Feathertail Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If you want to stand up for your beliefs as the prophet has asked, that is commendable. It truly is. More often than not, the words of our prophet fall on deaf ears. But I make a request: please, check your motives first.I want to protect children from the harmful influence that homosexuality can have, you say. Okay, but remember that I am gay, too. Your brother, your son, your friend. Ah, but “he is different”. No, I am not. I am just as gay as the next queer. I didn’t ask to be gay just like you didn’t ask to be straight, but know that I am no more ashamed of my sexuality than you are. If gays are harmful influence to your children, then so am I. Do you really feel the need to protect your family against me?I want to protect traditional marriage, you say. Okay, but know what that truly means. You aren’t protecting it from people who aren’t taking the commitment seriously – no less than you did, anyway. Our feelings for the people we love run just as deeply as yours and we want to create families with them just as much as you did.-- My Secret Gay Agenda - Soy Made Me Gay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 And yet the entire point of the thread is the legal and political aspects. So why legally should anyone be forced to live by the words of your god? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter outside of the religious perspective and there's no reason to stop it outside of religious grounds?I see you're still rehashing the same arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) And yet the entire point of the thread is the legal and political aspects. So why legally should anyone be forced to live by the words of your god? Or are you saying that it doesn't matter outside of the religious perspective and there's no reason to stop it outside of religious grounds?LOL You give me far too much credit. He's not just my god. He is everyones God.You make it sound like heterosexuality and man-woman marriages are something just made up recently by Christians. Adam and Eve started the human race. And if you prefer evolution- even if amoebas can reproduce by splitting, it took girl and boy Neanderthals to perpetuate the human race. I'm not an expert on history or all different religions or ancient belief systems, but I do know that if there are any that from their very inceptions taught that homosexual marriages were the way to go, they are very very rare and probably never produced offspring to keep them going for more than one generation. What we have going with homosexual "marriages" is a perversion of nature. We (as human beings) have become so advanced ( in our own minds) and so cocky and full of ourselves that we think we can mess with nature and it's no big deal. But I'm quite sure that the creator of our spirits and bodies, our Heavenly Father, and all other gods- even Zeus himself if he exists, are pretty displeased with homosexual alliances. I'm not going to say if same gender attractions are engrained in DNA to the point of being something one cannot overcome. I'm not completely convinced of that. But I DO know it goes against all laws of nature for two of the same gender to pair up as they are and even more grievous to our Father in Heaven that they want to claim they are "families" with all the same rights as the original nuclear families created by Him. It's not just my opinion, not just a Christian hangup, and frankly not just a religious thing either. It's a societal issue. It's a human thing. It's immoral. Yes it is gradually being more accepted by society. Unfortunately I can't deny that. But being socially acceptable in these days does not equate "right". With all sincerity Soulsearcher, I'm sorry if this offends you. But it's simply the way things are.Whether it's deemed unconstitutional or not, DOMA is right and good and should be left alone. Edited March 1, 2011 by carlimac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me!The interpretation of the Constitution has become so warped that it no longer has the same meaning it did when it was written. Our forefathers probably couldn't even fathom how distorted society would become. Edited March 1, 2011 by carlimac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 DOMA is not right. And I'm not even a supporter of gay marriage. It is not right by virtue that the definition of marriage needs to be left to the States. When we're trying to defend the Constitution, we need to be consistent about it. Marriage, like abortion, is a States issue because legally, marriage should be nothing more than a contractual agreement between 2 (or more, as the case may be) parties. But, I agree that a State should not have to acknowledge a contract made in a different State. And this is what makes marriage different from any other legal contract. Because, to preserve the definition of marriage by the States, they should not be forced to recognize a contract that contradicts their definition. Therefore, if a 13-year-old gets married in Virginia, Florida doesn't have to recognize that marriage as valid in the state of Florida. And that's where DOMA could have been beneficial. But, no, DOMA went too far in that sense to offer the definition instead of just ending at protection of States' definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 The interpretation of the Constitution has become so warped that it no longer has the same meaning it did when it was written.As I understood it, that was the point of writing it in as vague terms as it was written. Seems to me like it is doing exactly what its authors intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsearcher Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 LOL You give me far too much credit. He's not just my god. He is everyones God.You make it sound like heterosexuality and man-woman marriages are something just made up recently by Christians. Adam and Eve started the human race. And if you prefer evolution- even if amoebas can reproduce by splitting, it took girl and boy Neanderthals to perpetuate the human race. I'm not an expert on history or all different religions or ancient belief systems, but I do know that if there are any that from their very inceptions taught that homosexual marriages were the way to go, they are very very rare and probably never produced offspring to keep them going for more than one generation. What we have going with homosexual "marriages" is a perversion of nature. We (as human beings) have become so advanced ( in our own minds) and so cocky and full of ourselves that we think we can mess with nature and it's no big deal. But I'm quite sure that the creator of our spirits and bodies, our Heavenly Father, and all other gods- even Zeus himself if he exists, are pretty displeased with homosexual alliances. I'm not going to say if same gender attractions are engrained in DNA to the point of being something one cannot overcome. I'm not completely convinced of that. But I DO know it goes against all laws of nature for two of the same gender to pair up as they are and even more grievous to our Father in Heaven that they want to claim they are "families" with all the same rights as the original nuclear families created by Him. It's not just my opinion, not just a Christian hangup, and frankly not just a religious thing either. It's a societal issue. It's a human thing. It's immoral. Yes it is gradually being more accepted by society. Unfortunately I can't deny that. But being socially acceptable in these days does not equate "right". With all sincerity Soulsearcher, I'm sorry if this offends you. But it's simply the way things are.Whether it's deemed unconstitutional or not, DOMA is right and good and should be left alone.So still all you've done is offer religious ideas and morals guided by your faith, but not one thing that actually gives any other kind of basis. From what i understand this is why the challenge in California won. When given the chance the people defending Prop 8 either walked away rather than testifying or gave the same kind of arguments you are and they were deemed as immaterial to meeting the legal burden of proof. We know it's not against all the laws of nature cause it's been documented as naturally occurring in may too many species for that to be true. Zeus really wouldn't be against it being he convinces people to mate with him as an animal so we know at least one deity wouldn't overly care :). Again all i ask is a response with out influence from your religion period, just facts. I have no problem with you holding your personal beliefs as they are personal, however if trying to legislate something, leave your faith at home and use the facts. We don't have too look to far back to see marriage adapt and change. Law used to be between one man and one woman of the same race, and people said it was against nature and immoral to change that. The end of society to let mixed race marriages legal, God would object to this abomination. You want to explain why they were wrong? They were just a sure and vocal as you are now, so if they use the same arguments, same justification and the same god..........why were they wrong? Or do you hold they were right and mixed marriages are also part of the death of society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me!Oh, the irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Oh, the irony.?? I sense you're poking fun at me, but I'm not sure in reference to what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 ?? I sense you're poking fun at me, but I'm not sure in reference to what.Where in the federal Constitution is marriage listed as a legal right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Where in the federal Constitution is marriage listed as a legal right?Methinks you're a bit confused about the origin of my comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Methinks you're a bit confused about the origin of my comments.No, not really. Let me answer for you. There is no mention of it in the Constitution. This means that the Constitution is morally neutral regarding marriage, allowing for two things:1. Governance of marriage privileges is left to the states based on enumerated powers, and would thereby be subjected to each state’s constitution.2. Any legislation that swings either way in this debate, pro or anti gay marriage, would be found constitutional federally provided that it doesn’t violate the state constitution it’s passed under.I’ve said it before in other threads but I’m happy to repeat myself in the hope that someone actually learns something this time. What has happened with this issue is effectively a political coup d’état. Rather than respecting the political process and appropriately supporting legislation regarding the sanctity of marriage, liberal activists weren’t satisfied with the powers that be and went crying and screaming for judicial overreach to the federal courts. As a result of activist judges betraying their oaths by choosing to hear and decide on these cases, several serious consequences have come about, all of which ironically do more harm to the freedom and power of the individual than any law barring gay marriage would. The implicit powers given to the states and to the people to legislate this issue and likewise with other moral issues has been near permanently compromised, stopping the self-preserving aspects of federalism from allowing legislation to be repealed and reinstated as the people’s morality changes. Additionally, the courts are now stuck in the legal precedent quicksand of declaring non-constitutional matters either constitutional or unconstitutional, paving a distinct road to oligarchy and near irreversibly decreeing the morality of a few over all.Before you start crying “ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!”, since it would be the only tiny sliver of hope you would have of the Supreme Court’s involvement being valid in this issue, it’s quickly extinguished when you keep a couple of things in mind:A. The original intent of the Establishment clause was to cut off governmental collusion with individual faiths so as to prevent a state-sponsored theocracy.B. There is a HUGE and self-evident difference between state-sponsored theocracy and people’s governance through a generally accepted morality.Why do we have anti-prostitution laws, or anti-gambling laws, or anti-pornography laws? How about anti-recreational drug laws? Why do we not allow people to commit suicide? Those are all consentual, and they don’t potentially harm anyone other than those who engage in the practice (debatable, as is the case with gay marriage), right? The answer is simple. The same guidelines I outlined above apply to all of these sorts of laws. The people consider these behaviors to denigrate society as a whole because of the consequences of moral bankruptcy. The fact that such a religiously diverse collection of people can come together in a state to agree on implementing and enforcing a single moral precept for many different reasons based on the clear consequences of its violation proves that no one is determined to have their own specific belief system hijack the government. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to accept about letting the people govern themselves through the republic other than how disgruntled secular liberals wish to tyrannically project their morality onto the rest of us.So yeah, when you say:I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me!The irony is that many secular liberals adhere to this perfectly, and in more toxic and damaging ways than a process-respecting conservative would even dream of. Edited April 18, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 No, not really. Let me answer for you. There is no mention of it in the Constitution. This means that the Constitution is morally neutral regarding marriage, allowing for two things:1. Governance of marriage privileges is left to the states based on enumerated powers, and would thereby be subjected to each state’s constitution.2. Any legislation that swings either way in this debate, pro or anti gay marriage, would be found constitutional federally provided that it doesn’t violate the state constitution it’s passed under.I’ve said it before in other threads but I’m happy to repeat myself in the hope that someone actually learns something this time. What has happened with this issue is effectively a political coup d’état. Rather than respecting the political process and appropriately supporting legislation regarding the sanctity of marriage, liberal activists weren’t satisfied with the powers that be and went crying and screaming for judicial overreach to the federal courts. As a result of activist judges betraying their oaths by choosing to hear and decide on these cases, several serious consequences have come about, all of which ironically do more harm to the freedom and power of the individual than any law barring gay marriage would. The implicit powers given to the states and to the people to legislate this issue and likewise with other moral issues has been near permanently compromised, stopping the self-preserving aspects of federalism from allowing legislation to be repealed and reinstated as the people’s morality changes. Additionally, the courts are now stuck in the legal precedent quicksand of declaring extra-constitutional matters either constitutional or unconstitutional, paving a distinct road to oligarchy and near irreversibly decreeing the morality of a few over all.Before you start crying “ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!”, since it would be the only tiny sliver of hope you would have of the Supreme Court’s involvement being valid in this issue, it’s quickly extinguished when you keep a couple of things in mind:A. The original intent of the Establishment clause was to cut off governmental collusion with individual faiths so as to prevent a state-sponsored theocracy.B. There is a HUGE and self-evident difference between state-sponsored theocracy and people’s governance through a generally accepted morality.Why do we have anti-prostitution laws, or anti-gambling laws, or anti-pornography laws? How about anti-recreational drug laws? Why do we not allow people to commit suicide? Those are all consensual, and they don’t potentially harm anyone other than those who engage in the practice (debatable, as is the case with gay marriage), right? The answer is simple. The same guidelines I outlined above apply to all of these sorts of laws. The people consider these behaviors to denigrate society as a whole because of the consequences of moral bankruptcy. The fact that such a religiously diverse collection of people can come together in a state to agree on implementing and enforcing a single moral precept for many different reasons based on the clear consequences of its violation proves that no one is determined to have their own specific belief system hijack the government. I’m not sure what’s so difficult to accept about letting the people govern themselves through the republic other than how disgruntled secular liberals wish to tyrannically project their morality onto the rest of us.So yeah, when you say:The irony is that many secular liberals adhere to this perfectly, and in more toxic and damaging ways than a process-respecting conservative would even dream of.Yup, you've entirely confused yourself about the origin of my comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Yup, you've entirely confused yourself about the origin of my comments.Elaborate por favor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew0059 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 You say the conspiracy aims to take rights and agency away from man and yet to men that's exactly what your side is fighting. I'd like to see same sex partners have the right to be protected when they spend their lives together, to not know fear from the government when the hard times come and one partner is ruled to not matter even when they are the world to the other partner. I'd like to see them have the agency to pick who they love and spend their lives together even if it's not the right choice in the eyes of others with out people fighting to make it harder.A gay couple should be able to live their life as they see fit. I don't see how keeping a legal definition of "marriage" as man-and-woman infringes on that. I don't even see the need for having "marriage" a legally defined term on the federal level.The problem with your argument is that you assume the church wants to strip homosexuals of their rights. That is untrue! In my readings of the Constitution and the negative powers it gives to the federal government I see nothing that deals with marriage at all- only with individuals and individual rights. The problem comes when you inflate the government and begin social engineering using socialized programs and a progressive income tax to offer incentives for certain behaviors!!I personally am against anti-sodomy laws on the federal or state level. My personal view is I would prefer those who choose to live a gay lifestyle to not encroach on my rights, and I will not encroach on theirs. To my knowledge, the core of all the legal battles have been over the legal definition of marriage and the various benefits derived therefrom. I believe the best resolution would be to either abolish all laws giving preferential treatment to married couples or change those laws as needed so as not to infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights. If a state decides to give hetero couples certain legal advantages that it won't afford to homo couples, then the homo couples should either strive to change the laws according to the State Constitution or vote with their feet and go somewhere that will afford them those rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Elaborate por favor.I'm going to answer for MOE, if I may...Prince, below* is the entire exchange that led to MOE's comments. He was pointing out to carlimac that she is picking and choosing which part of the Constitution she wants to adhere to... carlimac was trying to say that she doesn't care if DOMA is unconstitutional - she thinks it needs to stay because it is "right".And that's why MOE made this comment:I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me!So, basically, you are poking fun at MOE for saying the exact same thing YOU are saying about the constitutionality of marriage... You said it in half a page worth of sentences while he said it in one sentence.Get it now?*Conversation thread below:LOL You give me far too much credit. He's not just my god. He is everyones God.You make it sound like heterosexuality and man-woman marriages are something just made up recently by Christians. Adam and Eve started the human race. And if you prefer evolution- even if amoebas can reproduce by splitting, it took girl and boy Neanderthals to perpetuate the human race. I'm not an expert on history or all different religions or ancient belief systems, but I do know that if there are any that from their very inceptions taught that homosexual marriages were the way to go, they are very very rare and probably never produced offspring to keep them going for more than one generation. What we have going with homosexual "marriages" is a perversion of nature. We (as human beings) have become so advanced ( in our own minds) and so cocky and full of ourselves that we think we can mess with nature and it's no big deal. But I'm quite sure that the creator of our spirits and bodies, our Heavenly Father, and all other gods- even Zeus himself if he exists, are pretty displeased with homosexual alliances. I'm not going to say if same gender attractions are engrained in DNA to the point of being something one cannot overcome. I'm not completely convinced of that. But I DO know it goes against all laws of nature for two of the same gender to pair up as they are and even more grievous to our Father in Heaven that they want to claim they are "families" with all the same rights as the original nuclear families created by Him. It's not just my opinion, not just a Christian hangup, and frankly not just a religious thing either. It's a societal issue. It's a human thing. It's immoral. Yes it is gradually being more accepted by society. Unfortunately I can't deny that. But being socially acceptable in these days does not equate "right". With all sincerity Soulsearcher, I'm sorry if this offends you. But it's simply the way things are.Whether it's deemed unconstitutional or not, DOMA is right and good and should be left alone.I love it. We should only adhere to the Constitution when it happens to agree with me!The interpretation of the Constitution has become so warped that it no longer has the same meaning it did when it was written. Our forefathers probably couldn't even fathom how distorted society would become.As I understood it, that was the point of writing it in as vague terms as it was written. Seems to me like it is doing exactly what its authors intended.Oh, the irony.?? I sense you're poking fun at me, but I'm not sure in reference to what.Where in the federal Constitution is marriage listed as a legal right?Methinks you're a bit confused about the origin of my comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Methinks you're a bit confused about the origin of my comments.Oh, the irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I'm going to answer for MOE, if I may...Prince, below* is the entire exchange that led to MOE's comments. He was pointing out to carlimac that she is picking and choosing which part of the Constitution she wants to adhere to... carlimac was trying to say that she doesn't care if DOMA is unconstitutional - she thinks it needs to stay because it is "right".And that's why MOE made this comment:So, basically, you are poking fun at MOE for saying the exact same thing YOU are saying about the constitutionality of marriage... You said it in half a page worth of sentences while he said it in one sentence.That pretty well sums it up. Thanks, anatess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew0059 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Isn't it the Supreme Courts' job to deem DOMA unconstitutional or not? Is Obama overstepping his boundaries as President by doing the Supreme Courts' job? (Real question; read this the other day in an opinion article and was wondering if that was accurate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Isn't it the Supreme Courts' job to deem DOMA unconstitutional or not? Is Obama overstepping his boundaries as President by doing the Supreme Courts' job?(Real question; read this the other day in an opinion article and was wondering if that was accurate)Technically, yes. But I have a hard time getting angry about that because every administration picks and chooses things like this. It's just business as usual in Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 (edited) I'm going to answer for MOE, if I may...Prince, below* is the entire exchange that led to MOE's comments. He was pointing out to carlimac that she is picking and choosing which part of the Constitution she wants to adhere to... carlimac was trying to say that she doesn't care if DOMA is unconstitutional - she thinks it needs to stay because it is "right".And that's why MOE made this comment:So, basically, you are poking fun at MOE for saying the exact same thing YOU are saying about the constitutionality of marriage... You said it in half a page worth of sentences while he said it in one sentence.Get it now?*Conversation thread below:I see the logic in it but it appears I may have misinterpreted his intentions. MOE's post gave the apparently nonexistent implication that the law wasn't constitutional, which it is even though it doesn't have to be federal legislation and would be better off left to states. I wasn't trying to call MOE out personally, what I posted was more of a gripe about how liberals constantly break legitimate political process so they can have their way while calling out conservatives as if the judicial activism they push for is legitimate constitutionally speaking. It's still ironic in that way, had he meant it so.Isn't it the Supreme Courts' job to deem DOMA unconstitutional or not? Is Obama overstepping his boundaries as President by doing the Supreme Courts' job?(Real question; read this the other day in an opinion article and was wondering if that was accurate)No, and yes by extension. See my novel above for reasons why. Edited March 4, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 I see the logic in it but MOE's post gave the implication that the law wasn't constitutional...No, it gave the implication that Carlimac's a hypocrite, but being a rendering on the constitutionality of the law? No so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrinceofLight2000 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 No, it gave the implication that Carlimac's a hypocrite, but being a rendering on the constitutionality of the law? No so much.You missed my edit. Miss you by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 You missed my edit. Miss you by the way./me looks through the edits because he can actually do that.Yes I did.As far as missing me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.