Republicans in Cali must be livid

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

 

[QuantumPion]

Well anyway I don't have a particularly strong point of view on this issue either way. What I was originally concerned with was that I thought this was one of those cases of "liberals don't get their way in the democratic process, resort to the courts to overturn popular opinion" deals. But then I thought "what if this was a proposition to ban gun ownership or something else that you personally do have an interest in"; in that case I would be concerned with an amendment being passed correctly according to the law.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

do you touch yourself at night? you're not supposed to you know. yet it's not illegal under the law. Why does the state endorse your immorality?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

SOme of us think you are the sinner, not following the instruction to love your fellow human being and treat them the way you would want to be treated.

Just because it's based on ignorance of homosexuality, and you create some disengenuous propaganda for yourself how you 'llove' them to pretend you are not voiolating that instruction even as you discrimnate, doesn't change what you are doing any more than for slaveowners who believed and said that slavery was for the good of black people.

For you to be right, gays would be needing to make sinful choices akin to murde or adultery. Are people who violate the instruction to go forth and multiply sinning if they are born impotent and do not go multiply, or is it possible that the instruction was meant not so black and white - just as homosexuals were not included in the statements on marriage? Do you understand the context of Leviticus - or even if you imsunderstand it, follow all of its extreme restrictions? Do you condemn all people who divorce other than where there's been adultery to the same degree you condemn homosexuals who have loving and faithful relationships?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

I don't think the secular argument will float well with right-wing religious people who are anti-gay. The best we may be able to do is to suggest they are misinterpreting the bible (small chance they'll get the pint) and point out their hypocrisy on things sch as how they are not fighitng against divorce where there's no adultery, which Jesus was very specific about, the way they fight gay marriage. As long as they think their religion demands it, they'll no more vote for gay marriage than for legalizing theft or rape.

Come to think of it, they should also follow the biblical teaching on rape, which calls for the rapist to have to marry the woman after paying her family some silver (she has no say).

If they don't follow that instruction just as passionately as they follow the instruction they think is there on gay marriage, how can tey defend their inconsistency?

The bottom line is that they are repeating the mistakes of those who used the bible to defend slavery - they are unable to see the clear wrong to gay people they cause.

Just as race had to be pushed as an issue with them until they got to the point they're at today where they agree racism is wrong, they need gay rights pushed as an issue.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because America isn't about endorsing any specific religious viewpoint? Flip the argument around. Let's say I'm an atheist who finds religion detestable. Should I be able to get religion stripped out of the public sphere because it is personally detestable to me (in this example)? Hell, I can even take it one step further and make the claim that the government giving tax breaks to religious organizations is an implicit endorsement of religion, and thereby unconstitutional... Is there anything inherently unconstitutional about gay marriage?

Just for the record, that was purely hypothetical. I'm not a raging atheist, I don't want to ban religion, and I don't have a problem with religious organizations enjoying non-profit status. However, I do have a problem with religious individuals who seem to believe that if the government allows a practice that their particular religion does not, somehow their rights have been violated. Our government does not exist to specifically endorse the beliefs espoused by your religion over anyone else's. As there are plenty of churches that endorse gay marriage, you can't claim it is something which crosses all faiths, not to mention it's completely irrelevant since our government is supposed to function as a secular institution anyway.

So what legal basis (and the book of Leviticus can't be used here) can you cite to ban gay marriage?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

I don't think the secular argument will float well with right-wing religious people who are anti-gay. The best we may be able to do is to suggest they are misinterpreting the bible (small chance they'll get the pint) and point out their hypocrisy on things sch as how they are not fighitng against divorce where there's no adultery, which Jesus was very specific about, the way they fight gay marriage. As long as they think their religion demands it, they'll no more vote for gay marriage than for legalizing theft or rape.

Come to think of it, they should also follow the biblical teaching on rape, which calls for the rapist to have to marry the woman after paying her family some silver (she has no say).

If they don't follow that instruction just as passionately as they follow the instruction they think is there on gay marriage, how can tey defend their inconsistency?

The bottom line is that they are repeating the mistakes of those who used the bible to defend slavery - they are unable to see the clear wrong to gay people they cause.

Just as race had to be pushed as an issue with them until they got to the point they're at today where they agree racism is wrong, they need gay rights pushed as an issue.

I disagree because attempting to debate them on biblical interpretation cedes their false premise to them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
How can a constitutional amendment be ruled by the court to be unconstitutional? Isn't that the whole point of amending it? To MAKE IT constitutional?

It's a bit complicated. As far as I know there are three legal attacks on Prop 8. I don't remember 2 of them but one is an attack of the legality of the proposition based on whether it is an amendment to the constitution or a revision. Calif law has two standards for such changes. Amendments via initiative are OK if they are in fact amendments, which have a technical, complex and very vague definition, and need to pass by a majority vote only, whereas revisions, also very complex and vague, but dealing with quantitative and qualitative measurements, need first to pass the legislator by a 2/3rds vote, which Prop 8 did not.

Whether 8 is an amendment or a revision will have to be decided. Technically some argue that amendment has the better chance legally, whereas I would say that from an emotional point of view, the fact that it denies a protected class a right to marry somebody they love, it seems to me to be hideously and obviously revisionist and I hope the court agrees.

There is no principle more clear, intended, and fundamental to being an American than the profound and deliberate intention of our nations Constitution than that it protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny, the bigotry, stupidity, and ignorance of the majority. And just so is the intention of the California constitution. Nothing could be more revisionist than to undo this fundamental and vital principle.

Moonbeam makes an informative post and doesn't resort to personal insults? It must be a cold day in hell.

Don't be silly. I simply seized an opportunity to show off how much I know. I can't 'effectively' insult people without acquiring some credibility myself. It's just stategery.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
How can a constitutional amendment be ruled by the court to be unconstitutional? Isn't that the whole point of amending it? To MAKE IT constitutional?

It's a bit complicated. As far as I know there are three legal attacks on Prop 8. I don't remember 2 of them but one is an attack of the legality of the proposition based on whether it is an amendment to the constitution or a revision. Calif law has two standards for such changes. Amendments via initiative are OK if they are in fact amendments, which have a technical, complex and very vague definition, and need to pass by a majority vote only, whereas revisions, also very complex and vague, but dealing with quantitative and qualitative measurements, need first to pass the legislator by a 2/3rds vote, which Prop 8 did not.

Whether 8 is an amendment or a revision will have to be decided. Technically some argue that amendment has the better chance legally, whereas I would say that from an emotional point of view, the fact that it denies a protected class a right to marry somebody they love, it seems to me to be hideously and obviously revisionist and I hope the court agrees.

There is no principle more clear, intended, and fundamental to being an American than the profound and deliberate intention of our nations Constitution than that it protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny, the bigotry, stupidity, and ignorance of the majority. And just so is the intention of the California constitution. Nothing could be more revisionist than to undo this fundamental and vital principle.

Moonbeam makes an informative post and doesn't resort to personal insults? It must be a cold day in hell.

He made a post that I could read without having to shake my head and say, "OK, how would someone on acid read this?" Which, honestly, is a little disappointing; I like Moonbeam's bizarre use of language, which forces me to consider a perspective I never, in a million years, would have considered. But he's absolutely right; Proposition 8 is a truly disgusting piece of legislation that has no business existing anywhere in our country.

Good to hear.

What I say is mostly irrelevant on many of my 'out there' posts. It is seeing from another perspective that counts. My aim and purpose is the belief that the form of my mentation is catching, for everybody who has built a prison has also made a key.

Mulla Nasrudin was found in his yard searching on the lawn. The neighbors asked him what he was looking for. The key to my house, replied the Mulla. Where did you drop it, they asked. In the house, he said. They why, for goodness sake are you looking here, they asked. Because there is more light here, he replied.

The awakening of real thinking and the abandonment of habit and sloth is facilitated by shock and that includes a shift in perspective.

Mulla Nasrudin was seen riding through town seated backwards on a donkey so the people pointed that out to him. He replied that their problem was that they always looked at things from the wrong perspective. "Doesn't it occur to any of you it's the donkey that's the wrong way round?"

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

I don't think the secular argument will float well with right-wing religious people who are anti-gay. The best we may be able to do is to suggest they are misinterpreting the bible (small chance they'll get the pint) and point out their hypocrisy on things sch as how they are not fighitng against divorce where there's no adultery, which Jesus was very specific about, the way they fight gay marriage. As long as they think their religion demands it, they'll no more vote for gay marriage than for legalizing theft or rape.

Come to think of it, they should also follow the biblical teaching on rape, which calls for the rapist to have to marry the woman after paying her family some silver (she has no say).

If they don't follow that instruction just as passionately as they follow the instruction they think is there on gay marriage, how can tey defend their inconsistency?

The bottom line is that they are repeating the mistakes of those who used the bible to defend slavery - they are unable to see the clear wrong to gay people they cause.

Just as race had to be pushed as an issue with them until they got to the point they're at today where they agree racism is wrong, they need gay rights pushed as an issue.

The only answer is for the government to stop sanctioning marriage.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

I don't think the secular argument will float well with right-wing religious people who are anti-gay. The best we may be able to do is to suggest they are misinterpreting the bible (small chance they'll get the pint) and point out their hypocrisy on things sch as how they are not fighitng against divorce where there's no adultery, which Jesus was very specific about, the way they fight gay marriage. As long as they think their religion demands it, they'll no more vote for gay marriage than for legalizing theft or rape.

Come to think of it, they should also follow the biblical teaching on rape, which calls for the rapist to have to marry the woman after paying her family some silver (she has no say).

If they don't follow that instruction just as passionately as they follow the instruction they think is there on gay marriage, how can tey defend their inconsistency?

The bottom line is that they are repeating the mistakes of those who used the bible to defend slavery - they are unable to see the clear wrong to gay people they cause.

Just as race had to be pushed as an issue with them until they got to the point they're at today where they agree racism is wrong, they need gay rights pushed as an issue.

The only answer is for the government to stop sanctioning marriage.

So only Religious Institutions can sanction Marriages? How about Religious Institutions that allow for Same Sex Couples to marry?

 

[LunarRay]

For those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God... I ask this..: IF Jesus were to walk by a church some Sunday as it let out ... and after the astonishment and other fright occurred ... folks asked him to use his power and call down angels from heaven to thwart and smite the Prop 8 supporters what do you think he'd reply?
I think he'd ask them to show him a coin.... and then he'd ask them whose face is that upon it... they'd reply "that is our first president, Geo. Washington on that quarter"... I rather suspect he'd then instruct them to render unto the state that which is the state's and unto God that which is God's....

God don't give a whit about what goes on here... he's interested in one thing.. your eternal life and that (according to my belief) is neither gained through deeds nor gifts.. but by belief in him as the sovereign of our souls and through him and him alone shall we live eternally with him....

 

[Falloutboy]

its a real shame arnold can't run for pres...

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
How did this pass? I mean... I just don't understand... I never hear of people on the news saying, "Gay marriage ain't right, yah hear?"

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The polls pretty clearly show that it's not just Republicans, it's "social conservatives"...many of whom are apparently minorities who vote Democratic and have absolutely no sense of irony. But if I was them, I'd think about this. Arnold is by no means a liberal, and he's apparently changed his mind on the topic. If I was a social conservative (which I'm incredibly not), I'd wonder if maybe moderate folks like Arnold are on to something. It's easy to argue against gay marriage when it's gay San Francisco residents prancing about talking about it, but it's a much different thing when it's moderate straight people saying that maybe it's time gay people had the same rights as straight people.

In regards to the bolded part, you can choose to act in adherence to the law without necessarily agreeing with the result that will come of your adherence. In my mind that's actually a harder thing to do, and somewhat more admirable in a sense. To do what's clearly legally right even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: filetitan

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

More pathetic, failed, bigoted thinking. :thumbsdown:

California already allows gays to adopt kids.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Actually, The California Republican Party had NO OPINION on Prop H8, and did not endorse or reject it , officially speaking.

Actually you're wrong. If you went to cagop.org before the election it said Prop 8: Support. Trust me, i know because i'm a registered Republican and I went there to get some idea of what my party was on the lines of. My mom did the same. While I voted No on 8, I know the CA GOP was for it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Actually, The California Republican Party had NO OPINION on Prop H8, and did not endorse or reject it , officially speaking.

Actually you're wrong. If you went to cagop.org before the election it said Prop 8: Support. Trust me, i know because i'm a registered Republican and I went there to get some idea of what my party was on the lines of. My mom did the same. While I voted No on 8, I know the CA GOP was for it.

Well are not governors generally the titular or simply default head of their state party? arnold was opposed.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: filetitan

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

More pathetic, failed, bigoted thinking. :thumbsdown:

California already allows gays to adopt kids.

your right bollocks, oh well none the less I voiced my opinion end.

 

[jonks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2und1kmLxwA

Dan Savage "savagely" destroys Tony Perkins of the Family Research Counsel. Note that not ONCE does Perkins hit any of the MERITS of any argument against gay marriage. Because there are none. Tradition, redefinition, "greater good." These are not valid legal (or logical) arguments which is why it keeps losing in the courts.

Watch Perkins at 7:00 in.

Anderson: Young people voted overwhelmingly against prop 8
Perkins: no, no, it's not a majority
!!!?
[All exit polls show 18-30 yr olds voted 2-1 against prop 8]

Perkins must have gone to the Palin/Bush school of thought. When confronted with facts contrary to your position, deny the facts.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
How did this pass? I mean... I just don't understand... I never hear of people on the news saying, "Gay marriage ain't right, yah hear?"

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

What else shouldn't gay people be allowed to do? Vote? Sit at the front of the bus? Drink from the same drinking fountain as you?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
How did this pass? I mean... I just don't understand... I never hear of people on the news saying, "Gay marriage ain't right, yah hear?"

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

Can't let them adopted kids - they might catch the gay!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: filetitan

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

More pathetic, failed, bigoted thinking. :thumbsdown:

California already allows gays to adopt kids.

your right bollocks, oh well none the less I voiced my opinion end.

And here's mine: you are an ignorant, immoral, scumbag bigot who deserves to lose your own rights for your denying others theirs. Tyranny of the majority personified.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
I think all gay people are sinning their way to everlasting damnation. Why does the State have to endorse their immorality?

Because equal protection under the law isn't subject to your concept of sin.

Considering these people are going to go burn in your magical sky fairy's barbecue pit for all eternity anyway, why don't you just let them enjoy their time on this planet in the comfort of people they love. God will do all the gay bashing anyone could ever want later on.

I don't think the secular argument will float well with right-wing religious people who are anti-gay. The best we may be able to do is to suggest they are misinterpreting the bible (small chance they'll get the pint) and point out their hypocrisy on things sch as how they are not fighitng against divorce where there's no adultery, which Jesus was very specific about, the way they fight gay marriage. As long as they think their religion demands it, they'll no more vote for gay marriage than for legalizing theft or rape.

Come to think of it, they should also follow the biblical teaching on rape, which calls for the rapist to have to marry the woman after paying her family some silver (she has no say).

If they don't follow that instruction just as passionately as they follow the instruction they think is there on gay marriage, how can tey defend their inconsistency?

The bottom line is that they are repeating the mistakes of those who used the bible to defend slavery - they are unable to see the clear wrong to gay people they cause.

Just as race had to be pushed as an issue with them until they got to the point they're at today where they agree racism is wrong, they need gay rights pushed as an issue.

I disagree because attempting to debate them on biblical interpretation cedes their false premise to them.

It comes down to you not wanting them to vote based on their religion, and that being something you can't have, and a way to lose the debate for their vote overall.

Fundamentalist Christians were won over by persuading them that racial equality was the view consistent with their religion, not byu convincnig them to vote against their religion.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: filetitan

I voted Yes for Prop 8 =/

didn't want this to be a stepping stone, what's next adopting children?

More pathetic, failed, bigoted thinking. :thumbsdown:

California already allows gays to adopt kids.

your right bollocks, oh well none the less I voiced my opinion end.

And here's mine: you are an ignorant, immoral, scumbag bigot who deserves to lose your own rights for your denying others theirs. Tyranny of the majority personified.

and your a complete moron, I will not change my mind. =)