Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[BleedBurgundy]

Link. I know it's not popular, but I for one am very happy to see this measure pass. No one is saying that these individuals shouldn't have the right to live as they choose, but it supports the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I'd also like to see more legislation to prevent anyone choosing to live an "alternative lifestyle" from adopting. Again, I don't hate gays, but I don't think children should have that particular viewpoint forced on/presented to them as a valid option.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Link. I know it's not popular, but I for one am very happy to see this measure pass. No one is saying that these individuals shouldn't have the right to live as they choose, but it supports the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I'd also like to see more legislation to prevent anyone choosing to live an "alternative lifestyle" from adopting. Again, I don't hate gays, but I don't think children should have that particular viewpoint forced on/presented to them as a valid option.

WTF do you think a ban on gay marriage does? Isn't the view point being pushed by proponents of the ban "gay marrige is not OK?"

Don't get it twisted homie this ban is a variation of Loving v. Virginia which is to say it a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

WTF do you think a ban on gay marriage does? Isn't the view point being pushed by proponents of the ban "gay marrige is not OK?"

Don't get it twisted homie this ban is a variation of Loving v. Virginia which is to say it a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

To my way of thinking, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently wrong. So that's why I have no issue with children having the natural order of things "forced" upon them. That's my problem with it. I'm not forcing my views on others in that they wouldn't be able to do what they want, I'm saying children should be protected from something that is immoral and wrong on a fundamental level. Everybody's got their opinions and positions, this one is mine. It's not based in hatred, it's based on my own sense of right and wrong. And for what it's worth, in the three states where it came up for vote, the majority of citizens agreed with me.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

To my way of thinking, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently wrong. So that's why I have no issue with children having the natural order of things "forced" upon them. That's my problem with it. I'm not forcing my views on others in that they wouldn't be able to do what they want, I'm saying children should be protected from something that immoral and wrong on a fundamental level. Everybody's got their opinions and positions, this one is mine. It's not based in hatred, it's based on my own sense of right and wrong. And for what it's worth, in the three states where it came up for vote, the majority of citizens agreed with me.

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically be sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

Lock up the monkeys!

LiveScience.com | LiveScience.com - Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically be sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

I do not believe the union of a man/man or woman/woman should be held in the same esteem as that of a traditional man/woman relationship. That's where my defense of Prop 8 comes in. No one is talking about locking anyone up here, except you.

I don't know what behaviors or "inherent attractions" take place in your bedroom/local zoo, nor do I want to, but to deny that the natural purpose of having two distinct sexes and the attraction that they possess is for anything other than procreation, well I have to disagree. Plenty of good things get perverted, sexuality is not immune.

[saden1]

The real argument here is not that anyone goes to jail but the denial of services available to heterosexuals to homosexuals based on the belief that the moral fabrics of our culture would be endangered if we did not.

You will note that this is the same argument used throughout history to oppress and discriminate against certain groups.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

The real argument here is not that anyone goes to jail but the denial of services available to heterosexuals to homosexuals based on the belief that the moral fabrics of our culture would be endangered if we did not.

You will note that this is the same argument used throughout history to oppress and discriminate against certain groups.

I won't lie, I can see why someone who is a member of one of those "certain groups," having experienced discrimination would be so averse to any preference denied a given demographic, almost regardless of reason. I hope I worded that well.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I won't lie, I can see why someone who is a member of one of those "certain groups," having experienced discrimination would be so averse to any preference denied a given demographic, almost regardless of reason. I hope I worded that well.

That's comforting, but I need food, water, and shelter from the mob.

[Trample the Elderly]

Gay Marriage = Turkey Bacon = Non Alcoholic Beer

You can call it whatever you want, but it ain't the real thing.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Gay Marriage = Turkey Bacon = Non Alcoholic Beer

You can call it whatever you want, but it ain't the real thing.

biblical view of love and unity = Disney = chick flicks

you can call it whatever you want but it ain't rational or realistic

[TheLastDon]

Originally Posted by saden1

WTF do you think a ban on gay marriage does? Isn't the view point being pushed by proponents of the ban "gay marrige is not OK?"

Don't get it twisted homie this ban is a variation of Loving v. Virginia which is to say it a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

To use the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage is laughable, but you libs always do that type of thing. You twist the constitution to fit your perverted view of America. I'm pretty sure the intent of the 14th amendment had 0 to do with anything about gay rights. In law one of the things you are supposed to determine is INTENT of the law. That's just basic law 101 type of stuff. Also, you libs use the 14th amendment to say if you are born here to an illegal alien you become a citizen. Yet another twisting of this amendment. Now if you want to go ahead and get another amendment into the constitution that says gay marriage is legal then you'd have an argument, but until then you have no valid argument. You can bring up your decisions like Loving v. Virginia all you want, but we know that there are a TON of decisions that are just plain wrong. Did you think the Dred Scott decision was a good one? Did you think Plessy v. Ferguson was a good one? Should we use those as precedent too?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by TheLastDon

To use the 14th amendment to defend gay marriage is laughable, but you libs always do that type of thing. You twist the constitution to fit your perverted view of America. I'm pretty sure the intent of the 14th amendment had 0 to do with anything about gay rights. In law one of the things you are supposed to determine is INTENT of the law. That's just basic law 101 type of stuff. Also, you libs use the 14th amendment to say if you are born here to an illegal alien you become a citizen. Yet another twisting of this amendment. Now if you want to go ahead and get another amendment into the constitution that says gay marriage is legal then you'd have an argument, but until then you have no valid argument. You can bring up your decisions like Loving v. Virginia all you want, but we know that there are a TON of decisions that are just plain wrong. Did you think the Dred Scott decision was a good one? Did you think Plessy v. Ferguson was a good one? Should we use those as precedent too?

We're not the ones trying to change the Constitution to fit our world views. Last time I checked it is you conservatives that are proposing consititional amendments because the Constitution doesn't allow you to win in the courts. Here's a quick list of amendments championed by conservatives as an addendum to our beloved part-time-sacred-document:

• The Flag Desecration Amendment
• Balanced budget Amendment
• Supermajority to raise taxes
• “Parental rights” Amendment – the right of parents to “raise their children as they see fit, introduced last year by Jim DeMint and Peter Hoekstra.
• Human life Amendment, banning abortion
• The Federal Marriage Amendment, banning gay marriage
• Believing that the DC Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, Lisa Murkowski proposed an Amendment giving the District a single voting representative.
• Last year, Jim DeMint introduced a term limits Amendment (3 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate).
• Allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools.
• Scraping birth right citizenship from the 14th Amendment.
• Scraping the 17th Amendment and the ability of voters to choose their own senators.
• Repealing and "restoring" the 13th Amendment

The really sad part is that your representatives don't think you numskulls realize how difficult it is to change the Constitution so they toy with you. You have to change hearts and minds before you go after the Constitution. Don't get it twisted homie, you're the ones that don't like the Constitution. I forgive you though, it's your nature and you don't know any better.

BTW, bad decisions have been made in the past...there is no question about that...slowly but surely we rectified those decisions. And discrimination against the gays is no different...time is on our side cuz.