Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (5 Viewers)

[oneohh]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either, right?

Obviously. Why is this even an issue?

 

[McJose]

Judge Walker is going to rule today on whether or not to allow gay marriages to occur during the appeal process. This is a separate issue and I'm curious if any lawyers around here could discuss what the legal precedent is for this sort of thing, if there is one.

Bump. We should have the decision in the next hour. But I don't know what it should be. What should the judge do here?

Weddings are good for the local economy....

The day the ruling came out there was a mini-rally about a half mile from my house (in support of the ruling). The wife and I were driving by and saw at least 200 gay folks holding signs and waving rainbow flags. We turned around and my wife handed them a big stack of my business cards (wedding officiant) and told them "pass them around!".

 

[Running with scissors]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

What's wrong with science?

 

[Running with scissors]

If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.

Why? What if the majority (or to take it a step further, the entirety) of an entire state voted to have you killed? Would you want a judge to subvert their wishes then?

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

I would love some gay marriage power!!

3 power ups and you can get an extra life.

 

[the moops]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either, right?

Obviously. Why is this even an issue?

You need help.

 

[timschochet]

Judge Walker will lift stay on Aug. 18 IF the 9th Circuit doesn't decide to continue the stay. That's doubtful, according to experts, so gay people can get married in California after August 18.

 

[oneohh]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

What's wrong with science?

You mean when you force the creation of a human that should have never been born?

 

[badmojo1006]

Stay is continued until the 18th

 

[Running with scissors]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

What's wrong with science?

You mean when you force the creation of a human that should have never been born?

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

 

[beavers]

Judge Walker will lift stay on Aug. 18 IF the 9th Circuit doesn't decide to continue the stay. That's doubtful, according to experts, so gay people can get married in California after August 18.

The world as we know it, has ended.

 

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

 

[jomar]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

if God allows it to happen, maybe its because he wants it to happen....I'm sure he could smite some people doing this if he wanted to put a stop to it

 

[The Z Machine]

 

[the moops]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Your god should have nothing to do with the issue.

 

[flufhed]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

God, havebn't we beaten the pro-creation angle to death?I assume you are just as adamantly against elderly people marrying, as well as people who are sterile getting married.

 

[Running with scissors]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Other than your unsupported assertion that it's 'playing god', do you have anything to back why it's a bad thing?What defensible (note the 'e') argument do you have against some god giving people the intelligence and will to create the science to have babies when they couldn't before?

 

[TobiasFunke]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

What's wrong with science?

You mean when you force the creation of a human that should have never been born?

If my wife and I should ever have the good fortune of having a child with the help of science (be that anything from IVF to a freaking thermometer that tells a woman when she's ovulating), and then subsequently have the misfortune of meeting you in person, I dare you to tell us to our faces that our child should never have been born.

In fact, why don't you go repost this nonsense here. I'm sure there's some posters there that would love to hear your views on the matter.

 

[scoobygang]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are you against blood tranfusions and appendectomies too?

 

[GDogg]

If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.

Why? What if the majority (or to take it a step further, the entirety) of an entire state voted to have you killed? Would you want a judge to subvert their wishes then?

Not the majority of half of a state? This is such a ridiculous analogy. This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

But, shouldn't the majority of an entire state be able to decide? That was the basis of his argument.

 

[MongoL3]

Judge Walker is going to rule today on whether or not to allow gay marriages to occur during the appeal process. This is a separate issue and I'm curious if any lawyers around here could discuss what the legal precedent is for this sort of thing, if there is one.

Bump. We should have the decision in the next hour. But I don't know what it should be. What should the judge do here?

Weddings are good for the local economy....

The day the ruling came out there was a mini-rally about a half mile from my house (in support of the ruling). The wife and I were driving by and saw at least 200 gay folks holding signs and waving rainbow flags.

Gonna paint some glittah on the barn tonight...yeehaw!!

 

[GDogg]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

 

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Other than your unsupported assertion that it's 'playing god', do you have anything to back why it's a bad thing?What defensible (note the 'e') argument do you have against some god giving people the intelligence and will to create the science to have babies when they couldn't before?

What's with you people correcting typos?Why would God give people who couldn't create life naturally the ability to create life artificially? What need is there for God to allow that? He can do it himself; he doesn't need Ray and Rico to step in.

 

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

 

[dparker713]

Stay is continued until the 18th

Not surprising having read his opinion, but its unwise. The appeal has already been filed and the case is progressing as fast as possible. There appears to be no irreprable harm in staying the decision, especially given the legal PITA that could ensue if the ruling is overturned. From the article:

California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.

I still can not get over how shameful the conduct of the AG and governor are in this case. They swore to uphold and defend the California constitution and have completely abdicated their responsibilities and have infact worked to invalidate the state constitution.

 

[Running with scissors]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Other than your unsupported assertion that it's 'playing god', do you have anything to back why it's a bad thing?What defensible (note the 'e') argument do you have against some god giving people the intelligence and will to create the science to have babies when they couldn't before?

What's with you people correcting typos?Why would God give people who couldn't create life naturally the ability to create life artificially? What need is there for God to allow that? He can do it himself; he doesn't need Ray and Rico to step in.

You're smart and ballsy enough to tell your god how to do things? Or are you one of those people that are arrogant enough to assume that only you know what your god is / was thinking?ETA: You still haven't provided anything except for unsupported assertions.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

What's the difference between science giving life where God apparently didn't want it and science saving a life that God apparently decided He didn't want to survive? Both are science going against God's will.

 

[beavers]

Stay is continued until the 18th

Not surprising having read his opinion, but its unwise. The appeal has already been filed and the case is progressing as fast as possible. There appears to be no irreprable harm in staying the decision, especially given the legal PITA that could ensue if the ruling is overturned. From the article:

California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.

I still can not get over how shameful the conduct of the AG and governor are in this case. They swore to uphold and defend the California constitution and have completely abdicated their responsibilities and have infact worked to invalidate the state constitution.

Aside from this being on the state level, how is this different from the president refusing to defend laws deemed unconstitutional? For example, many were pressuring Obama not to defend DOMA because they felt that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[scoobygang]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

In terms of playing of God? Yeah.Who are we to deny His will? Got a burst appendix? Obviously the Big Guy is calling you home. Need some pre-natal care? What's next abortion? Either way, you're subverting the "natural order of things."

 

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

In terms of playing of God? Yeah.Who are we to deny His will? Got a burst appendix? Obviously the Big Guy is calling you home. Need some pre-natal care? What's next abortion? Either way, you're subverting the "natural order of things."

Everything after a legitimate birth is fair game. Forcing the creation of life is not. If you can't have children you should adopt. If you become pregnant and feel it was a mistake, killing the child should not be an option.

 

[the moops]

I cant believe we have come full circle back to the foolish argument that marriage is all about protecting children.

Well done oneohh

 

[McJose]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Other than your unsupported assertion that it's 'playing god', do you have anything to back why it's a bad thing?What defensible (note the 'e') argument do you have against some god giving people the intelligence and will to create the science to have babies when they couldn't before?

What's with you people correcting typos?Why would God give people who couldn't create life naturally the ability to create life artificially? What need is there for God to allow that? He can do it himself; he doesn't need Ray and Rico to step in.

So you are against hetero couples who can't create life naturally using modern medicine/science to have a child?

 

[scoobygang]

Everything after a legitimate birth is fair game. Forcing the creation of life is not. If you can't have children you should adopt. If you become pregnant and feel it was a mistake, killing the child should not be an option.

Is there any scrap of reasoning or evidence to support this distinction? And other moral distinctions you'd like to pull out of your ***?Maybe I'll play this game. Orange foods are evil and unentitled to our respect.

 

[oneohh]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Other than your unsupported assertion that it's 'playing god', do you have anything to back why it's a bad thing?What defensible (note the 'e') argument do you have against some god giving people the intelligence and will to create the science to have babies when they couldn't before?

What's with you people correcting typos?Why would God give people who couldn't create life naturally the ability to create life artificially? What need is there for God to allow that? He can do it himself; he doesn't need Ray and Rico to step in.

So you are against hetero couples who can't create life naturally using modern medicine/science to have a child?

Adoption down?

 

[jdoggydogg]

I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times

Just horrible logic. Justifying your position by finding other people that agree with you doesn't make your position any more valid.

How do you justify your position?

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

 

[the moops]

500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie.

That's a lot of people!

 

[oneohh]

Everything after a legitimate birth is fair game. Forcing the creation of life is not. If you can't have children you should adopt. If you become pregnant and feel it was a mistake, killing the child should not be an option.

Is there any scrap of reasoning or evidence to support this distinction? And other moral distinctions you'd like to pull out of your ***?Maybe I'll play this game. Orange foods are evil and unentitled to our respect.

WTF are you talking about with this evidence? Evidence of what? You want proof that a man and a man can't have a child naturally? It doesn't work naturally. Why do you feel the need to force it? You are entitled to nothing. Free will? Eff off with your free will.

 

[dparker713]

Stay is continued until the 18th

Not surprising having read his opinion, but its unwise. The appeal has already been filed and the case is progressing as fast as possible. There appears to be no irreprable harm in staying the decision, especially given the legal PITA that could ensue if the ruling is overturned. From the article:

California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.

I still can not get over how shameful the conduct of the AG and governor are in this case. They swore to uphold and defend the California constitution and have completely abdicated their responsibilities and have infact worked to invalidate the state constitution.

Aside from this being on the state level, how is this different from the president refusing to defend laws deemed unconstitutional? For example, many were pressuring Obama not to defend DOMA because they felt that the law is unconstitutional.

Obama should defend the DOMA, as he should defend the Bush Tax cuts or current federal sentencing guidelines or any other law on the books. The President has the ability to influence policy and attempt to pass legislation to conform to his views, but when acting as the Executive he has no authority to choose which laws to defend. It is the Executive's job in state and federal government to enforce and defend the laws, not determine which ones to use and which ones to throw away.Note, I recognize that practically not all laws can be enforced equally. And this will lead to some rationing of resources and uneven enforcement. However, there is a difference between allocating resources and refusing to defend a law on the books.

 

[McJose]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

 

[dparker713]

I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times

Just horrible logic. Justifying your position by finding other people that agree with you doesn't make your position any more valid.

How do you justify your position?

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

So, you're an anarchist? Cause nearly every law discriminates against one right or another.

 

[Running with scissors]

How do you justify your position?

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.

You mean based on constitutional limits versus some completely unsupported interpretation of theocratic nonsense?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Adoption down?

Question for you- what is "science" that can't be used to aid conception? Can you use a thermometer to determine ovulation? After all, God didn't create thermometers or the temperature scales any more than he created IVF. What about Viagra? What about a bed, for that matter? God didn't create beds any more than he created IVF. Can a wife wear an alluring negligee to pique her husband's interest? Seems artificial- the only God-approved article of clothing is a fig leaf, man created the rest just like we created IVF. Can your wife take pain medication during childbirth? I don't think there's any question that birthing pain medication is a scientific tool used to aid in reproduction, so I assume that's a no.Thanks, will answer yours.

 

[oneohh]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

I did. Adopt. There are plenty of kids out there that would love a home and a family.

 

[Running with scissors]

Everything after a legitimate birth is fair game. Forcing the creation of life is not. If you can't have children you should adopt. If you become pregnant and feel it was a mistake, killing the child should not be an option.

Is there any scrap of reasoning or evidence to support this distinction? And other moral distinctions you'd like to pull out of your ***?Maybe I'll play this game. Orange foods are evil and unentitled to our respect.

WTF are you talking about with this evidence? Evidence of what? You want proof that a man and a man can't have a child naturally? It doesn't work naturally. Why do you feel the need to force it? You are entitled to nothing. Free will? Eff off with your free will.

Evidence that 'unnatural' methods of childbirth or 'forcing the creation of life' is a bad thing. So far, we have your unsupported assertion that it is a bad thing. Forgive us for not taking your word for it.

 

[Running with scissors]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

I did. Adopt. There are plenty of kids out there that would love a home and a family.

Even one with two mommies?

 

[GDogg]

Oh, so you don't have any kind of defensible reason. Glad you're on the anti-equality side then.

Definsible? Anti-equality? So when a gay couple uses science to have a child, that's not playing God?

Are straight people playing God when they allow science to keep their sick child alive?Are you against all life-giving/saving science or only when that science benefits gay couples?

Live giving is the same as life saving to you?

Yes. Saving someone's life is the same as giving that someone life, no?Even if you disagree, it's not letting nature/God decide, so it's playing God. I'm just curious as to who you think are allowed to play God.

 

[McJose]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

I did. Adopt. There are plenty of kids out there that would love a home and a family.

On behalf of all of the FBG families that went through IVF in order to have a child: link

 

[Running with scissors]

Adoption down?

No but answer the question.

I did. Adopt. There are plenty of kids out there that would love a home and a family.

On behalf of all of the FBG families that went through IVF in order to have a child: link

All of you people are going to hell for subverting the natural order.

 

[Burton]

The majority may enact no law that infringes on the rights of the minority.Common practice is a tool I avoid in an argument. 500,000 million people can think that Rush Hour 3 is a great movie. That doesn't make it great.

A minority of Americans are interested in child pornography. Do we have the right to infringe on their right to do so? What you term "common practice" I term thousands of years of tradition which is of vital importance to our civilization. I'm all in favor of giving gays every right to be together, and form their own relationships. It's not fair to restict them from hospital visitation or any other rights. But when you call it "marriage" you are moving beyond giving them rights and actually interfering with my rights. You are attempting to change my definitions, and force me to give up what I believe in. It's an infringement on my freedom. For example: if I teach my children that, according to my beliefs which stem from Scripture, that homosexuality is sinful, then I do not want my kids to go a public school and be taught differently. That will be an inevitable result of this decision. The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

 

[oneohh]

Adoption down?

Question for you- what is "science" that can't be used to aid conception? Can you use a thermometer to determine ovulation? After all, God didn't create thermometers or the temperature scales any more than he created IVF. What about Viagra? What about a bed, for that matter? God didn't create beds any more than he created IVF. Can a wife wear an alluring negligee to pique her husband's interest? Seems artificial- the only God-approved article of clothing is a fig leaf, man created the rest just like we created IVF. Can your wife take pain medication during childbirth? I don't think there's any question that birthing pain medication is a scientific tool used to aid in reproduction, so I assume that's a no.Thanks, will answer yours.

All of this is fine for a man and a woman to use. Men and women are allowed to have children - it's even possible naturally. Imagine that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The schools will teach that I am wrong, and that God is wrong.

You are, and they should.