California Marriage Amendment to be decided

[MasterAdam 2]

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

So we have to deny a certain people's rights to protect Christianity? That's ludacris!

Your logic seems to be that if any law comes into effect that's against the principles of Christianity, it's some how a law against Christianity itself.

We live in the United States of America. Not the United Christian States of America.

[danielost 8,881]

So we have to deny a certain people's rights to protect Christianity? That's ludacris!

Your logic seems to be that if any law comes into effect that's against the principles of Christianity, it's some how a law against Christianity itself.

We live in the United States of America. Not the United Christian States of America.

we live in the united states of america. this group of people are not being denied their rights. they are trying to expand their rights.

[MasterAdam 2]

we live in the united states of america. this group of people are not being denied their rights. they are trying to expand their rights.

And they have a right to get married just like heterosexual couples.

[The Silver Thong 4,364]

we live in the united states of america. this group of people are not being denied their rights. they are trying to expand their rights.

You mean expand there rights so that it becomes equal to ours, how vile and scary for you. I'll be honest i could never be nor experiment in gay sexual activity (I find the male privates rather gross to be honest) nor do I care for the flamboyant parades but for me to limit there right to do so and that includes marriage I would feel guilty of not standing up for my fellow man and women that just happen to belong to a so called group that is frowned upon by an organization that has an agenda and thats religion.

If you want equal rights than you can't choose who has them unless they violate the law, simple as that. Marriage is 100% a legal issue and not a religious one. Religion is a limitation of human rights and if we need to move out of just gay marriage to prove it ask me.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Cadetak 9]

we live in the united states of america. this group of people are not being denied their rights. they are trying to expand their rights.

They are being denied the ability to marry who they wish...for no real logical reason.

Nonetheless...so what?

How would 'expanding the rights' of homosexuals to allow for gay marriage effect your life in the slightest?

What reasoning do you use to support your belief that homosexual marriages are wrong?

[preacherman76 14,904]

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.

The point is, your property should have never been up for vote to begin with. WE DONT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

[Mr. Miyagi 98]

I have an observation which I's like to present based upon a few conversations earlier in the thread. I sat down and I thought about the POV that was presented by True and others, Danielost etc... that homosexuality isn't the issue. No one is saying that they can't live that life style, only that they cannot be married. That's fine, but one glaring problem stuck out to me. All the reasoning as to why they cannot be allowed to marry focuses on the issues people have with homosexuality, not with allowing them to marry. If Homosexuality isn't the issue, then what is it? True, I understand what you mean about not interfering with the poular vote, and understand your reasoning on that, I still respectfully disagree due to the minority not having equal representaion in a popular vote like that. When it comes to human rights, I just don't think that's the right way to do things. One other observation. If stds are a concern for others, as far as homosexual promiscuity and it's impact on the hetero population, whould the support of monogamous relationships such as allowing gay marriage not curb the issue?

Again, thanks for reading everybody!

Edited January 13, 2010 by Mr. Miyagi

[The Silver Thong 4,364]

Hey Mr. Miyagi I dig ya and ya I'm pickin up what your layin down so no worries mate

Sometimes these types of threads get a bit frustrating. So I hope there ain't no hard feelins and again no worries, me casa is sue casa.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[eqgumby 10]

I find it rather amusing that it always seems to roll back around to Church and that sort of thing.

I don't see any CHURCH being forced to marry any one.

Are there ANY arguments AGAINST gay marriage BESIDES moral or religion? I know that legalizing it would create quite a few OTHER legal quirks, as well as make the military have to re-assess some of its rules among other things. BUT, really, is there an argument OTHER than moral or logistics against gay marriage that makes any sense?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME 0]

I find it rather amusing that it always seems to roll back around to Church and that sort of thing.

I don't see any CHURCH being forced to marry any one.

Are there ANY arguments AGAINST gay marriage BESIDES moral or religion? I know that legalizing it would create quite a few OTHER legal quirks, as well as make the military have to re-assess some of its rules among other things. BUT, really, is there an argument OTHER than moral or logistics against gay marriage that makes any sense?

Well I sure see businesses and other areas of the public square being forced to treat homosexual behavior as being equal to heterosexual behavior overall.

Are there any non-moral arguments for gay marriage. In every case the arguments I hear for it argue that it is morally wrong to not allow it.

BUT, really, is there an argument OTHER than moral or logistics for gay marriage that makes any sense?

I have an observation which I's like to present based upon a few conversations earlier in the thread. I sat down and I thought about the POV that was presented by True and others, Danielost etc... that homosexuality isn't the issue. No one is saying that they can't live that life style, only that they cannot be married. That's fine, but one glaring problem stuck out to me. All the reasoning as to why they cannot be allowed to marry focuses on the issues people have with homosexuality, not with allowing them to marry. If Homosexuality isn't the issue, then what is it? True, I understand what you mean about not interfering with the poular vote, and understand your reasoning on that, I still respectfully disagree due to the minority not having equal representaion in a popular vote like that. When it comes to human rights, I just don't think that's the right way to do things. One other observation. If stds are a concern for others, as far as homosexual promiscuity and it's impact on the hetero population, whould the support of monogamous relationships such as allowing gay marriage not curb the issue?

Again, thanks for reading everybody!

The issue is whether or not the people have a right to representation on how sexual behavior (in this case) is dealt with by government and in the public square.

If you view how people associate themselves with a certain sexual behavior as being a human right to force others to accept their behavior then could you explain how that is? What other types of sexual behavior should the people have no right to representation on beyond homosexuality? Polygamy? S&M lifestyles? Incest? Public nudity? Public sex? The Age of consent?

If people should have no right to representation on how sexuality is dealt with on this issue of sexual behavior then what justification do you give for allowing us the right to representation on these other issues?

Thanks!

[Mr. Miyagi 98]

Well I sure see businesses and other areas of the public square being forced to treat homosexual behavior as being equal to heterosexual behavior overall.

Are there any non-moral arguments for gay marriage. In every case the arguments I hear for it argue that it is morally wrong to not allow it.

BUT, really, is there an argument OTHER than moral or logistics for gay marriage that makes any sense?

The issue is whether or not the people have a right to representation on how sexual behavior (in this case) is dealt with by government and in the public square.

If you view how people associate themselves with a certain sexual behavior as being a human right to force others to accept their behavior then could you explain how that is? What other types of sexual behavior should the people have no right to representation on beyond homosexuality? Polygamy? S&M lifestyles? Incest? Public nudity? Public sex? The Age of consent?

If people should have no right to representation on how sexuality is dealt with on this issue of sexual behavior then what justification do you give for allowing us the right to representation on these other issues?

Thanks!

So your issue is with homosexual behavior? I'm confused now. How would allowing them to marry be forcing others to accept their behavior? The flip side is them being forced to accept other's dislike of their behavior. Secondly, other than polygamy and the age of consent, do you know what all the groups listed above, along with several thousand other sexual kinks have in common? Couples engaged in such activity can be married, unless they're gay of course. Finally, as I said earlier, if Stds are an issue, and pride parades, etc as well... Allowing them to marry would effectively curb both somewhat. imho

See ya later True! Off to work man.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME 0]

So your issue is with homosexual behavior? I'm confused now. How would allowing them to marry be forcing others to accept their behavior? The flip side is them being forced to accept other's dislike of their behavior. Secondly, other than polygamy and the age of consent, do you know what all the groups listed above, along with several thousand other sexual kinks have in common? Couples engaged in such activity can be married, unless they're gay of course. Finally, as I said earlier, if Stds are an issue, and pride parades, etc as well... Allowing them to marry would effectively curb both somewhat. imho

See ya later True! Off to work man.

The issue for everyone is homosexual behavior, some think it is normal and good and others do not. Marriage is a social construct of society that was created by the people. Gay people are already allowed to marry (there is no law saying that they cannot) but they choose not to unless they are allowed to redefine marriage. Big difference that you have ignored. Besides why do you assume that there cannot be homosexual polygamy, or homosexual S&M relationships of sorts, or homosexual incest?

But you really haven’t answered my questions though. But have a great day!!!!

[Mekorig 19]

When the mob rules cut a minority from their civil rights, the Judicial System is the last defense against that.

[Mr. Miyagi 98]

The issue for everyone is homosexual behavior, some think it is normal and good and others do not. Marriage is a social construct of society that was created by the people. Gay people are already allowed to marry (there is no law saying that they cannot) but they choose not to unless they are allowed to redefine marriage. Big difference that you have ignored. Besides why do you assume that there cannot be homosexual polygamy, or homosexual S&M relationships of sorts, or homosexual incest?

But you really havent answered my questions though. But have a great day!!!!

I'm sorry I didn't answer your question there man. Brain fart lol. As far as people not having a right to representation is concerned, it seems to me that in this situation, a minority group, whether it is a choice or not, is having a right denied them. The only way they can be equally represented is in a court of law at this point, in which both sides have equal and adequate representation. To the other part, I didn't assume that there could not be homosexual polygamy etc. the difference is, even if the polygamist were homosexual, and wanted to marry multiple spouses under assumed identities, they could not... due to them trying to marry the same sex. A strait polygamist would at least have a shot, albeit an illegal one. the difference bewtween a gay couple and a strait couple engaged in s&m practices is that the strait couple can be maried. S&M has nothing to do with it I don't think. As far as marriage needing to be changed, if it states that marriage is between a man and a woman, then yes, it needs to be changed, or at least, have an amendment called... whatever... that still affords gay couples with the same rihts as hetero couples. imho

Thanks again man, I'm really getting alot out of this! I appreciate you humoring my questions lol.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Mr. Miyagi

[TRUEYOUTRUEME 0]

Here is a link to a radio interview with one of the lawyers involved in this case:

My link

[danielost 8,881]

The point is, your property should have never been up for vote to begin with. WE DONT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

your right we live in a society where the wants of the one are far more important the wants of the many.

the constitution was written to protect everyones rights not so one group can exploit the other.

as i have said before if it is only about getting a legal marriage all you have to do is pass more common marriage laws not a constitutional amendment.

[HerNibs 2,701]

your right we live in a society where the wants of the one are far more important the wants of the many.

the constitution was written to protect everyones rights not so one group can exploit the other.

as i have said before if it is only about getting a legal marriage all you have to do is pass more common marriage laws not a constitutional amendment.

No, we live in a society where the RIGHTS of one are more important the the WANTS of many. At least, I think we are moving that way. Which is the correct way to go.

Nibs

[The Silver Thong 4,364]

Here is a link to a radio interview with one of the lawyers involved in this case:

My link

This is a right wing bias radio show. I did listen and the the lawyer that is speaking says far to many times, if and ummm and we don't think, and all he talks about is restrictions. It's one lawyers opinion based on his bias view point. The guy is a religious lawyer that teaches at a school. WOW law and religion mixed into this guys bias views and actually being taught. Amazing how un bias you are Trueyou. I can see no bias in your view point at all, especially listening to an evangelical lawyer. Just wow.

See how religion likes to take over the law? You just posted it. Equal representation in a court of law or public square my butt. It's total control by a religious group plain and simple. Basicly the lawyer agrees with you so know it must be accepted when he is wrong based on the fact he's using religion to dictate law. Do you not understand that or me not being a Christian you just don't have to listen to me.

[eqgumby 10]

I still don't see a real reason NOT to allow it, other than on purely moral grounds. Homosexual "behavior" seems to be the issue, which I guess means physical sexual activity between members of the same sex...but then...hetero's do some of the same things...so...should we ban "sodomy" as has been done in the past? Or do you NOT care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors?

[Mr. Miyagi 98]

Here is a link to a radio interview with one of the lawyers involved in this case:

My link

My first notion upon listening is that he clearly not an impartial person, when it comes to the matter. His argument, in part, is based upon whether or not homosexuality is a choice. That's debateable. Secondly, He states that the definition of marriage does not discriminate based upon sex...(4:42 mark)then he states that marriage is between a man and a woman (6:05-06ish) contradicting himself within minutes. I already stated the difference between the other sexual activities he describes and homosexuality in my previous reply. Based upon his own logic, before he contradicts himself, the constitution makes no issue of sex in regards to marriage. Therefore the argument can be made that there is no grounds with which to deny it to them. Which brings us back to a minority party being discriminated against imho. That party now has representation in court. They'll decide I guess.

Thanks for the link!

[TRUEYOUTRUEME 0]

So if a minority is allowed to re-define marriage for all of society by denying people the right to representation who disagree with their definition then what else can be re-defined using this method? Though we define the term ‘private property’ right now through our right to representation maybe a minority who believes that everything is really ‘community property’ can claim that they are being denied their rights to use property held by others? Thus justifying stealing as a protected behavior under the left-wing moral concept of equality.

Of course this would fit in perfect with the left-wing morality of wealth redistribution.

Basically this is the left-wing trying to force their morality and definitions on other people’s property already. The left-wing is anti-liberty.

[The Silver Thong 4,364]

So if a minority is allowed to re-define marriage for all of society by denying people the right to representation who disagree with their definition then what else can be re-defined using this method? Though we define the term private property right now through our right to representation maybe a minority who believes that everything is really community property can claim that they are being denied their rights to use property held by others? Thus justifying stealing as a protected behavior under the left-wing moral concept of equality.

Of course this would fit in perfect with the left-wing morality of wealth redistribution.

Basically this is the left-wing trying to force their morality and definitions on other peoples property already. The left-wing is anti-liberty.

It's not redefining the meaning of marriage and it has no effect on anyone but those that are held at a lesser level of society by folks like you. Do you not get that you are restricting equal rights. You are not a champion in the cause for equal rights you are against them. Really really think about it. A union between two people that has no effect on you what so ever should not even be a concern. What if someone actually said you were imoral and wanted to repress you, how would you think.

As a spiritual scientist and a conservative hippie (as you claim to be) you must understand that people should be treated equal as you so clearly state and want. The only repression and please don't say public square again as that word now offends me, is by you.

Edited January 13, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[TRUEYOUTRUEME 0]

No one has a right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole. We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

[eqgumby 10]

No one has a right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole. We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

Wait, so, this is about sexual behavior? Is that it? You do not wish to have "homosexual sexual behavior" forced on society? I'm REALLY trying to grasp this thing.

[Mr. Miyagi 98]

So if a minority is allowed to re-define marriage for all of society by denying people the right to representation who disagree with their definition then what else can be re-defined using this method? Though we define the term ‘private property’ right now through our right to representation maybe a minority who believes that everything is really ‘community property’ can claim that they are being denied their rights to use property held by others? Thus justifying stealing as a protected behavior under the left-wing moral concept of equality.

Of course this would fit in perfect with the left-wing morality of wealth redistribution.

Basically this is the left-wing trying to force their morality and definitions on other people’s property already. The left-wing is anti-liberty.

I have to disagree man. If sex is not an issue when it comes to marriage, as was stated in your link, then marriage is not being re-defined is it?

As far as a person having the rights to another's property, that clearly wouldn't be covered under the equal protection clause. that same clause is the basis for the gay's case no? I understand the constitution, at this point does not deal with the sexuality of partners who wish to be married. Therefore the decision to not allow gay marriage could be viewed as un-constitutional no? Especially if they are claiming that marriage is only between a man and a woman when the constitution doesn't say anything on the matter. The matter would be left down to a ruling based upon the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause imho. we'll see man, Should be interesting.

I think we've effectively beat the proverbial dead horse on this one, and we're gonna wind up re-typing the same thing over and over again lol. I still respectfully disagree. Let's find something else to disagree on lol... you're from Jersey no? Jets fan? From a life long Dolphins fan, it hurts to say this... I hope you guys win it all man. Good luck. I think I just threw up in my mouth lol.