This May Be A Very Important Day For Gay Rights

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by xedocodex
Our laws should not be based on any religion.

Or some snotty nosed minority group who believe they should have special rights that no-one else does because they chose to be different..

Please explain to the rest of the people in this topic how giving homosexuals the right to marriage is a "special right"?


Also black people and women should not have the right to vote, because they are not equal to the white man./sarcasm.

I am curious. How many Christians kill their rebellious children?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Using this book as a source for laws or morality is extremely problematic, which is why no one actually uses it that way.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime


Slavery and same sex marriage are hardly comparable. Slavery is unconstitutional, whereas there is no mention of marriage, traditional or same sex, in the Constitution.... therefore the issue defaults to the 10th amendment and the individual states to oversee. California voters voted in a legal election against gay marriage... that should be the end of the story. If SCOTUS wants to have a say in this issue, then the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect the governments role in defining marriage first, although they shouldn't have one to begin with.

There it is, right there in the Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility , provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
What i don't understand is why is it even considered an attack? Maybe if these religious zealots didn't open their mouths in the first place protesting that "gays" should not have the same equal rights as the "straights" they wouldn't feel the back-lash from a forward thinking society.


Hate to break it to you "Christians" but marriage was here long before the bible existed and it will be here long after your religion dies.

Religion isn't going anywhere... It will outlast any homosexual revolution and their cronies.

Yes, sadly religion won't be going anywhere, so as long as we have ignorant people getting spoon fed lies, and fairy tales from birth.


Still though, these "Christians" complain about being attacked, when they were the ones to make the first attack.
I would ask "what kind of logic is that?" Then I realize I am debating with people who believe snakes can talk.

Originally posted by TriForce
reply to post by jibeho

 

There is definately an attack against religion and its currently focused on Christianity.
Who heard about that professor, giving students an assignment to stomp on a piece of paper
with the word Jesus on it?
One Mormon boy who refused to participate was suspended.
They would not dare attempt that assignment with a picture of Mohammed.. know why? Because theyre scared to, they are scared of lawsuits and they are scared crazy that some cleric would issue a fatwa or call for jihad against the US (again) the school and the professor.
As for Judaism, well, we all know why thats off limits, which makes Christianity the best choice for a religion to attack.

edit on 26-3-2013 by TriForce because: (no reason given)

not to be cliche...but... pics or it didn't happen
I think you are making it up based on the retelling of a tall tale from someplace like faux news

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by xedocodex
Our laws should not be based on any religion.

Or some snotty nosed minority group who believe they should have special rights that no-one else does because they chose to be different..

You mean like extreme fundamentalists saying only THEY are allowed to be married and nobody else can?

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
I am curious. How many Christians kill their rebellious children?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Using this book as a source for laws or morality is extremely problematic, which is why no one actually uses it that way.

Well, that specific chapter in the bible is in the old testament, so it doesn't apply... yet genesis and the 10 commandments do..

reply to post by GR1ill3d


Both Genesis and the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.

Also -- there is nothing in the Ten Commandments about gay marriage.

Originally posted by GR1ill3d

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
I am curious. How many Christians kill their rebellious children?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Using this book as a source for laws or morality is extremely problematic, which is why no one actually uses it that way.

Well, that specific chapter in the bible is in the old testament, so it doesn't apply... yet genesis and the 10 commandments do..

Nope Genesis and the 10 commandments are in the Old Testament. Either it all applies or none of it applies. You cannot pick and choose. It's not "Christianity ala carte". Not one jot nor tittle shall be changed ... and of course the subgroups you are in line with have broken that one many many times.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by GR1ill3d

 

Both Genesis and the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.

Also -- there is nothing in the Ten Commandments about gay marriage.

Yes i know, most christians I know, feed me the line of "Well that's old testament stuff, we don't follow that" yet you believe in the 10 commandments, and the literal interpretation of Genesis.. ?

I find the inconsistency of religion disturbing.

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
Please explain to the rest of the people in this topic how giving homosexuals the right to marriage is a "special right"?

Hey, homosexuals should be happy they can freely be homosexual.. I don't need to explain myself.. As for the "special right", stay the f**k away from religious buildings if religion is such a burden.. They weren't built for homosexuals, they were built to worship God. Go build some rainbow coloured churches with your agenda funds somewhere else.. Homosexuals can get married by law all they want.. Government are not a religious entity and therefore shouldn't decide for religious institutions either. Seriously, if they don't like religion, stay the f**k away from our buildings.

reply to post by DarknStormy


Why do some people having such a hard time grasping that religion has nothing to do with this? IT IS LEGAL. Not religious.

Even if they did stay away from religious buildings as you would like, there are still court houses to get married in. Non-religious ministers (such as myself) who perform ceremonies.

To continue to speak of this from a religious standpoint only serves to prove ignorance....

reply to post by kthxbai

not to be cliche...but... pics or it didn't happen I think you are making it up based on the retelling of a tall tale from someplace like faux news

Yea right, pics of what?.. Its not a retelling of anything, its based on whats available to you and everyone else here.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


Religious morals depend on what ever their god says is moral, spoken through a prophet/moron.

The old testament is proof that god changes his mind about murder, rape, and genocide on a whim.

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
Yes, sadly religion won't be going anywhere, so as long as we have ignorant people getting spoon fed lies, and fairy tales from birth.

Wheres the history of Homosexuals? Do we have some ancient Homosexual bibles floating about somewhere? Seems not... Maybe we won somewhere in the past also..

Still though, these "Christians" complain about being attacked, when they were the ones to make the first attack.
I would ask "what kind of logic is that?" Then I realize I am debating with people who believe snakes can talk.

Metaphors and Symbolism.. So what's this about snakes?

reply to post by DarknStormy

Hey, homosexuals should be happy they can freely be homosexual..

Well... now we know where you stand.

I don't need to explain myself..

Ok that's fine

As for the "special right", stay the f**k away from religious buildings if religion is such a burden..

But you just said you didn't need to explain yourself?

And religion isn't a burden, it only becomes such when laws and morals that were made for society 2000+ years ago try to be applied to our society today.

They weren't built for homosexuals, they were built to worship God.

I don't even understand what you are trying to get at with this one? That's not even what is being discussed..

Government are not a religious entity and therefore shouldn't decide for religious institutions either.

And religion should not decide on laws for the government..

It's not a States Rights issue, it's a Human Rights issue.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Why do some people having such a hard time grasping that religion has nothing to do with this? IT IS LEGAL. Not religious.

Even if they did stay away from religious buildings as you would like, there are still court houses to get married in. Non-religious ministers (such as myself) who perform ceremonies.

To continue to speak of this from a religious standpoint only serves to prove ignorance....

Ignorance? Far from it...

Originally posted by supertrot
Fox

The Supreme Court could actually legalize same sex marriages nation wide with their ruling today. About time, in my opinion. This should not even be a government matter.

I find it strange that this has been kept so quiet until now. It also seems strange that Hillary just popped, out of the blu, with a statement supporting gay marriage a few weeks ago. This may be the day.

edit on 26-3-2013 by supertrot because: (no reason given)

It will fail because no one is punished or discriminated for having sex, being a homosexual, etc. What is at issue here is "what is marriage ?" Homosexuals cannot "be" married. They could make up a name for what they do and give it some privileges like marriage but it would be a different arrangement. They tried this with the term "Civil Union" but the homosexuals couldn't have that because they wanted to pretend to be like heterosexuals. Human civilization since time began saw marriage as being between a man and a woman, or women. They saw homosexuality as recreational sex.

Expect the Court to give the defenders of Pop 8 standing, or void the case meaning that only in that one tiny district can it be said that only two couples could get married who are homosexual. Either way, the straights win.

The Court is not ruling on the issue of discrimination or human rights, it is only ruling on the issue of law relating to standing (for those who understand the term), or (for those who don't) for the right to argue the case for the people of the State of California.

reply to post by kaylaluv

I could easily see the SCOTUS ruling initiating an amendment regarding not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That would fall under banning states from refusing to give a marriage license to someone based on their sexual orientation.

That's exactly what needs to happen.