| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/22/2009 10:16:29 PM | | So, I've been hearing that our oh so wonderful governor signed this into law. Then I get this referendum 71 thing, where these folks oppose this and want it overturned. I'm just curious as to what folks think about this new law and/or this referendum 71. I'll open myself for flaming first. Personally I think this "Everything but marriage law" is good progress. Not because I agree or like the gays' choice in lifestyle, but I am glad whenever some form of government actually takes the time to recognize that a citizen has the right to live their life the way they choose. Now, only if they would start to reconize the rest of our rights that our getting trampled. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:23:12 PM | QUOTE BY SENATOR VAL STEVENS: Could this be the final battle? Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families? (Senator Stevens is a woman)
This is the kid of crap that gets spewed over an issue such as this one......^^^^..... its really very sad. Whether you agree or not with the lifestyle, the above is out of line.
The Libertarian Party I believe is supporting 71.......
The OP aboves point on rights is well said and quite frankly, I find it difficult myself to see how the choice of one persons lifestyle has much effect on others. Being that we all need to happily share this country and it was based on freedom to choose.....well not much more to say than that. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:34:50 PM | | That's the reasoning of the small minded ~ if we make it acceptable then kids will want to do it | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/24/2009 8:18:49 PM | | What someones sexual prefrence is does not intrest me what so ever....But I really do not like the idea of exploiting it. I'm sorry but it brings a whole new meaning to sex education in the schools..... | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:58:29 AM | | I agree with you and being against this referendum. This country is based on the freedom to choose, and just because someone doesnt want to be gay, or doesnt approve of it, doesnt mean they have the right to take away that freedom to live and die as married couples do whether or not they are gay or straight. We should all be able to protect the ones we love! If one of my children grows up to be gay, sure I admit I might be alittle disappointed, but I would still accept and love them, because thank god I would have raised them right to make the choice for happiness. Are we teaching our children that is it OK to be gay, or are we teaching them that it is their choice to live and be happy however they want to do it. I believe the latter. I mean what would happen if they grew up to be a skinhead, or a right wing extremist, or a unibomber, or a pedophile, etc etc etc, did we teach them that? Did they live by the examples we set? I know quite a few gay and lesbian couples, and they treat each other with more kindness and respect then alot of the straight married couples I know. That is the kind of example I want my children to see, whether or not they are gay or straight. I want my children to be happy, and loving, and accepting to others, and if that is what I am teaching them by voting for equal rights for gays, then absolutely, GO GAY EQUAL RIGHTS! | |
|
| |
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:37:41 PM | The structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for A NORMAL husband-wife relationships. Clearly human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality, as there is no possible way for two gay people to have sex outside of the normal perimeters, of body organs they were born with.
A man's butt is made to eradicate excrement (shet) and not for sex. Sorry, but no amount of twisted logic will persuade the majority to accept what's against nature and common sense. | |
|
| |
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/26/2009 9:44:12 AM | What someones sexual prefrence is does not intrest me what so ever....But I really do not like the idea of exploiting it. I'm sorry but it brings a whole new meaning to sex education in the schools.....
Explain what you mean by "exploiting it". All some kid has to do is watch the evening dramas or whatever they are called. They have every thing from shows about gays, drugs, sex and scandals and anything else you can think of. They (kids) already get pounded by this type of stuff from the TV networks...If you don't want your kids getting a "whole new meaning of sex education" (I'm assuming this means you are uncomfortable with them learning this) then I would suggest not letting them watch TV.
The structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for A NORMAL husband-wife relationships. Clearly human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality, as there is no possible way for two gay people to have sex outside of the normal perimeters, of body organs they were born with.
A man's butt is made to eradicate excrement (shet) and not for sex. Sorry, but no amount of twisted logic will persuade the majority to accept what's against nature and common sense.
I'm not disagreing with you on the human biology thing and the fact that nature designed it to work a certain way. I myself don't really care for that lifstyle, nor do I really hang around anyone like that...it just ain't a thing for me (ok I think it is repulsive). I also like to crack a fair share of jokes at the gays expense. The thing that gets me though, is that it is their choice and who am I, or anyone else to say yea or nay. Just because you don't like they the way someone chooses to live, doesn't mean you have any business telling them how to live according to your ideals. It is the same as telling someone that they cannot marry/date anyone that is not their skin color (that was against the law at one time in this country). The way I view it is that, "it doesn't effect me, so what do I care"...just because they make it legal for gays to get married, or whatever doesn't mean that now everyone will be forced to be gay. I view it as more of a victory against the Government...in that it allows us to claim more of our civil rights and abilities to choose the way we wish to live. Instead of living by how the government wants you to. It is about freedom of choice in my book...simple as that "freedom". | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 1:53:31 PM |
Just because you don't like they the way someone chooses to live, doesn't mean you have any business telling them how to live according to your ideals.
Well, I am in agreement with you concerning the above statement, if one does not believe the Bible and chooses NOT to live according to the principles prescribes in the scriptures. Of course your ideas of what another should do, or not do, are based upon secular, non-Christian ideas.
People seem to forget that the majority of American citizens are Christians (or at least claim to be)
Therefore for those who love God and live according to the scriptures, when opportunities present themselves they will admonish such folks, and any so-called progressive intervention which seeks to persuade elected officials to circumvent the rule and opinion of the majority. (i.e like proposition 8 in California)
Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead let your lives be so in contrast as to expose and reprove and convict them. Eph 5:11 | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:00:06 PM |
Just because you don't like they the way someone chooses to live, doesn't mean you have any business telling them how to live according to your ideals.
Well, I am in agreement with you concerning the above statement, if one does not believe the Bible and chooses NOT to live according to the principles prescribes in the scriptures. Of course your ideas of what another should do, or not do, are based upon secular, non-Christian ideas.
People seem to forget that the majority of American citizens are Christians (or at least claim to be)
Therefore for those who love God and live according to the scriptures, when opportunities present themselves they will admonish such folks, and any so-called progressive intervention which seeks to persuade elected officials to circumvent the rule and opinion of the majority. (i.e like proposition 8 in California)
Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead let your lives be so in contrast as to expose and reprove and convict them. Ephesians 5:11
When I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his perversity and iniquity, but his blood will I require at your hand. Ezekiel 33:3 | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:34:39 PM | And you forget that this is a secular country regardless of the religious beliefs of the majority. Actually, make that because of the beliefs of the majority.
The individual's protection from oppression of the majority via the government is supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.
PG, you'll need to find another basis to argue your prejudice should be upheld by law. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:45:28 PM | | Here's a thought, let people live how they wish according to what they believe. l won't push Taoism on you and you can leave your Christianity at the door as well. Gays and lesbians have every bit as much right to be miserable in marriage as do the hetero crowd. Base your beliefs in fear and this is the sort of reaction l expect. lf the Christians want to ban them from saying their vows in the church, so be it. That's as far as their law extends anyway. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 8:59:07 PM | My apologies for the double post.
I can see that some opinions made in response to my post have misconstrued my intent. I was simply answering a prior posting, and the mind-set of those who think no one should advise others concerning aberrant behavior.
If you had any concern for a friend or past acquaintance, who's behavior may eventually lead to irreparable harm, would you not seek to divert said behavior? If you had any love, or even a modicum of compassion for such an individual, I believe that you would.
I realize some may have misconceptions about the Christian religion, but the 'oppression' of others is never it's intent.
Nor is there any conspiracy to restrict the freedoms of others (Regardless of their lifestyle)
I realize the following statement may fall on deaf ears (or eyes), but the Creator has authority over every element of our lives, whether we believe it or not. If he did not, then no one would be in hell.
In essence, when ever someone says, " let people live how they wish according to what they believe" they are telling Christians to keep their mouth shut, and never tell people the consequences of their behavior. Only because they really don't have anything better to offer, as such a philosophy truly does not understand love. Good luck with that.
 | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/27/2009 10:08:42 PM | If you open your mind long enough you'll see the flaw in your logic.
This thread is talking about a law providing (close to) equal protection under the law for a class of people. (Senate Bill 5688)
You're talking about saving souls.
Opposing the law (or supporting Prop 71) will not stop a single homosexual from being homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts. It will only serve to continue discrimination and denial of civil benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.
Supporting the law will not turn a single heterosexual into a homosexual so that they can enjoy civil benefits they already have access to. Is there anyone who honestly believes there are adult heterosexuals out there who will suddenly turn gay so they can visit their partner in the hospital during 'family only' hours, or the hundreds of other benefits legally reserved for hetero couples??
Nor will this law suddenly legalize pedophilia. Wake up! Preying on children will still be illegal for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Passing this law will have no, zero, zilch, zippo impact on the Church's laws. Reverends, pastors, priests, etc. will still be free to deny religious marriage, sacrament, or any other religious benefit to homosexuals.
Even with this law on the books - you, PG, will continue to be free to speak words of 'love' (cough cough) while practicing hate. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:44:45 AM | Any attitudes, philosophy and or De facto laws and legislation that affords greater rights against the ultimate right, which is THE WORD OF GOD, is an egregious subversion of law. Especially since law is derived from God and his Word, unfortunately modern day advocates have sought to subordinate God's law in place of man-made laws that do not benefit mankind.
Seeking to enforce any arbitrary man-made laws, and so-called rights for a minority which the 'moral law' impugns, only circumvents positive social standards of acceptability for a civil society.
Any legislation which affords 'liberty' contrary to, or diverted from its true purpose - WHICH IS JUSTICE, is an odious perversion of the law, as 'justice' can never be guaranteed, when others seek to undermine the underlying moral outcome - which is preserving, developing, and perfecting LIFE.
Common sense should prevail to show, homosexuality does not preserve, develop, or perfect life, unless some mad scientist has developed a way for two people of the same sex to produce life (ie child birth)
Society and culture will continue to spiral downward as some in the profession of law continue to castrate any sense of 'morality' from law, which is arguably the most tragic consequence of those given the priviledge to uphold what is good and right for society.
A little study of history will afford one the knowledge that greater acceptance and affirmation in the sin of homosexuality, against the Laws of God, has always been the precursor to a Nations/Empire ruin.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life. - Frédéric Bastiat
 | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:21:23 AM | | You know what I find really, really frightening? Some say they are against Ref. 71 because you believe gays should have rights. Uh, take a moment to crack open your voter's pamphlet. If you believe that the domestic partnership legislation that is ALREADY on the books to be a good thing, then you should be FOR Ref. 71, not against it. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:09:00 AM | Well, I am in agreement with you concerning the above statement, if one does not believe the Bible and chooses NOT to live according to the principles prescribes in the scriptures. Of course your ideas of what another should do, or not do, are based upon secular, non-Christian ideas.
People seem to forget that the majority of American citizens are Christians (or at least claim to be)
Therefore for those who love God and live according to the scriptures, when opportunities present themselves they will admonish such folks, and any so-called progressive intervention which seeks to persuade elected officials to circumvent the rule and opinion of the majority. (i.e like proposition 8 in California)
Does not your Bible also say something about how God intended people to have free will and to choose their life as they see fit? Is not there also a scripture in there that warns against going out and judging in God's eyes and doing out "his" judgement (or whatever)? Was not Jesus compasionate and and understanding of those who where the "holyest" or "most rightious"?
Gays and lesbians have every bit as much right to be miserable in marriage as do the hetero crowd.
 So true, but I don't really recall ever seeing pissed off angry gay guys. They are usually pretty happy, at least the ones I have met. Now lesbiens on the other hand are usually pretty damn moody. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 12:18:31 PM | | PG, while l respect your right to an opinion and the freedom to express it, you are one scary dude. ln my view, sexual oppression is no different than racial oppression in that one doesn't have a choice of their situation. l don't think that a person has woke up one morning and decided to be gay, just as one can't choose their skin color. l do however think a person can wake up and decide not to oppress those who are different than them when they base that oppression on fear, hate or even religion (adding religion to the thought was kinda redundant in this case, but my point stands) | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 12:30:59 PM |
I realize some may have misconceptions about the Christian religion, but the 'oppression' of others is never it's intent
Since the beginnings of the church, this has always been it's intent...convert/reform the non believers or cast them out as heretics, often times resulting in torture and/or death. A modern day example of this is the bombing of abortion clinics and killing of doctor who perform abortions. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 2:34:03 PM |
A modern day example of this is the bombing of abortion clinics and killing of doctor who perform abortions.
I don't nessesarially believe that this fits. I think that that is more to do with irational individuals attacking something that they are oppossed to. Such as certain "green" people have bombed SUV dearlerships, or anti-government groups in the 60s and 70s who have bombed government buildings. I don't really think that that can be placed at the feet of the church, but instead on how people choose to interpret their chosen religion or belief. I will agree that it is kind of hypicritical for some folks to say "give me give me", but then turn around and say no to a group of individuals who follow a different path then them. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:13:21 PM | | The church sets the mandate, the *believers* follow that up with actions to affect the desired outcome. l know what the religious stand on abortion and prop 71 is, and l'm sure it is pointed out in sermons. While they publicly don't condone individuals, l'm pretty sure they don't really care what means are needed to achieve their desired outcome. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:14:42 PM | You know what I find really, really frightening? Some say they are against Ref. 71 because you believe gays should have rights. Uh, take a moment to crack open your voter's pamphlet. If you believe that the domestic partnership legislation that is ALREADY on the books to be a good thing, then you should be FOR Ref. 71, not against it.
Thank you Childlike Wonder. The website I'd read about Prop 71 had it backwards. After your comment I went to the voter guide. I'm usually better informed but things have been hectic lately (no excuse). OMG!! The lawyer admits a mistake! Stop the presses ;-)
CW, your post made a difference! | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:52:58 PM |
The church sets the mandate, the *believers* follow that up with actions to affect the desired outcome. l know what the religious stand on abortion and prop 71 is, and l'm sure it is pointed out in sermons. While they publicly don't condone individuals, l'm pretty sure they don't really care what means are needed to achieve their desired outcome.
Yes, this is true and could be a posibility. I do not believe though that all churches and the individuals that attend believe, or think the way the mainstream media and political figures point them out to be. I do understand it is easy to point the finger at "the church" because at the moment it is politically correct. I am also fully aware that churches/religion around the world and through-out history (not just the christian ones) have a reputation for inspiring violence and certain other radical actions. I'm not a fan of "organized religions" (lack of a better term), but I am aware that a lot of folks who are religious along with a lot churches get painted with a bad brush because of the actions of few radicals. Look at the fear people had of Obama being a muslim (not saying he is and if my memory serves me right he attended a catholic church?), all of a sudden he was in corrorts with Al Queda, the Taliban and other radical muslim groups. This is the image that a lot of people get thrown at them about Islam, "they are all terrorist". Yet there are certain Middle Eastern nations that follow Islam that have no tolorrance for these groups, Iran being one of them and if I remeber correctly they kill these individuals who belong to the radical religious groups. It's also this idea that just because the church mandates it that the folks attending are so mindless as to do and act as the preacher guy says (some are, but you see that all over not just in religion). Yes, I'm aware that there are some individuals who felt elevated at the death of an abortion doctor or the bombing of a clinic, but what about the pro-abortion followers who cheered at the death of a pro-lifer who was gunned down. Radical behavior is just a a thing of churches, nor is mandating the way people think. | |
|
| Everything-but-marriage law.
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:04:14 PM | And you forget that this is a secular country regardless of the religious beliefs of the majority. Actually, make that because of the beliefs of the majority. The individual's protection from oppression of the majority via the government is supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution.
That's nonsense. The Constitution does not "protect the minority from the majority" in all cases, only in the cases of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the majority wants all drunk drivers (a minority) off the road, that minority is not "protected from the will of the majority." Drunks or children or the blind (etc) don't have a constitution right to drive and gays don't have a constitutional right to marry and neither do heteros. Marriage is not a right, it's a statutory privilege. And as such is subject to legislative will. (I'm all for gay marriage or an equivalent, by the way, so save your flames.) So argue in favor of gay marriage all you want, but to do so on the basis of some constitutionally guaranteed right has no merit.
| |
|
Home
login 
