California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[+HerNibs]

Heck, I know of a Catholic church that refuses to marry anyone who did not complete their counseling courses and won't marry ANYONE who lived together prior to marriage and won't marry a Catholic and a Mormon...

see?

At no time does the church lose its right to officiate and it can pick who it will marry.

Nibs

[danielost]

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

and a business owner cannot be forced to let a black person into the place of business. the constitutional amendment only frees blacks does not give them the right to walk into any business that they want to.

understand i am agianst a black not being able to go into any business they want to. but it isn't in the amendment.

[+HerNibs]

and a business owner cannot be forced to let a black person into the place of business. the constitutional amendment only frees blacks does not give them the right to walk into any business that they want to.

understand i am agianst a black not being able to go into any business they want to. but it isn't in the amendment.

I understand what you are saying but you are mixing up two different things. Here is what this means if "gay marriage is recognized".

1. This will make a marriage between two women/men as valid as a marriage between a man and a woman.

2. This will NOT over ride the separation of church and state. This means that if a state allows one religious leader to be an official at a marriage then it must allow officials from all recognized religions to officiate at a marriage. The state cannot dictate the doctrine of a church. (Unless abuse is present.)

The laws governing businesses and churches are different.

Nibs

[eqgumby]

i am rethinking this maybe they should let this through and then we will see how long before churchs are forced to close or marry same sex couples.

I think Churches retain the right to marry or not marry based on religious grounds. It's the state LICENSED people that would be forced to perform secular marriages.

[WoIverine]

I hope gay marriage is allowed in California...maybe a decent earthquake or two will either sink, or actually break the state off the mainland.

[Karlis]

Here is an article 'updating' the on-going Court case.

I think that the title they have chosen for this short article is worth considering, though that in itself probably should be discussed on another thread.

By the way -- only the pro-gay marriage point of view is being presented to the court in this short introduction. The opposing view will be presented later.

-=-=-

"Exactly Why We Have Courts, Why We Have the Constitution and Why We Have the 14th Amendment"

Today, in a courtroom in California, a historic trial is beginning, one which may eventually decide the direction of civil liberties and constitutional rights in the United States into the foreseeable future.

That trial is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and the battle for that most basic of civil rights, the right to marriage for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is now officially underway.

Theodore B. Olson, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, delivered his opening remarks this morning starting at 9 AM PT. In these, he reminded the court that "in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is the most important relationship in life," and that basing the right to that relationship "on characteristics of an individual" is unconstitutional. He also noted that the stop-gap of domestic partnerships currently available in some states is an unequal alternative, and moreover, sounds like "a commercial venture."

"Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity."

Mr. Olson continued, noting that according to the California Supreme Court itself, "eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to 'second class' citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition." He then went on to lay out reasons for the importance of marriage, the harm Proposition 8 has done to gay and lesbian couples, and the lack of any valid reasons behind this exclusion.

Olson, a conservative who served as the attorney for the Bush side of Bush v. Gore, has received significant media attention for his involvement in this case. In an essay recently published in Newsweek entitled "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," he explained his reasoning, noting that he sees this as an issue of "recognition of basic American principles[and] commitment to equal rights," not a reason to invoke politics. He went on to say that "Americans who believe in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues."

(President Bill Clinton recently agreed, saying that his former reluctance to endorse gay marriages was because he was "hung up about the word," and that he "was wrong about that...I had an untenable position.")

Mr. Olson's remarks are just the beginning of a three-week trial, which is eventually expected to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Though Federal Judge Vaughn Walker had originally agreed to air the trial on YouTube, with some delay, the Supreme Court this morning overturned that decision, meaning that, at least until Wednesday, cameras will not be allowed inside the courtroom.

Nevertheless, this trial, a landmark of civil rights for our time, is sure to draw the eyes of the world. The stakes could not be higher, but as Olson said today: "that is exactly why we have courts, why we have the Constitution and why we have the 14th Amendment....That is why we are here today. Source

[danielost]

I think Churches retain the right to marry or not marry based on religious grounds. It's the state LICENSED people that would be forced to perform secular marriages.

and if these persons then decide to go to church then what.

[Jack_of_Blades]

and if these persons then decide to go to church then what.

If your talking about homosexuals, then they could legally be turned away from a church

if a church decides they don't want gays.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Danielost-

There's strong opposition to Mormonism in many places. Accusations that rather than a religion, it's a dangerous cult. I honestly think that if it weren't for the constitution, your faith would be banned as well. Would that be OK? If the people voted to ban your faith for being a dangerous cult? Your religion has seen it's fair share of oppression... Was that ok too? It's what the general populace wanted right?

Try looking at it from a different perspective man. Put yourself in the shoes of someone being denied a basic right. As far as a business being forced to cater to a demographic they don't wish to, naw i don't think that's right. It's their loss monetarily. I'd just start a business that did cater to that demographic and reap the benifits. Free market and all, or the illusion thereof lol. Same for a local church no one is going to be forced to mary anyone, unless they work for the state. It will have no bearing upon the lives of Christians and "moral conservatives" etc... imho.

Thanks for reading.

[The Silver Thong]

Danielost-

There's strong opposition to Mormonism in many places. Accusations that rather than a religion, it's a dangerous cult. I honestly think that if it weren't for the constitution, your faith would be banned as well. Would that be OK? If the people voted to ban your faith for being a dangerous cult? Your religion has seen it's fair share of oppression... Was that ok too? It's what the general populace wanted right?

Try looking at it from a different perspective man. Put yourself in the shoes of someone being denied a basic right. As far as a business being forced to cater to a demographic they don't wish to, naw i don't think that's right. It's their loss monetarily. I'd just start a business that did cater to that demographic and reap the benifits. Free market and all, or the illusion thereof lol. Same for a local church no one is going to be forced to mary anyone, unless they work for the state. It will have no bearing upon the lives of Christians and "moral conservatives" etc... imho.

Thanks for reading.

You could repeat this message a thousand times and yet some will have no clue what you are talking about. They will claim the majority should rule and that Christianity is being oppressed. Wait for it, it will be posted again and again and again. Some just don't know what equal rights or oppression means even though they claim to. You will be called a fascist a liberal nazi and the list goes on. The sad part is the majority rule and it called stupidity.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Danielost-

There's strong opposition to Mormonism in many places. Accusations that rather than a religion, it's a dangerous cult. I honestly think that if it weren't for the constitution, your faith would be banned as well. Would that be OK? If the people voted to ban your faith for being a dangerous cult? Your religion has seen it's fair share of oppression... Was that ok too? It's what the general populace wanted right?

Try looking at it from a different perspective man. Put yourself in the shoes of someone being denied a basic right. As far as a business being forced to cater to a demographic they don't wish to, naw i don't think that's right. It's their loss monetarily. I'd just start a business that did cater to that demographic and reap the benifits. Free market and all, or the illusion thereof lol. Same for a local church no one is going to be forced to mary anyone, unless they work for the state. It will have no bearing upon the lives of Christians and "moral conservatives" etc... imho.

Thanks for reading.

Yet no one is voting to ban homosexuality so your analogy is way off base. To the best of my knowledge no one was arresting people for acts of homosexuality either. (Beyond the intentionally setup case in Texas) If banning homosexuality by force of law was what the issue was about then even my position on the issue would be different.

This is a case of people trying to force their own morality on others by denying them representation on an issue (using the Court) of how a type of behavior is dealt with in the public square.

If two people want to make a private commitment to each other then no one is stopping them but they do not have the right to force the rest of society to honor their commitment or view it as morally right without the consent of the governed. Acceptance of homosexuality or behavior is not a right.

We already have public schools teaching a moral view on this issue to children and businesses being forced to this conform to this same moral view as well. It already is having a bearing on every United States citizen.

Though I do think that teaching our children that homosexuality is normal will be harmful to society, my biggest concern in regards to this issue is the left-wing ideal that thinks that people should have no representation on this issue. It is the total disregard for the rights of the people politically that offends me the most.

Personally I think whatever issues some people may have in regards to their sexuality could of been dealt with very easily in our society if it had been presented with the proper respect for the rights for others and solutions were sought but instead it is being pushed as an agenda with a radical left-wing mindset of government enforced psuedo-equality.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Yet no one is voting to ban homosexuality so your analogy is way off base. To the best of my knowledge no one was arresting people for acts of homosexuality either. (Beyond the intentionally setup case in Texas) If banning homosexuality by force of law was what the issue was about then even my position on the issue would be different.

This is a case of people trying to force their own morality on others by denying them representation on an issue (using the Court) of how a type of behavior is dealt with in the public square.

If two people want to make a private commitment to each other then no one is stopping them but they do not have the right to force the rest of society to honor their commitment or view it as morally right without the consent of the governed. Acceptance of homosexuality or behavior is not a right.

We already have public schools teaching a moral view on this issue to children and businesses being forced to this conform to this same moral view as well. It already is having a bearing on every United States citizen.

Though I do think that teaching our children that homosexuality is normal will be harmful to society, my biggest concern in regards to this issue is the left-wing ideal that thinks that people should have no representation on this issue. It is the total disregard for the rights of the people politically that offends me the most.

Personally I think whatever issues some people may have in regards to their sexuality could of been dealt with very easily in our society if it had been presented with the proper respect for the rights for others and solutions were sought but instead it is being pushed as an agenda with a radical left-wing mindset of government enforced psuedo-equality.

Point taken, However the reverse can be said, that conservatives are forcing their version of morality upon homosexuals by not allowing them the same rights as a hetero couple no? As far as businesses being forced to cater, as I said before I don't agree with it. However, what was E-harmony's response to that lawsuit? To create a gay and lesbian specific dating site. Screw morality when there's money to made right? lol. I'm interested in your perspective, as far as a solution. Prop 8 is unconstitutional in my view. Do you disagree that gays deserve same right to marriage as a strait couple, only that businesses shouldn't be forced to cater to them? like I said I agree with you there. If you don't think they should have the same rights, could you go into a little more detail as to why you feel that way? What are you basing that viewpoint on?

Thanks for your time man!

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Point taken, However the reverse can be said, that conservatives are forcing their version of morality upon homosexuals by not allowing them the same rights as a hetero couple no? As far as businesses being forced to cater, as I said before I don't agree with it. However, what was E-harmony's response to that lawsuit? To create a gay and lesbian specific dating site. Screw morality when there's money to made right? lol. I'm interested in your perspective, as far as a solution. Prop 8 is unconstitutional in my view. Do you disagree that gays deserve same right to marriage as a strait couple, only that businesses shouldn't be forced to cater to them? like I said I agree with you there. If you don't think they should have the same rights, could you go into a little more detail as to why you feel that way? What are you basing that viewpoint on?

Thanks for your time man!

If the people are being given the proper representation on an issue then it is permissible for people of one belief to govern the morality of the public square in regards to how it deals with certain behavior. All laws are in essence moral laws.

Conservatives have only been pushing for protecting this right to have representation on issues of sexuality and behaviors associated with it in the public square. Conservatives have faith in "We the People". They are not trying to deny representation (using the Court) to those who believe that laws are needed to protect people who identify as homosexual.

For the 'People' to create through law a defintion of marraige that excludes other definitions of marraige is not going to force anyone to agree or to deny anyone their rights. No one is stopping people from having relationships or making commitments. Society is simply promoting what the majority of people feel is right to promote.

You seem to use the term 'homosexuals' as if it is a type of inborn characteristic as well but it is actually a behavior. There is no one who could predict the future sexual behavior of any child as if they were born a 'this' or a 'that' in regards to their future sexual behavior and desires.

Someone mentioned the 14th Amendment earlier and is implying that it should cover groups that identify themseles by types of behavior. That is ridiculous. There is group after group that will start suing that there associated behavior be given special rights as well.

[Mr. Miyagi]

If the people are being given the proper representation on an issue then it is permissible for people of one belief to govern the morality of the public square in regards to how it deals with certain behavior. All laws are in essence moral laws.

Conservatives have only been pushing for protecting this right to have representation on issues of sexuality and behaviors associated with it in the public square. Conservatives have faith in "We the People". They are not trying to deny representation (using the Court) to those who believe that laws are needed to protect people who identify as homosexual.

For the 'People' to create through law a defintion of marraige that excludes other definitions of marraige is not going to force anyone to agree or to deny anyone their rights. No one is stopping people from having relationships or making commitments. Society is simply promoting what the majority of people feel is right to promote.

You seem to use the term 'homosexuals' as if it is a type of inborn characteristic as well but it is actually a behavior. There is no one who could predict the future sexual behavior of any child as if they were born a 'this' or a 'that' in regards to their future sexual behavior and desires.

Someone mentioned the 14th Amendment earlier and is implying that it should cover groups that identify themseles by types of behavior. That is ridiculous. There is group after group that will start suing that there associated behavior be given special rights as well.

Nor can we predict if the person will have an affinity for science, Music, Archery, have a thing for greyhounds dressed as clowns, or be strait for that matter. You feel that homosexuality is a choice, that's fine. Is that choice morally wrong? Based upon what? I understand you having faith in "we the people" So you are stating that because the reason you support the legislation is because the people voted for it, regardless if the reason the vast majority for them voted for it is based upon Biblical morality? I understand you're not a Christian, so I'm confused a bit. You support the legislation because you believe in "we the people" Despite the legislation clearly being based mostly upon Christian morality, when the constitution states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. Lastly... Does "we the people" not include Gays in your estimation?

I'm not sure how homosexuality being a choice makes it immoral.

Thanks again for your input man!

Edited January 13, 2010 by Mr. Miyagi

[eqgumby]

and if these persons then decide to go to church then what.

No, I don't think anyone is going to force any one to marry same-sex couples in "Gods" eyes.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Nor can we predict if the person will have an affinity for science, Music, Archery, have a thing for greyhounds dressed as clowns, or be strait for that matter. You feel that homosexuality is a choice, that's fine. Is that choice morally wrong? Based upon what? I understand you having faith in "we the people" So you are stating that because the reason you support the legislation is because the people voted for it, regardless if the reason the vast majority for them voted for it is based upon Biblical morality? I understand you're not a Christian, so I'm confused a bit. You support the legislation because you believe in "we the people" Despite the legislation clearly being based mostly upon Christian morality, when the constitution states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. Lastly... Does "we the people" not include Gays in your estimation?

I'm not sure how homosexuality being a choice makes it immoral.

Thanks again for your input man!

Your claim that a majority of people base their morality on Christianity in this country is very simplisitic. There are polls that show something like 80% of people in this country identify as Christians. So of course many will claim that but how does that mean that these people shouldn't be allowed to have representation on this issue?

It is a canard that no one could view homosexuality as immoral without being religious. Besides all type of morality and all types of belief systems deserve equal rights to expression and representation under the law. Seperate of Church and State is un-Consitutional (Hugo Black was wrong).

Personally I (and I am sure many others as well) base their opinions on homosexuality upon reason, common sense, and science. It is obvious that sexuality has a biological design and purpose and that homosexuality perverts this purpose (as does many other perversions of sexuality as well). Homosexual activity is also associated with higher rates of STD's, and other acts of perverted morality as well. It is also an area of lie whereas all of society must interact and that effects our children as well. So there is good cause for concern by everyone in society.

All of the reasons for how homosexuality is viewed morally in the public square are open for political debate though and of course I equally support both sides of the issue being given equal representation on the issue. As I said I am most offended by the left-wing agenda of trying to take away the people's right to representation on this issue.

Thanks also for your input as well. All Good People.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Your claim that a majority of people base their morality on Christianity in this country is very simplisitic. There are polls that show something like 80% of people in this country identify as Christians. So of course many will claim that but how does that mean that these people shouldn't be allowed to have representation on this issue?

It is a canard that no one could view homosexuality as immoral without being religious. Besides all type of morality and all types of belief systems deserve equal rights to expression and representation under the law. Seperate of Church and State is un-Consitutional (Hugo Black was wrong).

Personally I (and I am sure many others as well) base their opinions on homosexuality upon reason, common sense, and science. It is obvious that sexuality has a biological design and purpose and that homosexuality perverts this purpose (as does many other perversions of sexuality as well). Homosexual activity is also associated with higher rates of STD's, and other acts of perverted morality as well. It is also an area of lie whereas all of society must interact and that effects our children as well. So there is good cause for concern by everyone in society.

All of the reasons for how homosexuality is viewed morally in the public square are open for political debate though and of course I equally support both sides of the issue being given equal representation on the issue. As I said I am most offended by the left-wing agenda of trying to take away the people's right to representation on this issue.

Thanks also for your input as well. All Good People.

The separation of church and state thing is debatable, to say the least and probably the subject of another thread, or a necro-post lol. I disagree with your positions, as far as pro-creation etc... if sex is only meant for pro-creation, and all other forms of it are at best a waste of time, at worse "a perversion" does that include sex between two willing hetero people when pro-creation isn't an option? Fertility problems etc? I understand where your'e coming from as far as pro-creation is concerned, Homosexual intercourse would be a waste of time of. The STD rate is an issue, sure, but as long as those cats "keep it gay" lol....

So ultimately you feel that the people have spoken and won a majority of the vote and that the court has no right to interfere, regardless of the issue. I disagree, but now I know why we don't agree, and I respect your perspective man. I think that gays are obviously in the minority and it's hard for them as well as other minority groups to have equal representaion when "we the people" speak.

Like I said, thanks for your perspective! I can't make a knee jerk reaction to it at this time, but I can at least ponder it later while respectfully disagreeing at this point. Have a good night!

Edited January 13, 2010 by Mr. Miyagi

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The separation of church and state thing is debatable, to say the least and probably the subject of another thread, or a necro-post lol. I disagree with your positions, as far as pro-creation etc... if sex is only meant for pro-creation, and all other forms of it are at best a waste of time, at worse "a perversion" does that include sex between two willing hetero people when pro-creation isn't an option? Fertility problems etc? I understand where your'e coming from as far as pro-creation is concerned, Homosexual intercourse would be a waste of time of. The STD rate is an issue, sure, but as long as those cats "keep it gay" lol....

So ultimately you feel that the people have spoken and won a majority of the vote and that the court has no right to interfere, regardless of the issue. I disagree, but now I know why we don't agree, and I respect your perspective man. I think that gays are obviously in the minority and it's hard for them as well as other minority groups to have equal representaion when "we the people" speak.

Like I said, thanks for your perspective! I can't make a knee jerk reaction to it at this time, but I can at least ponder it later while respectfully disagreeing at this point. Have a good night!

Thanks for your persective on this as well. I know that there are two sides (or more) to the issue of how homosexuality should be viewed morally. I feel by giving everyone equal representation on the issue we are taking the true Constitutional approach in regards to freedom. I do not agree with your view that the Court should force types of behavior to be treated 'equally' by all others in society. But we can respectfully disagree there.

Again thanks for the discussion. Have a great night also!

Edited January 13, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[The Silver Thong]

Your claim that a majority of people base their morality on Christianity in this country is very simplisitic. There are polls that show something like 80% of people in this country identify as Christians. So of course many will claim that but how does that mean that these people shouldn't be allowed to have representation on this issue?

It is a canard that no one could view homosexuality as immoral without being religious. Besides all type of morality and all types of belief systems deserve equal rights to expression and representation under the law. Seperate of Church and State is un-Consitutional (Hugo Black was wrong).

Personally I (and I am sure many others as well) base their opinions on homosexuality upon reason, common sense, and science. It is obvious that sexuality has a biological design and purpose and that homosexuality perverts this purpose (as does many other perversions of sexuality as well). Homosexual activity is also associated with higher rates of STD's, and other acts of perverted morality as well. It is also an area of lie whereas all of society must interact and that effects our children as well. So there is good cause for concern by everyone in society.

All of the reasons for how homosexuality is viewed morally in the public square are open for political debate though and of course I equally support both sides of the issue being given equal representation on the issue. As I said I am most offended by the left-wing agenda of trying to take away the people's right to representation on this issue.

Thanks also for your input as well. All Good People.

I can't even to begin to point out how many things in your post are so wrong. It's amazes me to the point that I think all logic and reason have gone the way of the Dodo. Absalutly amazing that in this day age.

quotes and rebuttal

"There are polls that show something like 80%"

Your source of information is astounding.NOT.

"these people shouldn't be allowed to have representation on this issue"

You mean an 80% Christian country is not being allowed to have representation? where do you come up with that nonsense?

"Hugo Black was wrong"

So FDR and Hugo Black were wrong and you are right??

"base their opinions on homosexuality upon reason, common sense, and science."

As you do not as that is clear. You base it on popular opinion lol and a religious view. Religion all based on reason, common sense and science LOL what ever man.

"I equally support both sides of the issue being given equal representation on the issue"

How can you say that with a straight face (pun not intended)

"As I said I am most offended by the left-wing agenda of trying to take away the people's right to representation on this issue."

What about the people being offended by the right. They don't matter now. The only rights being suppressed are the ones dictated to by the minority 80% i think you said with now backing but your opinion on the percentages, as you said earlier the majority should rule. Your own words said that so if a vote that is 49/51 the 49% should be oppressed, I did not say that you did.

This double talk is crazy. You can't say you want equal when thats not what you state. How can you not see your double standards. We are talking human rights not religious rights not political rights but human rights.

Now I know this will upset you and you will report me for having a different view but man oh man it's getting rather old.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Now I know this will upset you and you will report me for having a different view but man of man it's getting rather old.

I have never reported you to anyone here at UM. I have simply tried to defend myself from accusations you have made about me in other threads. Then you follow me to new threads and start the same stuff up again. I never made any complaint about you to anyone else here in any other way then reply to your posts about me.

I was the one who got a warning from a moderator in a thread though because of this issue you have with me. I understand that you do not like me but give it a rest. There are thousands of other people here at UM, if you dont like me so much then dont read my posts.

[The Silver Thong]

Mr. Miyagi

You remind me of someone I once new. He was like you in many ways my friend. Do you like music as much as Mr. Miyagi likes karate? I also think it was pretty cold today if I watched the right news channel.

I like Buggs Bunny and I use the term when talking to people that seem to understand the big picture, as I always call them Doc.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

I have never reported you to anyone here at UM. I have simply tried to defend myself from accusations you have made about me in other threads. Then you follow me to new threads and start the same stuff up again. I never made any complaint about you to anyone else here in any other way then reply to your posts about me.

I was the one who got a warning from a moderator in a thread though because of this issue you have with me. I understand that you do not like me but give it a rest. There are thousands of other people here at UM, if you dont like me so much then dont read my posts.

Again please understand the fact we post in the same threads and have far different opinions does not mean I "follow you" that is ludicrous and just as absurd as your posts. When I disagree I post it. Or do you want to suppress me as well now. Get of your high horse man, it makes you look rather silly.

Your right I don't really care for you but this is a forum to express both sides and to disagree from time to time. If we disagree a lot so be it. Don't be so sensitive sheesh.

Then you say this crap

"if you dont like me so much then dont read my posts"

So you do want to shut people up and still feel you have a right to carry on as you do. This is a public forum and if you post you better expect people to respond or is it respond only if you agree with me type thing. I think thats against forum policy trying to silence someone because they have difference in opinion. I can point out what I disagree with or are you a new mod with out the badge yet?

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[danielost]

Danielost-

There's strong opposition to Mormonism in many places. Accusations that rather than a religion, it's a dangerous cult. I honestly think that if it weren't for the constitution, your faith would be banned as well. Would that be OK? If the people voted to ban your faith for being a dangerous cult? Your religion has seen it's fair share of oppression... Was that ok too? It's what the general populace wanted right?

Try looking at it from a different perspective man. Put yourself in the shoes of someone being denied a basic right. As far as a business being forced to cater to a demographic they don't wish to, naw i don't think that's right. It's their loss monetarily. I'd just start a business that did cater to that demographic and reap the benifits. Free market and all, or the illusion thereof lol. Same for a local church no one is going to be forced to mary anyone, unless they work for the state. It will have no bearing upon the lives of Christians and "moral conservatives" etc... imho.

Thanks for reading.

actually mormons practiced plural marriages until the federal government made it a condition that they could only marry 1 person. going even further than that by making those who didn't live in the united states quit the practice even tho at the time it wasn't against the law in that country.

many mormon leaders were arrested because they felt abligated to take care of their families dispite the new federal laws against it. and because of those laws we ended up with those who still practice it outside of the law and force their girls to practice it as well.

but as has been stated no one is talking about arresting homosexuals or even making it illegal.

the last person to be arrested and jailed for boligamy was a man last name Green. but he wasn't convicted of that, he was convicted of putting his kids on foodstamps to make sure that they got the medical care they needed to go to school. as far as i know he never used the foodstamps, the only thing he did was use the medical part of it. he spent most of his time on the road as a sells man.

his family grew/raised most of their own food. what they didn't grow he bought.

Edited January 13, 2010 by danielost

[MasterAdam]

Banning homosexuals from getting married is like segregation of blacks and whites.

It's unconstitutional and I don't think it's something that needs a vote.

If the states voted on segregation back in the 60's, the South would have still been under Jim Crow laws for many more years.

I'm sure you would agrre with me if the majority of people voted to ban Christianity.

Edited January 13, 2010 by MasterAdam

[danielost]

Banning homosexuals from getting married is like segregation of blacks and whites.

It's unconstitutional and I don't think it's something that needs a vote.

If the states voted on segregation back in the 60's, the South would have still been under Jim Crow laws for many more years.

I'm sure you would agrre with me if the majority of people voted to ban Christianity.

christianity is being outlawed on law at a time. this is just one of those laws.

Edited January 13, 2010 by danielost