Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

04 Aug 2010, 10:10 pm

the chadmaster wrote:


Quote:
God Help California, youre gonna need it. And like Willard said, the constitution ONLY prohibits a state church, it does not reject church influence on government.



Spoken like Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden.


Congratulations :roll:



Quote:
There should be no appeal of the voters decision, this is not what i consider "government by the people of the people or for the people" this is government trampling on the democratic process that it agreed to.


Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".



Fundamental RIGHTS are not up for a VOTE chadmaster.


This is not democracy chadmaster....you really ought to know better.


And I don't think things would always work in your favor if it was.


If so...what might happen to your beloved christianity and religious freedom in 80 years (or whatever) when ATHEISTS are the majority???


But I guess people like you are OK with tyranny.


So long as it's a tyranny of the majority.



How is it even rational to wish for a society based on one giant argumentum ad populum logical fallacy???



Last edited by Horus on 04 Aug 2010, 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

04 Aug 2010, 10:18 pm

Horus wrote:
pezar wrote:
I think that if the USSC strikes down Prop 8, that California should invoke states' rights and secede. After all, we produce much of the nation's agricultural output, and have virtually all of the high tech, we are quite capable of going it alone. Simply blow up DC with a big nuke and the troops sent to put down the rebellion would have no clue what to do. Let's bring on Civil War 2, and this time get the correct result.




All this because you believe a mere majority has the right to dictate what consenting adults can and cannot do?

All this because the ONLY argument (unlike the arguments prolifers lifers use to support their positions) gay marriage opponents have is that gay marriage is against their religion?


No quite true. Marriage and family is the strongest building block of a free people. The institution of marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. What right does this man have to overturn this institution? Despite what people think here, the purpose of this ruling is not to give gay people equal rights, but rather to destroy the foundation of a free nation which is the traditional nuclear family. If the Communist (fascists, statists, etc.) succeed in doing this, it may very well be the homosexuals that fall within the government's sh** list. It happened in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc. I'm sure that the judge ruled the way he did because he thinks that he and other gays need to be able to get married. However, he has been deceived. I wonder if he believes that men and goats, men and 8 year old girls, or men and lizards should have the "right" to marry. If this ruling stands then I am more than willing to bet that pedophiliac and beastial "marriages" are next.

I can only wonder if the majority of the people who voted against gay marriage will have to subsidize (via taxation) gay "spouses" who come under the insurance policies of their government employed partners. In essence, the majority will have to pay taxes for that which they find morally wrong. This in and of itself is one abridgement of the peoples' rights.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

04 Aug 2010, 11:11 pm

cyberscan wrote:



Quote:
Marriage and family is the strongest building block of a free people. The institution of marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. What right does this man have to overturn this institution?



This is either rank paranoia or the weak and veiled argument of cynical theocrats who will grasp at any straw to conjure up a secular argument.


Who the devil is talking about "overturning" marriage between a man and a women???

You anti-gay marriage folks act as though every heterosexual in the country is suddenly going to rush out and turn gay if gay marriage has official sanction.


Quote:
Despite what people think here, the purpose of this ruling is not to give gay people equal rights, but rather to destroy the foundation of a free nation which is the traditional nuclear family.



Ah yes....this is yet another example of the great satanic subterfuge the
adepts of the left-hand path have pulled on the good woolly flock. They
meet every year on Walpurgisnacht at the ruins of Aleister Crowley's
Abbey of Thelema.

It is a little known fact that they cooked up the idea of gay marriage
at one of these diabolical meetings 15 years ago, (when Bill Clinton was in
office ofcourse) for they knew it would undermine the traditional nuclear
family and thus, usher in the Aeon of Horus. :roll:


Quote:
If the Communist (fascists, statists, etc.) succeed in doing this, it may very well be the homosexuals that fall within the government's sh** list.


Ok....now you've really lost me. How exactly are we going from governmental sanction of gay marriage to governmental persecution
of homosexuals???


Quote:
However, he has been deceived. I wonder if he believes that men and goats, men and 8 year old girls, or men and lizards should have the "right" to marry. If this ruling stands then I am more than willing to bet that pedophiliac and beastial "marriages" are next.



Well gee.....idk...I would think the judge can see the distinction between
CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS and some moon-shined hick farmer and
his goat. If you're more than willing to bet on this one and you actually
think you'd win, might I interest you in some Siberian swampland I have
up for sale???

Quote:
I can only wonder if the majority of the people who voted against gay marriage will have to subsidize (via taxation) gay "spouses" who come under the insurance policies of their government employed partners. In essence, the majority will have to pay taxes for that which they find morally wrong. This in and of itself is one abridgement of the peoples' rights.




I'll keep this in mind next time a majority finds something you favor to
be morally wrong. By this logic......Americans shouldn't pay taxes at all
because a majority ALWAYS finds SOMETHING our tax dollars are funding
to be morally wrong.



cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

04 Aug 2010, 11:57 pm

Horus wrote:
cyberscan wrote:



Quote:
Marriage and family is the strongest building block of a free people. The institution of marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. What right does this man have to overturn this institution?



This is either rank paranoia or the weak and veiled argument of cynical theocrats who will grasp at any straw to conjure up a secular argument.


Who the devil is talking about "overturning" marriage between a man and a women???

You anti-gay marriage folks act as though every heterosexual in the country is suddenly going to rush out and turn gay if gay marriage has official sanction.


Quote:
Despite what people think here, the purpose of this ruling is not to give gay people equal rights, but rather to destroy the foundation of a free nation which is the traditional nuclear family.



Ah yes....this is yet another example of the great satanic subterfuge the
adepts of the left-hand path have pulled on the good woolly flock. They
meet every year on Walpurgisnacht at the ruins of Aleister Crowley's
Abbey of Thelema.

It is a little known fact that they cooked up the idea of gay marriage
at one of these diabolical meetings 15 years ago, (when Bill Clinton was in
office ofcourse) for they knew it would undermine the traditional nuclear
family and thus, usher in the Aeon of Horus. :roll:


Quote:
If the Communist (fascists, statists, etc.) succeed in doing this, it may very well be the homosexuals that fall within the government's sh** list.


Ok....now you've really lost me. How exactly are we going from governmental sanction of gay marriage to governmental persecution
of homosexuals???


Quote:
However, he has been deceived. I wonder if he believes that men and goats, men and 8 year old girls, or men and lizards should have the "right" to marry. If this ruling stands then I am more than willing to bet that pedophiliac and beastial "marriages" are next.



Well gee.....idk...I would think the judge can see the distinction between
CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS and some moon-shined hick farmer and
his goat. If you're more than willing to bet on this one and you actually
think you'd win, might I interest you in some Siberian swampland I have
up for sale???

Quote:
I can only wonder if the majority of the people who voted against gay marriage will have to subsidize (via taxation) gay "spouses" who come under the insurance policies of their government employed partners. In essence, the majority will have to pay taxes for that which they find morally wrong. This in and of itself is one abridgement of the peoples' rights.




I'll keep this in mind next time a majority finds something you favor to
be morally wrong. By this logic......Americans shouldn't pay taxes at all
because a majority ALWAYS finds SOMETHING our tax dollars are funding
to be morally wrong.


What I said about government coming after homosexuals has been proven by history. This ruling is NOT ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS for gays, it is about amassing power. It was the intellectuals who paved the way for the Communist revolution, and it was also the intellectuals who were one of the first groups KILLED by the Communists when they came into power. This man (the judge) is power hungry, and yet, he is being used as a backyard tool. If you want gay marriage to be allowed, the proper way to do it is to lobby the people, set up an education campaign, and when enough people are for it, have them vote to overturn the state's constitution's ban against gay marriage.

The people who want to marry a goat only needs to find a judge who is into beastiality. Their argument could be something along the lines of property rights and equal protections. The same would apply to a pedophile who wants his way with a little girl (or boy). All the pedophile would have to do is find a pedophile judge who is willing to opverturn laws protecting children by ruling them unconstitutional. I still stand by my statement that this judge is a clear and present threat to this nation, the rule of law, and democracy itself.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

05 Aug 2010, 4:04 am

Xenu wrote:
I am so happy right now it isn't even funny :)


all this time i thought you were straight 8O


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

05 Aug 2010, 4:09 am

The first thing coming to my mind is, why is gay marriage still illegal in some American states anyway?

Perhaps they're reading this fine list of reasons gay marriage should be illegal:

Quote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.



Seanmw
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,639
Location: Bremerton, WA

05 Aug 2010, 4:15 am

Asp-Z wrote:
The first thing coming to my mind is, why is gay marriage still illegal in some American states anyway?

Perhaps they're reading this fine list of reasons gay marriage should be illegal:
Quote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.


i applaud such awesome usage of sarcasm :lol:


_________________
+Blog: http://itsdeeperthanyouknow.blogspot.com/
+"Beneath all chaos lies perfect order"


LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

05 Aug 2010, 9:34 am

Well you know what? I don't see how either the Christians or judge has acted "equaly" for the benifit of a people, given the points in this thread. On one side, there are two or three catagories of Christian churches mentioned, that I read so far, Mormons, fundamentalists, and certain Catholics. Then maybe other people who don't like gays either. By the media coverage, you'd think that Christians are the only ones with marriage ceremonies, despite the fact marriages go on in countries where being christian is illegal even.

Favoritism of one religious group over another is not equal for a people. On the other hand, you have the supposed "will of the people" where one person isn't supposed to make all the choices for everyone, but does so anyway. Where is the complete win here? I don't get it.



LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

05 Aug 2010, 9:43 am

cyberscan wrote:
The people who want to marry a goat only needs to find a judge who is into beastiality. Their argument could be something along the lines of property rights and equal protections. The same would apply to a pedophile who wants his way with a little girl (or boy). All the pedophile would have to do is find a pedophile judge who is willing to opverturn laws protecting children by ruling them unconstitutional. I still stand by my statement that this judge is a clear and present threat to this nation, the rule of law, and democracy itself.


Congrats, you just prooved that you know nothing about LGBTs.



cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

05 Aug 2010, 10:10 am

LiendaBalla wrote:
cyberscan wrote:
The people who want to marry a goat only needs to find a judge who is into beastiality. Their argument could be something along the lines of property rights and equal protections. The same would apply to a pedophile who wants his way with a little girl (or boy). All the pedophile would have to do is find a pedophile judge who is willing to opverturn laws protecting children by ruling them unconstitutional. I still stand by my statement that this judge is a clear and present threat to this nation, the rule of law, and democracy itself.


Congrats, you just prooved that you know nothing about LGBTs.


I know plenty about LGBT. This ruling, like I said in previous posts, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with a single government official overriding the vote of 7 MILLION people. What people do in their own bedroom is between them and their Maker. It has nothing to do with me. I am not comparing LGBT people to pedophiles or beastialphiles. All I am doing when I make this statement is saying that people who are one of these (pedophiles or beastialphiles) will use this ruling to get their agenda passed. I would be equally angry if the ruling would have been about a constitutional amendment (vetted as constitutional itself) protecting animals against sadistic torture were overturned by one man in spite of the public vote to pass it. I would be equally angry if the ruling would have been about a constitutional amendment (vetted as constitutional itself) protecting Mosque building against abusive zoning regulations that was overturned by a single government official. I would be equally angry if the ruling would have been about a constitutional amendment (vetted as constitutional itself) protecting Catholic convent building against abusive zoning regulations that was overturned by a single government official.

My anger has nothing to do whatsoever for or against gay marriage. It has everything to do with a single government official overruling a constitutional law voted upon by seven million voters. This is the issue, not gay marriage. I would be equally angry if the issue were about seven million voters telling insurance providers that they do not have to write policies to autistic people and that was overruled by a single public official. This is about the arbitrary power of one single government official overriding the legitimate votes of seven million people (once again) not about gay marriage. The issue is about the fact that taxpayers and voters no longer have a say in how the government is run. It has nothing to do with gay marriage in and of itself.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


JSchoolboy
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: Southern California, USA

05 Aug 2010, 11:07 am

cyberscan wrote:
My anger has nothing to do whatsoever for or against gay marriage. It has everything to do with a single government official overruling a constitutional law voted upon by seven million voters. This is the issue, not gay marriage. I would be equally angry if the issue were about seven million voters telling insurance providers that they do not have to write policies to autistic people and that was overruled by a single public official. This is about the arbitrary power of one single government official overriding the legitimate votes of seven million people (once again) not about gay marriage. The issue is about the fact that taxpayers and voters no longer have a say in how the government is run. It has nothing to do with gay marriage in and of itself.


Let's leave the number of voters out of it. There were nearly as many voting against prop 8. But I understand your point: the majority of voters have approved a law, and you feel that one person should not be allowed to invalidate the will of the majority.

But it's not really just one person. The judge is part of our court system, which is kept in place by our Constitution as part of the "checks and balances" in our government. One of the reasons we have that system is to protect everyone against things like the majority of voters passing laws to discriminate against a minority.

You give a number of examples above. But consider if Prop 8 said that autistic people were not allowed to marry because, traditionally, the mentally ill have not been allowed to marry. If the majority of voters passed such a law, would you support it? Would you complain if a judge ruled that since autistic people are not mentally ill, the law was simply discrimination against autistics, and therefore unconstitutional?

JSB



Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

05 Aug 2010, 12:23 pm

Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

05 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm

Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.




Precisely and it seems like some people around here don't understand that.



schleppenheimer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2006
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,584

05 Aug 2010, 2:35 pm

cyberscan wrote:
Despite what people think here, the purpose of this ruling is not to give gay people equal rights, but rather to destroy the foundation of a free nation which is the traditional nuclear family..


This part of the argument ALWAYS makes me laugh.

Do you know what is REALLY undermining the traditional nuclear family? Promiscuity, pure and simple. Heterosexuals can do promiscuity as good as anyone. So don't give me this crap about gay married people being a threat to MY family. My husband isn't going to be enticed away by a gay couple or a gay man -- my children aren't going to be influenced by gay people into not becoming a nuclear family when it's their time to get married. But what COULD threaten things greatly would be if my husband [or I, for that matter] had an affair, or my children became promiscuous and decided that marriage and family were not for them. Someone's gay marriage has NO IMPACT ON MY FAMILY AT ALL.



Twolf
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 395

05 Aug 2010, 3:34 pm

Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


+1


_________________
Be yourself because you only get one life.


cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

05 Aug 2010, 4:12 pm

Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right. This is what was up for vote, not a denial of fundamental rights.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."