This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It's from the National Organization for Marriage. And I think it makes some very reasonable points. Most importantly, that Prop. 8 did not ban gay marriage. It simply confirmed the definition of marriage as society has always accepted it.
OK.Learn how to use the quote function, or at least tell us it is not your own writing, or at least link to the article.
Well things change.
If Gay Marriage never existed why did the Christians ban it when they took over Rome?Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion (quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.
I don't know enough about the history of Rome to answer your question. Gay marriage may have acceptable during Biblical times too: in towns like Sodom. But God never approved.
Yeah but that's not what you said "Marriage has not, and never will, be a bond between two people of the same-sex"
That's what the National Organization for Marriage asserts. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not, I don't claim to be a historical expert. But it's not central to the main argument. Ploygamy has been an accepted form of marriage as well, in some societies. The ancient Hawaiians practiced both polygamy and incest. The ancient Canaanites sacrificed their own children. But our society is based on our traditional religious beliefs- they are the source of everything good. We have only to examine the societies in Earth that have existed without the Bible as their moral source to determine how dangerous it is to reject the teachings of our ancestors.
Well. God ought to get himself a position as a judge somewhere so his opinion might actually count when it comes to interpreting the law. Until then, I guess he'll have to settle for picking who gets to go to Heaven and who doesn't. Frankly, I think that's the only thing he's fit to decide, so until something changes, let's just go ahead and leave him to that.
Sounds like you're a fan of progressive thinking. Lose the wrong idea about what our society's moral and ethical compass is based on and you'll be pro-gay marriage before you know it. The bible wasn't the first book ever written, you know. The things you believe that are the source already had a source.
Think about that for a little bit.
So gay marriage has always existed? Just without God's approval? Can you quote the passage(s) in the bible where gay marriage is discussed showing God's disapproval?Was Ruth 1:16-17 read at any weddings you have ever attended? ...Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."
Read the rest of the post for a little bit longer.
Yep, It is absurd to believe in the sovereignty of an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God would judge people for doing what they were created to do.
Only 23% of Swedes believe in God.
Be reasonable. Most of us living in America believe in God, and in the morality we were taught from Scripture. We are taught that homosexuality is wrong and it's a sin. How can you expect us to accept a judgment in which the law of the land contradicts one of our most fundamental beliefs? Are we a majority, or aren't we? As a majority, we have the right to have our laws reflect our sense of morality.I understand the argument that, even as a majority, we cannot establish laws that are unconstitutional, but that doesn't apply here. To suggest that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment is nothing less than pure judicial activism, establishing a "right" which has never before existed. Even Jonathan Rausch, a gay writer who supports same-sex marriage, has noted this. In an article earlier this week, he stated:
I find it very sad that you think that "homosexuality is a sin", is one of your fundamental beliefs.
It isn't. I was referring to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Where is this right in the Constitution? Or in the various writings debating the passage of the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Where is this right derived? Certainly not in nature.Our laws are not suppose to reflect or promote morality. That is a faulty premise.
Sorry, I didn't spell that out. Are there some large moral failings in Sweden that we should be aware of? Is it a "dangerous" country?
I don't think you understand what the term "reasonable point" means.
Yeah I wouldn't go claiming to be 'a historical expert' either if I made statements like that.
This is what it comes down to for me. Why would I want to be a part of religion when I see so many religious people spew so much hatred at a group of people? Whether it's Muslims, gays, atheists, etc. - it's just sad.
This is really the type of stuff that should be reserved for the ombudsman thread.
Well, I saw him in here. I'm still waiting for my control panel upgrade so I can sleuth these out myself.
I'm pretty certain you could figure it out. I'll post the answer in the secret mod forum so you can verify things once you get access.
According to the latest CNN poll, a majority of Americans do support gay marriage.Regardless, this is not how we determine rights in the United States. Barring gays from being married will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional; I have little doubt of this.
I solved a differential equation for FatMax not long ago.
Yep.As far as the polls go, here's a pretty good graph illustrating a pretty steady march towards the majority of our country being in favor of gay marriage. I'm sure there are studies that could be cherry-picked to show that most Americans don't support gay marriage, but it's pretty easy to tell which way things are heading: 538.
Churches can marry who they wish with or without Prop 8. For a church, the important part of marriage is not the recognition of the marriage by the government. However, if gay marriages are allowed by the government churches must treat them like any other state sanctioned government. In Massachusetts, this led to the Catholic Church ending their adoption programs and some others rather than be forced to place children in gay marriages. So state sanctioned gay marriage limits the choices of religious organizations, it does not increase them.What\'s always confused me is that Prop. 8 seems to impinge on religious freedom. Prop 8 would prevent churches that want to perform gay marriages from doing so. With no Prop 8, churches can do as they wish.
Ok, lets start off with the distinction between enforcing laws and defending the laws against a Constitutional challenge in the courts. Next, I've no idea of the authorship of the article or the sites for the Jefferson and Adams attribution, but Adams left office in 1801 and he was replaced by Jefferson. At the time of Jefferson's ascendency, the Sedition Act would have been law. Two years later in 1803, Marbury v. Madison was decided which, right or wrong, set the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution as is accepted and settled today.
Let's go back to your original comment. You were surprised of the lack of support from the CA AG and Governator. Neither the AG or the governator refused to enforce the law, just defend it. Not sure why you were (are) so surprised ...dparker713 said:
it only limits the choices of those that think limiting choices should be the norm.dparker713 said:Churches can marry who they wish with or without Prop 8. For a church, the important part of marriage is not the recognition of the marriage by the government. However, if gay marriages are allowed by the government churches must treat them like any other state sanctioned government. In Massachusetts, this led to the Catholic Church ending their adoption programs and some others rather than be forced to place children in gay marriages. So state sanctioned gay marriage limits the choices of religious organizations, it does not increase them.What\'s always confused me is that Prop. 8 seems to impinge on religious freedom. Prop 8 would prevent churches that want to perform gay marriages from doing so. With no Prop 8, churches can do as they wish.
The statement was that Prop 8 limited the choices of churches. That statement is wrongit only limits the choices of those that think limiting choices should be the norm.dparker713 said:Churches can marry who they wish with or without Prop 8. For a church, the important part of marriage is not the recognition of the marriage by the government. However, if gay marriages are allowed by the government churches must treat them like any other state sanctioned government. In Massachusetts, this led to the Catholic Church ending their adoption programs and some others rather than be forced to place children in gay marriages. So state sanctioned gay marriage limits the choices of religious organizations, it does not increase them.What\'s always confused me is that Prop. 8 seems to impinge on religious freedom. Prop 8 would prevent churches that want to perform gay marriages from doing so. With no Prop 8, churches can do as they wish.
isnt that what i said??The statement was that Prop 8 limited the choices of churches. That statement is wrongit only limits the choices of those that think limiting choices should be the norm.dparker713 said:Churches can marry who they wish with or without Prop 8. For a church, the important part of marriage is not the recognition of the marriage by the government. However, if gay marriages are allowed by the government churches must treat them like any other state sanctioned government. In Massachusetts, this led to the Catholic Church ending their adoption programs and some others rather than be forced to place children in gay marriages. So state sanctioned gay marriage limits the choices of religious organizations, it does not increase them.What\'s always confused me is that Prop. 8 seems to impinge on religious freedom. Prop 8 would prevent churches that want to perform gay marriages from doing so. With no Prop 8, churches can do as they wish.
Frustrated, not surprised. They placed politics above their sworn duties to uphold and defend the Constitution of California. Personal beliefs and politics should not have been a factor in the decision to perform a primary duty of the position.
Actually, no. Not all churches would necessarily decide to limit choices. Nor does the stance of a particular church to limit choices necessarily reflect its opinion on what should be the norm.isnt that what i said??The statement was that Prop 8 limited the choices of churches. That statement is wrongit only limits the choices of those that think limiting choices should be the norm.dparker713 said:Churches can marry who they wish with or without Prop 8. For a church, the important part of marriage is not the recognition of the marriage by the government. However, if gay marriages are allowed by the government churches must treat them like any other state sanctioned government. In Massachusetts, this led to the Catholic Church ending their adoption programs and some others rather than be forced to place children in gay marriages. So state sanctioned gay marriage limits the choices of religious organizations, it does not increase them.What\'s always confused me is that Prop. 8 seems to impinge on religious freedom. Prop 8 would prevent churches that want to perform gay marriages from doing so. With no Prop 8, churches can do as they wish.
How are they not upholding the constitution of California? Were they marrying gay people? Were gay people granted marriage licenses after Prop 8 passed?
easy there, the first part is a non-starter insofar as not limiting choices would not be an issue, and the second begs a question: why do churches preach if not to reveal what should be the norm?? are you suggesting preaching is just a waste of breath?
By norm, I took it to mean as reflected in the law. Some churches are concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven and not the kingdom of man.
HTH
Wow, I didn't know the Governator married people after Prop 8 passed. Could you provide a link? TIA
So, you completely ignore a verb the first time I write it, then you ignore the verb when I bold it. How about instead of me providing a link you actually read and comprehend what I wrote.
I really need to stop checking in here.
