California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

No one has a right to representation when it comes to another mans property, or his will for that property.

Lets say you me and 5 other people each own equaly sized individual pieces of land. Your land is the only one that has water. I come to you and ask you to buy that land. For what ever reason you say no, you choose not to sell me that land. So I gather all the land owners, and propose that you should have to divide your land among us all, leaveing only a small fraction of the land to you. Now you have a vote, cause this is a "democracy" but obviously your property is going to be divided. Would you call this fair? Would you call this freedom? Certainly not. This is mob rule. Well the same applies here. You dont have a right to denie what another man wants for his property, this case its not land thats property, but is this mans mind. The state doesnt have the right to grant anyone marrage, it is given to us by our creator. No piece of paper, no politition, no law book gives us this right, but its inherited. Other wise it wouldnt be a right, but a priviledge. God himself granted everyman the freedom to choose, or free will. No man has the right or priviledge to take that from you.

Well you have a lot of work to do if you want to reverse all the ways that the state is telling people how they can use their property or as to who or what they have to associate their property with. Personally I disagree with you on what my and others rights are though. People do have the right to promote or discourage certain behavior (or to outlaw behavior). The marriage laws simply promote behavior but do not tell anyone how to think or what to do with their property. The current marriage laws do not force anyone to do anything.

It is the opposite though for those who enacted this lawsuit to overturn the will of the people. These same groups demand that a person cannot discriminate even at their own business (their own property) against homosexuality. These people want to demand that everyone treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. They want to force their morality on the people. They want to use the public schools to promote homosexuality without even giving the people an equal right to representation on the issue.

[preacherman76]

Well you have a lot of work to do if you want to reverse all the ways that the state is telling people how they can use their property or as to who or what they have to associate their property with. Personally I disagree with you on what my and others rights are though. People do have the right to promote or discourage certain behavior (or to outlaw behavior). The marriage laws simply promote behavior but do not tell anyone how to think or what to do with their property. The current marriage laws do not force anyone to do anything.

It is the opposite though for those who enacted this lawsuit to overturn the will of the people. These same groups demand that a person cannot discriminate even at their own business (their own property) against homosexuality. These people want to demand that everyone treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. They want to force their morality on the people. They want to use the public schools to promote homosexuality without even giving the people an equal right to representation on the issue.

Oh man your preaching to the choir. If we lived according to the freedoms we proclaim, or to the documents our "leaders" swear to uphold we would be living in a entirly different world. Thats the world I want to live. Thats the world Im told I do live in, however absurd that claim is. Its high time we re-evaluated every part of our lifes, and our governments control over it.

[danielost]

No one has a right to representation when it comes to another mans property, or his will for that property.

Lets say you me and 5 other people each own equaly sized individual pieces of land. Your land is the only one that has water. I come to you and ask you to buy that land. For what ever reason you say no, you choose not to sell me that land. So I gather all the land owners, and propose that you should have to divide your land among us all, leaveing only a small fraction of the land to you. Now you have a vote, cause this is a "democracy" but obviously your property is going to be divided. Would you call this fair? Would you call this freedom? Certainly not. This is mob rule. Well the same applies here. You dont have a right to denie what another man wants for his property, this case its not land thats property, but is this mans mind. The state doesnt have the right to grant anyone marrage, it is given to us by our creator. No piece of paper, no politition, no law book gives us this right, but its inherited. Other wise it wouldnt be a right, but a priviledge. God himself granted everyman the freedom to choose, or free will. No man has the right or priviledge to take that from you.

but the 4 of the 5 people vote that my property shouldn't be devided. so now you take it to court to force me to give you my property anyways. that is what this is about.

[Jack_of_Blades]

but the 4 of the 5 people vote that my property shouldn't be devided. so now you take it to court to force me to give you my property anyways. that is what this is about.

Not it's not. This has nothing to do with your "property", it's about you not liking what others are doing with

their "property". If one plot of land can have cows then all of the plots should be able to have cows.

[danielost]

Not it's not. This has nothing to do with your "property", it's about you not liking what others are doing with

their "property". If one plot of land can have cows then all of the plots should be able to have cows.

but through democracy it has been voted that the other plots of land can't have the cows. so now we go to court and demand that they force the people to accept the fact that cows are going to be forced on everyone's plot of land whether or not they want them

[+HerNibs]

but through democracy it has been voted that the other plots of land can't have the cows. so now we go to court and demand that they force the people to accept the fact that cows are going to be forced on everyone's plot of land whether or not they want them

Daniel, if a vote was held and the majority of people voted that women are not equal to men and do not have the same rights as men, would this be ok??

Nibs

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Not it's not. This has nothing to do with your "property", it's about you not liking what others are doing with

their "property". If one plot of land can have cows then all of the plots should be able to have cows.

Actually you are wrong. These left-wing groups have been suing people telling them they have to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality on their property. E-Harmony was sued here in New Jersey for not accepting left-wing morality and many other businesses have been as well. This is 100% about the left-wing trying to force their perverted morality on everyone else. They do not want people who oppose their perverted left-wing morality to have any rights on this issue.

[Jack_of_Blades]

so now we go to court and demand that they force the people to accept the fact that cows are going to be forced on everyone's plot of land whether or not they want them

Not forced to have cows but all plots will be given the right to have cows if they desire them. Nothing is being forced upon anyone, the other plots are only fairly being given the same rights as you.

E-Harmony was sued here in New Jersey for not accepting left-wing morality and many other businesses have been as well. This is 100% about the left-wing trying to force their perverted morality on everyone else. They do not want people who oppose their perverted left-wing morality to have any rights on this issue.

Which was completely wrong. E-Harmony has the right to only give services to heterosexuals. While the "pervertedness" of the left-wing is up to debate, I'm confused as to why you feel all people belonging to the left wing would agree to E-Harmony being sued.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[danielost]

Daniel, if a vote was held and the majority of people voted that women are not equal to men and do not have the same rights as men, would this be ok??

Nibs

as long as the women had a chance to vote on the issue as well yes it would be ok. would it be right no. but why should we then go to court and force the people to accept women as equal when they have voted not to.

[danielost]

Not forced to have cows but all plots will be given the right to have cows if they desire them. Nothing is being forced upon anyone, the other plots are only fairly being given the same rights as you.

right and the second someone doesn't want the cows on their land, we take them to court for being a bigot.

[+HerNibs]

Actually you are wrong. These left-wing groups have been suing people telling them they have to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality on their property. E-Harmony was sued here in New Jersey for not accepting left-wing morality and many other businesses have been as well. This is 100% about the left-wing trying to force their perverted morality on everyone else. They do not want people who oppose their perverted left-wing morality to have any rights on this issue.

Wow, that's twisted.

If E Harmony wants to do business in California then it must follow CA laws. Same for ANY other businesses. All E Harmony needed to do was only operate in states where it agreed with it's laws.

Are you stating that homosexuality is perverted?

Nibs

[The Silver Thong]

as long as the women had a chance to vote on the issue as well yes it would be ok. would it be right no. but why should we then go to court and force the people to accept women as equal when they have voted not to.

No majority rule violates human rights hence majority rule is not used.

Edited January 12, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Jack_of_Blades]

right and the second someone doesn't want the cows on their land, we take them to court for being a bigot.

You can't sue someone for being a bigot (in most cases).

Eveyone has the right to hate their neighbor's cows.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[The Silver Thong]

Wow, that's twisted.

If E Harmony wants to do business in California then it must follow CA laws. Same for ANY other businesses. All E Harmony needed to do was only operate in states where it agreed with it's laws.

Are you stating that homosexuality is perverted?

Nibs

Very twisted indeed Nib's and a little frightning to boot that a fair few think this way.

[+HerNibs]

Very twisted indeed Nib's and a little frightning to boot that a fair few think this way.

*sigh*

Which is why I will try to limit my peeks at this thread.

Humanity is depressing the hell out of me right now.

Scaring me a bit as well.

Nibs

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Wow, that's twisted.

If E Harmony wants to do business in California then it must follow CA laws. Same for ANY other businesses. All E Harmony needed to do was only operate in states where it agreed with it's laws.

Are you stating that homosexuality is perverted?

Nibs

Yes by definition:

3. to turn away from the right course.

5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.

8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.

In my opinion sexuality has an obvious path or course that it is intended for that is grossly perverted by the practice of homosexuality.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Are you stating that homosexuality is perverted

Going by definition it is. Sex is designed to increase the survival of your species so any type of

sex that doesn't produce a baby is perverted... technically.

[danielost]

You can't sue someone for being a bigot (in most cases).

Eveyone has the right to hate their neighbor's cows.

yes you can if said person won't let you stay in their hotel or get married in their church.

[Jack_of_Blades]

yes you can if said person won't let you stay in their hotel or get married in their church.

This law can not affect private religion! Can you not understand that?! Sepparation of church and state and what not. No church will be forced to accept gays marrying, they are only given to ability to preform them, if they want. Learn a little about what you are debating for once.

[+HerNibs]

yes you can if said person won't let you stay in their hotel or get married in their church.

Daniel,you know that those two examples are not equal. A church and a hotel do not have to follow the same laws and you know it.

A church does not HAVE to marry anyone. Heck, a church marriage ceremony without a state issued license means nothing.

A Catholic church does not HAVE to perform a Muslim marriage ceremony.

Nibs

[danielost]

Daniel,you know that those two examples are not equal. A church and a hotel do not have to follow the same laws and you know it.

A church does not HAVE to marry anyone. Heck, a church marriage ceremony without a state issued license means nothing.

A Catholic church does not HAVE to perform a Muslim marriage ceremony.

Nibs

my point exactly, a church won't be able to marry anyone legally if the state won't issue them a license to do so. and said state won't issue one unless they marry everyone. a catholic church would have to marry a muslim couple if it was a constitutional right.

a constitutional right out wieghs any other rights.

Edited January 12, 2010 by danielost

[+HerNibs]

my point exactly, a church won't be able to marry anyone legally if the state won't issue them a license to do so. and said state won't issue one unless they marry everyone. a catholic church would have to marry a muslim couple if it was a constitutional right.

No. Wrong.

You've got some of this twisted up.

The state issues the marriage license to the couple. The license in SOME states must be signed by an official. I believe that if a state recognizes a particular religious leader as an official, they must recognize all religious leaders (priests, rabbis, etc.) of a recognized religion.

No state or federal government can force a church to perform a practice that is against their doctrine.

The entire point is that a marriage license can be issued to individuals of the same sex and that license is as valid as any license issued to individuals of opposite sex.

Nibs

[danielost]

No. Wrong.

You've got some of this twisted up.

The state issues the marriage license to the couple. The license in SOME states must be signed by an official. I believe that if a state recognizes a particular religious leader as an official, they must recognize all religious leaders (priests, rabbis, etc.) of a recognized religion.

No state or federal government can force a church to perform a practice that is against their doctrine.

The entire point is that a marriage license can be issued to individuals of the same sex and that license is as valid as any license issued to individuals of opposite sex.

Nibs

the state issues the license. the priest says by the power invested in my by the state of whatever, which means said priest is getting the power to marry someone through the state.

[+HerNibs]

the state issues the license. the priest says by the power invested in my by the state of whatever, which means said priest is getting the power to marry someone through the state.

Right. (Now, the priest/official isn't necessary in all states)

But the state cannot force the priest to perform marriages between same sex individuals. The state cannot deny a priest the ability to "officiate" at a wedding but allow a reverend.

That is discrimination based on religion.

The state cannot force any religion to change it's doctrine to conform to the law unless there is violence and abuse to minors.

Google it, there are nazi churches. Think they marry african americans or jewish individuals? Nope. But they can officiate at their own (provided that is how the state works).

All that is happening with the changing of the marriage laws is that the license itself can be issued to any (two) consenting adults and it will grant the same rights and benefits regardless of the sex.

Really has NOTHING to do with a church. What you see are religions that are against the concept.

Nibs

[The Silver Thong]

the state issues the license. the priest says by the power invested in my by the state of whatever, which means said priest is getting the power to marry someone through the state.

That does not matter the church still has the option to marry who they like. A church can even refuse to marry someone of the same faith if they so choose to. What you said is that the state issued marriage licence has been recognized buy what ever said church you like thats all. The church is not legaly bound to marry anyone it does not want and that won't change.