Why is a person considered intolerant if they are for the Gay Marriage Ban. Let's take that question a bit farther, why is a person intolerant if they teach their children that being gay is wrong. And in teaching that lesson a parent also says that you do not hate, make fun of or otherwise belittle the person you just feel sorry for them. That you always stick up for your views and not let the liberal left thinking creep into your thought process. Why is someone that does that considered to be intolerant. If that's their belief why are they considered to be bigots, and hate mongers. I really hope someone can answer this because it seems that anything goes today but if you disagree and try to teach your children what you believe to be the right way to live, your perceived by some as intolerant. If you even talk about your views and share them with others your spreading hate. I will check back often as the answers I'm sure will be interesting.

Let me ask you a question.

Is it okay to discriminate against fat people? Should we ban fat people? Should we teach our children that being fat is wrong, after all, it isn't good for you, can ultimately kill you. Do you believe that being fat is okay? Do you talk to others about fat people? Be honest.

There are many people that are overweight, obese that have a medical condition that prevents them from losing weight. As a society we view being obese as wrong, some people are very intolerant towards overweight people. Is that okay?

If you say no to that question then you have to ask yourself if it's okay to be intolerant of gay people. Being gay is not a choice, you either are or you aren't. Nobody would choose to be gay, there are too many hurdles to jump when you come out, who would willing do that? No one. So, being intolerant of something that someone cannot change, well yes, I think that is bigoted, I do think those people are hate mongers.

Do you expect people to accept your way of life, your decisions? Of course you do, everyone does. What do you hope to gain by teaching your children to be intolerant of a large group of people? What if one of your kids ends up being gay?

If everyone could just love each other for who they are, well, the world would be a better place.

In other words, I think gays should have the right to marry, just like the rest of the human beings on this earth. I teach my kids tolerance, acceptance. Everyone is different, who are we to decided what is right and what is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Let me ask you a question.

Is it okay to discriminate against fat people? Should we ban fat people? Should we teach our children that being fat is wrong, after all, it isn't good for you, can ultimately kill you. Do you believe that being fat is okay? Do you talk to others about fat people? Be honest.

There are many people that are overweight, obese that have a medical condition that prevents them from losing weight. As a society we view being obese as wrong, some people are very intolerant towards overweight people. Is that okay?

If you say no to that question then you have to ask yourself if it's okay to be intolerant of gay people. Being gay is not a choice, you either are or you aren't. Nobody would choose to be gay, there are too many hurdles to jump when you come out, who would willing do that? No one. So, being intolerant of something that someone cannot change, well yes, I think that is bigoted, I do think those people are hate mongers.

Do you expect people to accept your way of life, your decisions? Of course you do, everyone does. What do you hope to gain by teaching your children to be intolerant of a large group of people? What if one of your kids ends up being gay?

If everyone could just love eachother for who they are, well, the world would be a better place.

In other words, I think gays should have the right to marry, just like the rest of the human beings on this earth. I teach my kids tolerance, acceptance. Everyone is different, who are we to decided what is right and what is wrong?

---

This was answerd right down to the exact point! Thank you... very much agreed and I would love to give you some rep. but unfortunately I tend to agree on a lot of things you write so I must spread the rep.

Why would anyone object to someone marrying the person they love? Why would anyone tell an entire class of people to conceal who they are as if who and what they are were somehow shameful.

As Alty says, should fat people be banned from restaurants and grocery stores? Should they "go back into the closet" and order groceries and meals from home, hiding behind their doors when the delivery person comes to conceal their condition? Should they refrain from marrying and having children so that they do not pass on their fat lifestyle to the next generation? Why shouldn't we propose legislation to begin this fat lifestyle control? The fat marriage ban? Would someone who advocated the extreme repression of the overweight be considered intolerant?

It is okay to have your opinons, that is what this site is about, but you crossed the line in your opinons and tried to make it seem like a fact.

In your other post you stated children is a same sex marriage are abused and it is horrible for kids and when other members asked you for facts to match your therory you tried to bashed the other members why saying it is common sense and basically everyone didn't have common sense when your false fact was question.

Now you stated being gay is not right and it states so in the bible but I have a question for you. Why is it that God can forgive mass murders, serial rapists, people that commit crimes against kids, etc but when it comes to gay peoole they are damn to hell? They deserve to be accepted they aren't hurting anyone. How is then getting married effecting you? A lot of them don't even get married in a church due to the judgement but have civil marriages instead but if they're gay it means they can attend church like you and I.

I think you need to think before you write because if you take a look at what you wrote in you're the other post it came out as a hate speech with no facts and crossed the line of being an opinon.

It is to try and make their view point sound more acceptable. When there is little productive argument for your case, you attack those that are against it.

By trying to show those that stand up for moral values and family values as bad, they then make their view point appear to be the socially acceptable one.

By doing this, too many people who really feel it is wrong are to scared to stand up for their personal beleifs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

By trying to show those that stand up for moral values and family values

---

Both sides stand up for moral values and family values so that's not really the point.

Other than that the OP seems to be just trolling this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Let me ask you a question.

Is it okay to discriminate against fat people? Should we ban fat people? Should we teach our children that being fat is wrong, after all, it isn't good for you, can ultimately kill you. Do you believe that being fat is okay? Do you talk to others about fat people? Be honest.

There are many people that are overweight, obese that have a medical condition that prevents them from losing weight. As a society we view being obese as wrong, some people are very intolerant towards overweight people. Is that okay?

If you say no to that question then you have to ask yourself if it's okay to be intolerant of gay people. Being gay is not a choice, you either are or you aren't. Nobody would choose to be gay, there are too many hurdles to jump when you come out, who would willing do that? No one. So, being intolerant of something that someone cannot change, well yes, I think that is bigoted, I do think those people are hate mongers.

Do you expect people to accept your way of life, your decisions? Of course you do, everyone does. What do you hope to gain by teaching your children to be intolerant of a large group of people? What if one of your kids ends up being gay?

If everyone could just love eachother for who they are, well, the world would be a better place.

In other words, I think gays should have the right to marry, just like the rest of the human beings on this earth. I teach my kids tolerance, acceptance. Everyone is different, who are we to decided what is right and what is wrong?

---

Your serious, this is your answer. Fat People and Restaurants? Where does tolerance stop. If your correct shouldn't I also teach my children to be tolerant of someone that chooses to have sex with a minor (as long as the minor gives consent ofcourse). And should I teach tolerance of say abortion since it's legal. What about someone who commits murder, who are we to say they shouldn't have killed someone maybe they had good reason. Heck why teach them anything, if everythings OK then I guess I don't need to even be a parent. If they ask me anything I will just tell them to be tolerant of everything. Wow thanks you just made my parent job so much easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Both sides stand up for moral values and family values so that's not really the point.

Other than that the OP seems to be just trolling this site.

---

Both sides stand up for moral issues? Find that in the bible for me, I missed that verse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeaitsme

both sides stand up for moral issues? find that in the bible for me, I missed that verse.

---

Noted. Christians don't stand up for moral values, non-christians do. Thanks for the clarification.

Where does tolerance stop? Shall we go back to prosecuting single men and women for having sex outside of marriage? Shall we prosecute married couples for engaging in oral sex? Shall we prosecute anyone who charges interest on a loan, even if it's only a quarter percent? Shall we prevent blacks from using the same drinking fountain as white skinned people? Shall we jail women who attempt to vote or try to sign legal contracts? Shall we allow vivisection of dogs and cats?

All of these things used to be considered socially acceptable or intolerable at some time in history. Now we feel the opposite. If moral values are not set in stone, how can we be sure they have any meaning? Is it wrong to cut up dogs or not? You feel so certain that it is, as I do, yet our ancestors didn't think much of it.

It IS hard to tell what's wrong and what's not wrong. But one way to tell is if the action directly affects another person or animal. Cutting open a living creature hurts it. Preventing blacks from voting or owning property is unjust and hurts them politically and economically. And likewise, oral sex between a husband and wife is not considered to harm anyone and it's up to them as consenting adults.

Yeahitsme, you argue that gay marriage hurts others. So show us how two men marrying hurts you personally. They could be in another city, but let's say they live in your town but don't go to your church. They live half a mile a way and you see them once a month or so at the grocery store or the dry cleaners. They would be together whether they were allowed to marry or not. But with a marriage, they can inherit from one another and visit each other in the hospital without making a lot of special arrangements and arguing with hospital staff at a difficult time when one of them is ill or injured. You would like to prevent them from having those legal rights.

So everything is the same, except for this legal connection of theirs. Being gay is already legal and living with someone you love is legal. How does that extra step, a legal (not your church) marriage hurt you? Please explain because I want to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yeaitsme

your serious, this is your answer. Fat People and Restaurants? Where does tolerance stop. If your correct shouldn't i also teach my children to be tolerant of someone that chooses to have sex with a minor (as long as the minor gives consent ofcourse). And should i teach tolerance of say abortion since it's legal. What about someone who commits murder, who are we to say they shouldn't have killed someone maybe they had good reason. Heck why teach them anything, if everythings ok then i guess i don't need to even be a parent. If they ask me anything i will just tell them to be tolerant of everything. Wow thanks you just made my parent job so much easier.

---

Wow, sarcasm, great!

Do you tolerate anyone, I'm beginning to think you don't. You certainly aren't tolerating any of us, all because we don't agree with you.

You asked for an opinion, I gave it to you. You don't have to agree, but, last time I checked, I have a right to my opinion, or don't I? Maybe in your world only your opinion matters and counts.

As for your examples, those are extremes where other people are actually hurting those around them. Contrary to what you believe, gays don't hurt anyone just by being gay. I have gay friends, here in Canada gays can marry, really, it hasn't changed the way I live, it's only changed the way they do.

I feel really bad for kids who are raised to be intolerant, to be prejudice against people. You are in charge of their young minds, what you plant in there will effect them their entire lives. You are raising children that will be intolerant of others.

I'm not a perfect parent and I don't have perfect kids, but I do have kids that accept everyone around them for who they are, not what they are. If that's wrong then I don't want to be right.

When anybody makes a judgment on the worth and value of a human being, based on what they believe to be true, they are not necessarily wrong. Guilty of being blinded by discrimination? Yes. Guilty of fostering intolerance? Yes. Guilty of presumptive assumptions as to others worth to their families, children, employers, societies? Yes.

When we take what we think to be judgment 'markers' such as biblical reference, that is seen as the truth. For those who choose to live by these rules, have created not a tolerant stance, but one of 'us' vs. 'them'. Why would any gay person have to live up to anybody's religious interpretation of who they are. Not even God would expect that.

It is the churches and the flock that feeds them (money, power, and influence), that keeps the issue of inequity alive.

To go beyond that narrow vision, for some, is impossible. To realize that it is simply unjust to judge, and even more unjust to categorize people according to gender preference, is barbaric, and limits those that live by rules that were not meant to discriminate in the first place.

Love knows no boundaries, and love is not defined by any religion, or anybody's interpretation of their religion. It is far beyond the scriptures, and surpasses all earthly restrictions, and interpretations. Love is accepting, love is all encompassing, and love applies to everyone.

Take religion out of the argument, and there is no argument.

Love is one thing, right and wrong from a exact moral value is another.

When my son has to see two men kissing in public after knowing that homosexual relationship is morally wrong by our beliefs, is not our rights hurt, are we not being discriminated against, guess that does not matter.

But the religious moral values have often been the minority and often the criminal element of society, so I guess today should not be any different.

So if being moral is wrong, I am proud to be so, If teaching the absolute truth of the bible or even the Koran or Torah is evil, I am glad to be the most evil of them all.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am not saying anybody is wrong. But to judge others, is.

I really do understand both ends of this. My younger sister announced she was gay when she was 22 years old. It was a antecedent for my mother's first heart attack, and it caused a huge rift in our family. That was 20 years ago. We were devastated. She was heartbroken.

They were different times then, and ignorance ruled the day. It was a situation that we eventually chose to accept, what else could we do. But, when it hit that close to home, it really shook everything up. Today it is no big deal, and it has come to be something that is just a normal part of our existence now. Children do not naturally discriminate gay people from straight people, that is learned from their parents.

That 'education' for lack of a better word, forced us to realize that although some did not approve, or were morally offended, those feelings and personal opinions were put aside, and the person she was before the big announcement, was the same person she was after. It was not her 'problem', it was ours.

She is an educated, well adjusted, funny, loving person. She just happens to be gay. It was not an easy adjustment for any of us, particularly my mother, but turning our backs on her was not an option. Her life is truthful and honest, and she is morally and intellectually a match for anybody. It hurts that people like her, are seen to be less deserving of love, respect, and support, simply because they are gay.

We just need to accept people, as they are.

Why, should people accept her the way she is.

My next door neighbor steals, he can not help hisself. He does not beelive he has a problem, and he is happy with life just the way he is. So am I suppose to just accept him the way he is, or do I want him to stop.

And I can go on and on with people who do all sorts of things, that today's society calls wrong, but they are happy doing what they are doing,
Should we also have to accept them, if they claim they are born that way, and if they are happy with their lives doing what ever.

Hello:

Sorry. This ISN'T about morals... It ISN'T about acceptance/tolerance. And it for sure ISN'T about what YOU think about homosexuality. SCREW those things!!

It's about the LAW, the CONSTITUTION, and CIVIL RIGHTS.

I couldn't care less whether you HATE gay people or not. It matters NOT that you may think they're the most IMMORAL people in the world... In fact, YOUR views on MORALITY don't have ANY place in this discussion.

If YOUR rights were based upon YOUR morality, I'll be you'd lose 'em real quick. Unless, of course, you're one of those NON sinning Christians.

However, since you brought it up, the TRUTH of the matter is, keeping an ENTIRE class of people from enjoying the SAME RIGHTS YOU HAVE, is pretty damn IMMORAL – pretty damn immoral, indeed!!

excon

excon, to many people it IS about morals, because their moral compass is pointed and directed by religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Fr_chuck, it isn't about compromising morals. That you accept gay people is not the same thing as accepting bad behaviour like liars, cheats, thieves, etc.

Because somebody is a gay burgler who robbed you blind, has nothing with him being gay. It is only about him robbing you. I'd be making a judgment too.

Being gay does not predispose you to bad behaviour. It does not also make you any less moral than anybody else. People do bad things, it matters not whether they are gay or straight.

To accept gay people, is to accept a sexual orientation, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean judging them by different standards that we judge anybody else.

It really is simply a matter of accepting people for who they are. Meaning sexual orientation. That is not the same thing as compromising your morals and standards.

There are many intellectually bankrupt people of all persuasions, and it has nothing to do with them being gay or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake2008

excon, to many people it IS about morals, because their moral compass is pointed and directed by religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that.

---

Hello Jake:

Oh, I understand that's what MOST people THINK it's about. I just tried to show them (and you), that it ISN'T.

You're asking people to be accepting. That's nice. I'm demanding they obey the law! BIG difference, in my view.

I agree further, people are ALLOWED to have ANY moral compass they want, pointed in any direction they, or their church, likes... What they DON'T have the right to do, is DENY gay people, or ANYONE, the very same RIGHTS they themselves, enjoy.

excon

I agree with you excon, except prop 8 has done just that- taken away legal rights.

And who took away these rights? What was behind it? Who's money reversed it?

Again, it isn't about morality, it's about religion. That is the legal hammer used to maintain discrimination.

Would you say that's criminal? I would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jake2008

prop 8 has done just that- taken away legal rights.....Again, it isn't about morality, it's about religion. That is the legal hammer used to maintain discrimination. Would you say that's criminal? I would.

---

Hello again, Jake:

Proposition 8 took away rights TEMPORARILY. I promise you, they will be restored. Jerry Brown, California Attorney General understands the Constitution.

The Constitution grants ALL men (people) rights. Every one of us, as individual sovereign people, hold these rights. The majority cannot vote out the rights of the minority, even if it is only a minority of ONE.

Is it criminal for religion to try to impose THEIR idea of morality on the rest of us? Nahhh. They been doing that since time immemorial. It's just a constant pain in the @ss.

excon

Good!

I am Canadian, with relatives and friends in California, and they too are optimistic that this will be resolved sooner rather than later. I am one of three sisters, one of whom is gay, and although it is a difficult thing to get past (she came out 20 years ago), when you do, you're left with the same person that was there before, only happier.

As you probably know gay marriage is legal here. It really isn't a big deal. It was, until it was entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedom's, but after it was the law of the land, you don't hear boo about it.

It is kind of nice to get past the b.s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Jake:

Proposition 8 took away rights TEMPORARILY. I promise you, they will be restored. Jerry Brown, California Attorney General understands the Constitution.

The Constitution grants ALL men (people) rights. Each and every one of us, as individual sovereign people, hold these rights. The majority cannot vote out the rights of the minority, even if it is only a minority of ONE.

Is it criminal for religion to try to impose THEIR idea of morality on the rest of us?? Nahhh. They been doing that since time immemorial. It's just a constant pain in the @ss.

excon

---

Define "rights."

So if one "man" wants to steal 50 billion should that be his constitutional "right" even though the majority think it illlegal? Should he get Jerry Brown to make it his "right" to do this?

What is criminal is using the court to supercede a public vote on the issue.

Whose "morality" are we talking about? How about getting rid of that "religiously imposed " morality against murder or stealing or lying? Are we talking about your morality? How is your morality any better than the majority voters in CA on prop 8? :confused:

And lets be clear here, just because I am, or someone is, not for gay marriage does not necessarily mean we are anti - gay. We can accept and love the person yet disagree or be against a [the] behavior [s].

John 8




g&p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Define "rights." So if one "man" wants to steal 50 billion should that be his constitutional "right" even though the majority think it illlegal? Should he get Jerry Brown to make it his "right" to do this?....If it is about the llaw, 1] why not respect the vote in CA 2] you just refuted yourself by calling it immoral :>

---

Hello again, in:

Where or where shall I start?? How about this? You should know that I don't use the "right" word carelessly at all. There are a lot of people who claim rights but have no idea what they're talking about... I'm not one of those. When I say RIGHT, I know whence I speak.

Rights aren't made up like you seem to think I think... My rights, your rights, and everybody's rights emanate from the Constitution of this here country of ours. THAT'S where they come from - nowhere else...

Maybe if you read and understood the Constitution, you wouldn't ask such stuff. Frankly, I wish you would read it. Then we can defeat this thing together... What?? You're not going to disagree with the Constitution, are you?

Pay particular attention to Amendment number Nine, and number Fourteen, section #1. If you understood THESE amendments, you'll understand why gay marriage is a Constitutional Right.

In terms of you thinking the vote is the law, you're just flat wrong on that issue. Voters cannot remove your rights. Nobody can. Nobody! That's the way it SHOULD be.

(edited) Ok, I'll save you some trouble. I'll reprint the relative segment here from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution... "..nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...." The passage is simple, short and sweet.

Can you understand EQUAL protection of the LAW? That means, in the simplest terms, that if you have the right to DO something, SO DOES EVERYBODY!! It can't be plainer than that. Ok, let me try it another way. IF the government is going to give YOU rights for being married, then EVERYBODY can get married. Certainly that would be the case if those rights are to be given EQUALLY, and the Fourteenth Amendment says they are. No?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Sorry. This ISN'T about morals.... It ISN'T about acceptance/tolerance. And it for sure ISN'T about what YOU think about homosexuality. SCREW those things!!!

It's about the LAW, the CONSTITUTION, and CIVIL RIGHTS.

I could care LESS whether you HATE gay people or not. It matters NOT that you may think they're the most IMMORAL people in the world..... In fact, YOUR views on MORALITY don’t have ANY place in this discussion.

If YOUR rights were based upon YOUR morality, I’ll be you’d lose ‘em real quick. Unless, of course, you’re one of those NON sinning Christians.

However, since you brought it up, the TRUTH of the matter is, keeping an ENTIRE class of people from enjoying the SAME RIGHTS YOU HAVE, is pretty damn IMMORAL – pretty damn immoral, indeed!!!

excon

---

Again - self refuting.

Tell me - do you think the founding fathers would ever have imagined that the Constitution would be used to create new rights? Like abortion or the marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

What is the next right that you think you can use the Constitution to create? How about marriage between man and animal or between 2 children?

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"first intended to secure the rights of former slaves"

How does this relate to gay coupling? How do you make the logic leap from race and slavery to gay coupling?

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

Do you think the 70% of blacks think that civil rights is the equivalent ot gay marriage?







G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Tell me - do you think the founding fathers would ever have imagined that the Constitution would be used to create new rights?

---

Hello again, in:

I asked you to read and try to understand the law of our land... You didn't. I can't help it.

There are no NEW rights. There's only the ones we've ALWAYS had. That's the way it IS, and that's the way it should be.

I knew you'd mention marrying dogs and stuff... That's stupid. I'm not going to argue stupid.

excon

Ex


You state:

Quote:

---

Rights aren't made up like you seem to think I think... My rights, your rights, and everybody's rights emanate from the Constitution of this here country of ours. THAT'S where they come from - nowhere else...

---

How is gay marriage a right "we've always had?"

Where in the constitution does it state that gay marriage is a right?

Yes, I read the 9th and 14th amendment like you asked and I see no logical interpretation that can be used to justify gay marriage.

Obviously you do. All I'm asking is for you to make that case since you brought up that line of "thinking."

I don't consider you stupid, so I find it disappointing that you can't or won't answer the questions that your line of thinking brings up.



g&p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Where in the constitution does it state that gay marriage is a right? Yes, I read the 9th and 14th amendment like you asked and I see no logical interpretation that can be used to justify gay marriage.

---

Hello again, in:

I thought maybe a reading of the Constitution would do it for you. I guess not. You still DON'T understand the Constitution. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question you asked. Let me see if I can help.

The specific answer to your question is this:

The Constitution doesn't list rights. Our founders were TOO smart to write a LIST. For example, you DO have the right to own a safety pin, don't you? Yes, of course you do, yet, you won't find THAT right listed either. Nope. Our founders, in their wisdom, realized that if they LISTED rights, they couldn't list EVERYTHING one was free to do. So instead of listing the things we CAN DO, they LISTED the things the GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO. The implication being that we were free to do EVERYTHING else.

That's what freedom is, no?

They thought people would UNDERSTAND that, but they wanted to MAKE SURE, so they wrote the Ninth Amendment to seal the deal. It says there, quite clearly, exactly THAT. It says, because certain rights are enumerated (listed), that doesn't mean that there aren't OTHER RIGHTS retained by the people...

The term "other rights retained by the people" is QUITE significant. THAT is where you'll find your right to own a safety pin, to MARRY, or do ANYTHING that is not constrained by the government. Really, that's where it is. It SAYS so.

The Fourteenth Amendment simply says that the laws will be applied equally.

So, if YOU have the right to own a safety pin, AND YOU DO because the Ninth Amendment says so, so does everybody else. Those are the TWO concepts imbued in those two Amendments and the Constitution as a whole.

Those founders of ours were really, really smart. Now, YOU are too.

excon

Exy, had to spread the rep, but I agree 100%.

Marriage is a right, whether you are gay or straight!

Why are some people so opposed to this, it's not like we're telling you to go out and become a homosexual. You don't have to be in a gay marriage, heck, you don't even have to accept gays, that's your right, but to deny them the right to be married, well, that's not your right, never was, never will be.

Live and let live already!

And think of all the fornicators and adulturers that sit in the pews every Sunday - no one seems to have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

They thought people would UNDERSTAND that, but they wanted to MAKE SURE, so they wrote the Ninth Amendment to seal the deal. It says there, quite clearly, exactly THAT. It says, because certain rights are enumerated (listed), that doesn't mean that there aren't OTHER RIGHTS retained by the people...

---

So by that same logic the right for man and animal to marry or the right of two children to marry can be included in those rights not specifically enumerated by the constitution.
How about the "right" to drive around naked, or the "right" to have several wives. Your interpretation leaves a whole pandora's box of "rights" open.

Quote:

---

that is not constrained by the government

---

implying that government can constrain rights like driving - [ dui laws ]

and that government follows laws that may be made at the will of or voted on by the people... so what is the problem with prop 8?


Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

again explain how this pertains to gay coupling?

How can there be "equal protection" when we have :

1] a progressive tax system where the more you make in adjustd gross income the greater the percentage in taxes you pay

2] affirmative action?

3] in abortion ? Where is the "equal protection" for the unborn?

4] why do single tax filers pay more per same agi? Why do taxpayors that have dependents have special deductions?

Quote:

---

And think of all the fornicators and adulturers that sit in the pews every Sunday - no one seems to have a problem with that.

---

Who told you, that you had to be perfect and sinless to go to church? Did not Jesus come for the sinners? Sin does include fornication, adultery, homosexuality [ no special dispensation there ] greed, hate etc...

Quote:

---

Luke 18:9-14 (New International Version)

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

---

G&P

Hello again, in:

You're not listening.. I'm telling you what YOUR CONSTITUTION says. I know you don't like it. I don't know why. It is YOUR country, and the laws ain't too bad. The Constitution is pretty cool too.

But, I know you're not interested. That's a shame for an American. Ok. You don't want to know the law. You keep making silly suggestions, that could only have come from your church. I ain't interested in your SILLY stuff. I'm interested in the law. You aren't.

Later.

excon

Ex

If prop 8 is what you may think of as "unconstitutional" why did it even make to the ballot in the first place?

Quote:

---

I'm telling you what YOUR CONSTITUTION says.

---

And it does not, specifically in writing, list gay marriage as a right.

Those "rights" not enumerated are then open to interpretation [ see prior posts ] and the majority of CA voters on prop 8 were in favor of it.

You make a number of false assumptions about my view point that just serve as a detraction from a discussion.





G&P

Quote:

---

it does not, specifically in writing, list gay marriage as a right.

---

It doesn't list your right to bowl either, but believe me, you have the right to bowl.

I'm not even American and I understand the constitution, it's not hard.

Marriage is a basic right, for all human beings. The last time I checked, gays and lesbians are indeed humans, therefore they have the right to marry and all the rights that marriage allows.

Why did it this proposition make it to the ballot in the first place? Because of religious nuts that think that being gay or lesbian is against God's words. I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but a lot of things that everyone does is against "God's law". You can't pick.

Where is the proposition against bowling?

Anyone, please explain how "gay marriage" is a "right" justified by the Constitution.

Maybe you pro gay marriage lawyers out there can state your legal case beyond;

"Its there in the Constitution"

What case law or precedent establishes it as a right?

By what standard is it a right? If one group says it is a right by their standard and another group, going by a different standard, states it is not; was that not voted on in Prop 8?

Please, state your case in a logically manner.

Terms like "stupid" "religious nuts" " you this or that .." "tolerance"... would they make it as reasonable legal argument?





G&P

Here in Canada, the entire country is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not within our constitution to discriminate against who gets married, it is entrenched that anybody has the right to get married.

To deny someone their right, under the Charter, not to marry simply because they are gay, is unconstitutional, and discriminatory, and illegal.

As I said before, take religion out of the equation, and there is no argument.

For you to understand this, you must look at all people as being equal under the law.

Imagine that you and your wife (as an example here, no idea if you are married or not), are seen, in the eyes of the law, as equal to a same-sex couple. It is not lawful to deny either of the two parties the right to marry.

You may disagree because of your religion, however, because it is the law, your religion cannot influence what is lawful for ALL citizens. No offence, but you having religious arguments, does not make any difference in what is lawful, and available to all people.

Your religious beliefs do not represent all people, equally. Your religion discriminates. It is unlawful, at least in this country, to deny same-sex couples their legal right to marry, simply because your particular religion does not agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Please, state your case in a logically manner.

---

Hello again, in:

If you don't think the way I've presented it so far is logical, then we have nothing further to discuss.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Where is the proposition against bowling?

---

Hello again, in:

Nahhh. I'm not going to give up. If you want logical, I'll give you logical.

It's been pointed out here that you have the right to own a safety pin and you have the right to bowl. You don't deny that, but you say that THOSE rights don't have to be listed in the Constitution because they aren't being challenged.

What??

You ask for logic, but logically, that makes no sense at all. What if somebody DID challenge your right to bowl, and you couldn't justify it with it being on the list? By the way, when you read the Constitution, did you find ANY list??

You'll probably say something like bowling isn't a moral issue, as though that has some LEGAL distinction... It doesn't.

Unless, of course, you can show ME where it says that laws and/or rights need to be based upon morality. Where is THAT stuff in the Constitution??

I've shown YOU where your rights are, including the ones where you can bowl and own a safety pin. You didn't like that. You scoff at my legal analysis, yet you show me NONE of yours.

Instead, you provide religious dogma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

If prop 8 is what you may think of as "unconstitutional" why did it even make to the ballot in the first place?

---

You think that laws can be made, but if they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they wouldn't have been made in the first place. That's just flat out wrong. It makes NO sense whatsoever. I have NO idea what you might think the role of the Supreme Court is, if it's NOT to rule on the constitutionality of a law.

You think that the majority can vote out the rights of the minority. That too, is just flat out wrong. If we lived in a democracy where the majority DOES, in fact, rule, then you'd be correct... But, we live in a republic where the majority does NOT rule.

I don't know how you missed THAT piece of law and/or history, but you did.

I again, suggest that if you understood the Constitution, and WHY it was written, you'd understand why gay people have the right to marry.

Nobody here is asking you to ACCEPT that gay people can get married. They're just telling you that it's the LAW of the land.

excon

Ex

"law of the land"?

State the law - the link - perhaps in Mass but in California?

If it is a "law of the land" why are /were there state ballot initiatives in2004 and 2008 regarding same sex marriage? Then this becomes a states rights vs federal power issue.

If you believe in an activist judicial system, yes, they can interpret law anyway they see fit - make up laws - regardless of what the Constitution states.

You, as a reported libertarian, should be more fearful of a couple of people [ judges ] that can alter laws arbitrarily, like eminent domain,
rather than a vote by thousands of your fellow citizens.


G&P

Actually, I had this conversation recently with someone I respect--and I've come to the realization that it IS a state's rights vs federal rights issue---just like slavery was.

So--every state can rule on it however they want to, but if someone gets married in a state where it is legal and then MOVES to another state where it is NOT legal---the state where it is NOT legal must still recognize the legality of the relationship.

Just like in the days of slavery where a state could decide whether slavery was legal in their state, but could not say that a slave was no longer property just because the owner of the slave travelled to a state where slavery was NOT legal.

Either way--MY religion says that gay marriage is okay. Are you going to say that MY religion is wrong, when YOUR religion practices cannibalism by proxy (the body and blood of Christ). Isn't cannibalism wrong? I mean, even if you ARE substituting bread and wine, isn't the very idea of eating another person repellent to you? It is to ME! I think that's morally WRONG! Let's BAN IT! I bet that I could get a "cannibalism by proxy is wrong" ballot going, and people would only get worked up about it because it's discriminating against a religion, not because cannibalism IS wrong, morally.

So... since your religion is doing something disgusting to me, should I teach my children to hate and scorn all Christians? I mean... you can't really justify cannibalism! And really, you can STOP yourselves! It's not something you HAVE to do! You just CHOOSE to do it because you FEEL that way about your morals or something.

Anyway, maybe I am rambling a bit, but I think my argument no more ridiculous that the people marrying pets argument, or the pedophiles marrying children argument (stupid arguments, by the way--what part of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS do people just not get?). It's also no less stupid than the morals trump laws argument.

Anyway... I'm off to start my campaign against "Cannibalism by Proxy" or something.