California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[+HerNibs]

Well, since no one can or will give me an honest answer, I will go with the assumption that this (below) is what they think.

"It's icky when two boys kiss and if they get married, they may move near me and I will catch teh ghey."

Nibs

[eqgumby]

Well, since no one can or will give me an honest answer, I will go with the assumption that this (below) is what they think.

"It's icky when two boys kiss and if they get married, they may move near me and I will catch teh ghey."

Nibs

HI! I'm your new neighbor! I'm doing super, thanks for asking!

[Siara]

I don't get how any one wants government to regulate corrupt sex, let alone define it!

I know. The same people who rant and rave that the government has no right to violate people's privacy by keeping track of their guns have no problem at all inviting the government into the bedroom to regulate people's sexual behavior with their partners. So I guess guns are a sacred part of their private lives but sex isn't.

Or maybe they're just oblivious to the concept that laws must be applied equally, to everyone. They don't get the idea that if the government has a right to regulate their neighbors' sex lives it has the right to regulate their sex life as well.

[eqgumby]

I know. The same people who rant and rave that the government has no right to violate people's privacy by keeping track of their guns have no problem at all inviting the government into the bedroom to regulate people's sexual behavior with their partners. So I guess guns are a sacred part of their private lives but sex isn't.

Or maybe they're just oblivious to the concept that laws must be applied equally, to everyone. They don't get the idea that if the government has a right to regulate their neighbors' sex lives it has the right to regulate their sex life as well.

I guess they assume their sex lives are "normal' and would fall under the acceptable paramaeters set forth by the government.

Let the spankings commence!

[Startraveler]

Have you not been arguing that the key to this issue is "equal representation" (which I assume to mean a vote)? Since people voted in California, the outcome is acceptable? Again, I'm asking you this. I'm asking you to coherently state what point it is you're trying to make. Can you do that?

Ahem.

[Cadetak]

Considering the racist past of the left-wing progressive movement, you really have to wonder about their claims today that a person’s racial identity is equivalent to their sexuality identity based upon behavior. It seems as if they are still trying to come up with sneaky ways to undermine true equal rights for all.

It seems as if you are still trying to come up with a decent argument

[sear]

"the government regulating sexual behavior" eqg

Some suggest government should get out of the marriage bidness altogether.

I'm libertarian. But government is what gets stuck with orphans, etc.

And responsibility without commensurate authority doesn't make sense, and doesn't work.

None the less, "separate but equal" isn't good enough for Blacks or women. Why would we apply a double-standard and declare it OK for homosexuals?

"The same people who rant and rave that the government has no right to violate people's privacy by keeping track of their guns have no problem at all inviting the government into the bedroom to regulate people's sexual behavior with their partners." siara

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

[preacherman76]

I don't see anywhere, in any way or form, any Church being forced to marry a gay couple. Ever. Can you show ONE instance of that? One bit of information that would lead anyone to believe that anyone would be forced to wed a couple in the name of God, in a Church? It's not true. You can say it all you want, but I have never seen or heard of this eventuality. Its' a non-issue, and it's used to scare church-goers into believing they will be FORCED by law to sit with homosexuals in Church and watch them get married and have gay-sex on the alter. It's stupid and absurd.

You havent seen it, cause you havent looked for it. And frankly, Im not wasting my time looking things up for you. But I will give you a hint, google "Gays sue church", and you will find all you need to know.

[+HerNibs]

You havent seen it, cause you havent looked for it. And frankly, Im not wasting my time looking things up for you. But I will give you a hint, google "Gays sue church", and you will find all you need to know.

Who won?

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. It doesn't make it right or them right.

So who won?

Nibs

[preacherman76]

Who won?

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. It doesn't make it right or them right.

So who won?

Nibs

Dont know. It really wasnt the point though. The point is there is a agenda in the gay movement to force acceptance, by legal means if possible. Thats where the fear comes from.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Who won?

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. It doesn't make it right or them right.

So who won?

Nibs

Most (if not all) of the links I researched were from Conservative Blogs and websites. Upon closer examination they didn't state how it was ruled and had no follow-up. The links they provided for the stories were from mainstream news media sites, however the stories were no longer up. Thusly I must conclude that if all of those Conservative blogs didn't rush to tell how it was ruled, it was almost certainly ruled in favor of the church.

You havent seen it, cause you havent looked for it. And frankly, Im not wasting my time looking things up for you. But I will give you a hint, google "Gays sue church", and you will find all you need to know.

Your going to group all gays into the same group as the ones who are trying to sue wrongly? That isn't at all biased huh?

And frankly, Im not wasting my time looking things up for you

Your not going to back up your claims with evidence?

It really wasnt the point though. The point is there is a agenda in the gay movement to force acceptance

No that is completely the point. I could try to force people to accept me running around naked and ****ing a rabbit at every street corner, but I'm not going to win.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[preacherman76]

Your going to group all gays into the same group as the ones who are trying to sue wrongly? That isn't at all biased huh?

Im not doing anything other than pointing out a fact that there is a agenda within the gay community to force acceptance, on to folks who dont want to accept them. I have no bias on this subject, I fully support the rights of people to marry, even if its directly against the will of the state. I think the state should have no say in the matter either way.

[preacherman76]

Most (if not all) of the links I researched were from Conservative Blogs and websites. Upon closer examination they didn't state how it was ruled and had no follow-up. The links they provided for the stories were from mainstream news media sites, however the stories were no longer up. Thusly I must conclude that if all of those Conservative blogs didn't rush to tell how it was ruled, it was almost certainly ruled in favor of the church.

Im sure the churches did win, cause gay marrage isnt legal. Just wait though, you'll see what we are talking about.

Your not going to back up your claims with evidence?

Why should I have to? You already clarified what I was saying.

No that is completely the point. I could try to force people to accept me running around naked and ****ing a rabbit at every street corner, but I'm not going to win.

As you shouldnt. And niether should they. But that doesnt mean they wont.

Bottom line, if we all just followed the constitution, there would be no problem.

[Jack_of_Blades]

Im not doing anything other than pointing out a fact that there is a agenda within the gay community to force acceptance.

Yes I will agree there are some. However if you think that all of the gay people in America are collectively grouping together and have some big secret meetings trying to force all people to accept them (like little gay ninjas)

Then You need to do one of the following:

A ) Need to stop taking the medication

B ) Need to stop trying for the world record of most time without sleep

C Need to stop watching Glen Beck

Why should I have to? You already clarified what I was saying.

I know, but before I did you didn't post anything else about it.

As you shouldnt. And niether should they. But that doesnt mean they wont.

But they have a right to try, and fail time and time again.

Im sure the churches did win, cause gay marrage isnt legal. Just wait though, you'll see what we are talking about.

The government can not force anything upon the church. I will never see it.

Bottom line, if we all just followed the constitution, there would be no problem.

Agreed 100% That is the core of my political beliefs. I just wish politicians would stop ****ing all over it.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[preacherman76]

Yes I will agree there are some. However if you think that all of the gay people in America are collectively grouping together and have some big secret meetings trying to force all people to accept them (like little gay ninjas)

Then You need to do one of the following:

A ) Need to stop taking the medication

B ) Need to stop trying for the world record of most time without sleep

C Need to stop watching Glen Beck

0bama's school czar is one of them. He wrote a whole book on how gays have to politicaly win in the courts to force acceptance. They arent ALL doing it, but there are enough of them, in high places, to eventualy get it done. And since we have basicaly thrown out the constitution, who's to say they wont?

I take no medication

I sleep MORE than the average person

I have nothing to do with Glen Beck

Edited January 16, 2010 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

The government can not force anything upon the church. I will never see it.

Sure they can. They have already scared churches into not saying anything political. Under the threat of losing thier tax exempt status. As though the first admentment didnt apply to them.

[Jack_of_Blades]

They arent ALL doing it, but there are enough of them, in high places, to eventualy get it done. And since we have basicaly thrown out the constitution, who's to say they wont?

I was just joking about the A,B, and C thing mate. Why the good old American people! Sure the Constitution has been prodded and messed with for the passed few decades, but I asure you that the American people will not stand for an injustice that big.

Sure they can. They have already scared churches into not saying anything political.

Why should the church need to say anything political? While they do have the 1st amendment, they has no place in politics; just the same vise-versa.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[preacherman76]

I was just joking about the A,B, and C thing mate. Why the good old American people! Sure the Constitution has been prodded and messed with for the passed few decades, but I asure you that the American people will not stand for an injustice that big.

I hope your right. Though I cant believe what we have put up with already, and at this point little could surprise me.

[preacherman76]

Why should the church need to say anything political? While they do have the 1st amendment, they has no place in politics; just the same vise-versa.

A church should be able to say whatever they want, cause they are free. Or so we are told.

[Jack_of_Blades]

I hope your right. Though I cant believe what we have put up with already, and at this point little could surprise me.

Maybe I'm just an optimistic? The American people are so oppressed and over-worked that they never have the time to pay attention to real politics...

A church should be able to say whatever they want, cause they are free. Or so we are told.

Yes the right to say, but not to act.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack_of_Blades

[preacherman76]

Maybe I'm just an optimistic? The American people are so oppressed and over-worked that they never have the time to pay attention to real politics...

People are starting to wake up, I think it will be to little to late though.

Yes the right to say, but not to act.

Yes the right to speak, they are denied. That should NEVER be.

[Jack_of_Blades]

People are starting to wake up, I think it will be to little to late though.

Only time will tell. I have to go for now (stuff to do), but it's been a nice discussion.

[Startraveler]

Sure they can. They have already scared churches into not saying anything political. Under the threat of losing thier tax exempt status. As though the first admentment didnt apply to them.

The first amendment doesn't make churches tax-exempt, the tax code does. And there are rules that all 501( c)(3) organizations--religious or not--have to follow. Otherwise they don't get to be 501( c)(3) organizations anymore.

To be tax-exempt under section 501( c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501( c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual.

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501( c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501( c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501( c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501( c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Startraveler

[eqgumby]

You havent seen it, cause you havent looked for it. And frankly, Im not wasting my time looking things up for you. But I will give you a hint, google "Gays sue church", and you will find all you need to know.

OK, googled it.

All I see are people suing churches that refuse to rent them pavilions for use in a CIVIL ceremony, and the only others I see are rabid Westboro-style rantings by anti-gay agenda websites, and a whole lot of what-ifs and oh-mys, but I see NO cases of a Church being sued because the pastor/priest/minister refuses to marry a gay couple "in the name of God etc etc. NONE.

[eqgumby]

A church should be able to say whatever they want, cause they are free. Or so we are told.

A church may NOT endorse a politician. If you don't know that, you need to get out of this forum. If you do know it and don't care, then all of your arguments are without merit, period. Saying churches are afraid to say anything "political" is absurd, as to maintain their tax exempt status they can't.