to ignore, and yet they seem all too willing to invoke those words when it suits them. What do you say to that? Isn't that picking and choosing from "God's Word" to suit your own needs? How is THAT okay?

Actually, me personally I do live by a vast majority of the laws outlined in the OT... A lot of modern Christian society also is very hypocrital... I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect either...

What do you mean "conveniently ignored"? I have been responding to specific posts. What have I "conveniently ignored"

I KNEW you wouldn't watch the clip I posted. You'd never ask that if you had.