Another non-issue that the Conservatives have been able, with their anger and hate, to push into the Political arena, there by taking attention and time away from the really important issue.
Which is fine with the GOP because if you keep people angry and distracted they won’t notice that the GOP has done nothing about the problems they created, and have no plans to fix anything.
Ken, I’m sorry that I must disagree. The popular vote for the ban was more than 60%. The waste of time is in the efforts of those who insist on the term “marriage” being accepted. Homosexual unions have always existed, and always will. Those who exist in those relationships enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples in almost every circumstance. But the term “marriage” has a specific definition of one man and one woman who can procreate, reproduce though their love. Homosexual couples cannot, even though they love. There is a difference.
Loco – that’s your definition, but it doesn’t have to be my definition, or the definition that we decide on as a society. In Canada same sex marriage is legal. We say that these couples are married. That’s the word we use. Your point about reproduction seems quite irrelevant. If a heterosexual can’t have children, do you want to say that they can’t get married?
lonecat - in the Catholic church anyways, you must be “open to concieve.” This may be moot in some heterosexual situations, but there was Abraham and Sarah. And yes, there are many “Catholics” who do not follow the faith, yet claim the title. I will pray for them. And I hope that you might pray for me as well. We all can use it. The definition was established by God, not me. But it is your choice to believe or not. I just don’t understand all the time and efforts of so many people on a small matter of semantics.
“Homosexual unions have always existed, and always will. Those who exist in those relationships enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples in almost every circumstance.”
Except in 1035+ State and Federal instances, right? So “almost” every.
” But the term “marriage” has a specific definition of one man and one woman who can procreate, reproduce though their love.”
So then any heterosexual relationship with one barren or sterile or “I need Viagra” partner is automatically null and void because these couples cannot procreate. Dang, sucks to be them.
” The definition was established by God, not me”
Yet in the Bible there’re multiple instances of men of God such as King David and King Solomon who had multiple wives, and concubines. So God’s definition of marriage is “1 man, as many women as he feels like it, and as many whores beyond that as it takes to keep him interested.” Sounds really sanctimonious.
But keep it up, it’s absolutely baseless reasoning like the above that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. You merely have no basis in fact.
Jade, I’m not sure what state you are referring to, but it isn’t California.
I don’t recognize your referrence to 1035 instances, but that is an extremely small minority, and I do not know the extenuating circumstances in them.
The couple must be open to the conception of a child. That does not mean that it will occur.
Again, the Old Testament does offer much knowledge, but the New Covanent brought in by Jesus Christ does trump some of the old teachings.
fennec and lonecat- thank you, and peace be with you.
Dr- I’m sorry that you don’t believe, but that was predestined also.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ill thought out and poorly drafted at a time when the nation was fractured by civil war. It has given the Courts far more power than I believe the Courts should have and probably much more power than the authors intended. We can literally go to bed one day and wake up the next to see that only 5 of 9 judges have altered traditions going back hundreds of years. The equal protection and civil rights portion of the Fourteenth have been both boom and bust for Americans.
After reading the full opinion it is clear that the case was about social acceptance and not about any individual right or privilege that was being denied. The case is not over yet but analysis suggests that the final vote will be a 5/4 against Prop 8. There after the lawsuits will go forth and multiply. Schools and even churches will be required to socially accept homosexual marriage or forfeit great sums of money. I am not against gay marriage by any name and I am not a member of any organized religion but I believe it is patently wrong to use the Constitution as a means for social change especially when such change is mandated by so few. So feel free to celebrate the demise of prop 8 if you will but for me it is just a new form of government intrusion.
if predestination reveals the full extent of god’s love and the preservation of god’s freedom
i can certainly understand why some people question this love of his.
ok, then i’m not predestined. i can’t understand why god would keep his predestined ones in line w/ fear, but i suppose that’s in keeping god’s freedom…
i don’t know, but that sounds like bigotry to me.
I hold to the US constitution, but I believe God’s “constitution” written in the Bible supercedes and is sovereign over any national law.
God, whether atheists admit it or not, is the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe….and no “ruler” of any nation can rise to power without God’s direct will or God’s permissive will.
(IMO the latter in the rise of evil rulers, and IMO God “gave” us Obama and the Democratic congress as a punishment for our gross sins)…..
on where homosexuality and the push for same sex “marriage” (total contradiction of meaning and logic)..come in on God’s scoreboard….Paul explained it from a Jewish scholar’s viewpoint….God’s word on rebels and how He sees them…..Romans chapter 1: 18 to 32.
my point is that no matter how many “laws” men pass to legalize gross sin, God will be the final judge of nations and of individual leaders and of course of all humans.
Yawn -
Once again the story devolves into how the 2000 year old legends of dirt-farmers trumps everything.
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” trumps your hatred of “gross sin”. Don’t like it… don’t be gay. But don’t think your little fairy tales mean you can run other peoples’ lives. What is that the right wing always says about the Left? … oh right… we’re elitists who know better than everybody else. Is that not your EXACT argument in this case? “My Bible tells me that I know better than you sinful gays!” Put your nose back in The Book and move on.
The judiciary is there to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority. It did it’s job in this case. Let’s hope the ideologues in the Supreme Court know their jobs too.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just…
I know where you are coming from. It fits my own upbringing. However, by necessity, and our founding, we must broaden the scope of our civil law beyond religious belief.
That government governs best which governs least.
Why should we prohibit any consenting adult from forming a legally recognized bond with another?
Murder isn’t accepted, yet, by citizens, for obvious reason’s. Yet it’s a right of enforcement officers and cia and fbi and dea…etc.
What happened to the “Every man born equal…” motto. Thrown out the window, yet a mask for motivation.
To uphold the Law is a law giver’s and law abider’s responsibility.
Stealing 20% from citizens paychecks is stealing. You can’t be of the law and breaking the law. The breakers of the law are bound by the law, under the law. To follow the Law is to abide in the law. One cannot abide in the law when one is breaking the law. Those killing and stealing aren’t Law enforcers, they’re law breakers. So unless your for a murderous and thiefing government, your not for those that do so.
If your against “Do what I say and not what I do” statement, than your obviously against those in government that practice such.
Suggested Solutions:
Eliminate forced taxes and encourage a tithe offering(choice to pay to country).
Use rubber bullets and stun guns for crowd control and enforcement actions, eliminate killing.
I don’t want to pay taxes for homosexual benefits. Otherwise I’d suggest you start increasing benefits for singles also.
I’ve heard a teacher say to a student when he/she was snacking in a classroom, “Do you have enough for the rest of us?”
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“Liberty” and “Justice” for all. Supposedly.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
Another non-issue that the Conservatives have been able, with their anger and hate, to push into the Political arena, there by taking attention and time away from the really important issue.
Which is fine with the GOP because if you keep people angry and distracted they won’t notice that the GOP has done nothing about the problems they created, and have no plans to fix anything.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Clever cartoon.
Loco80 almost 14 years ago
Ken, I’m sorry that I must disagree. The popular vote for the ban was more than 60%. The waste of time is in the efforts of those who insist on the term “marriage” being accepted. Homosexual unions have always existed, and always will. Those who exist in those relationships enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples in almost every circumstance. But the term “marriage” has a specific definition of one man and one woman who can procreate, reproduce though their love. Homosexual couples cannot, even though they love. There is a difference.
wjstuhr almost 14 years ago
Yes, some pictures are worth SEVERAL thousand words.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Loco – that’s your definition, but it doesn’t have to be my definition, or the definition that we decide on as a society. In Canada same sex marriage is legal. We say that these couples are married. That’s the word we use. Your point about reproduction seems quite irrelevant. If a heterosexual can’t have children, do you want to say that they can’t get married?
parkersinthehouse almost 14 years ago
loco - agreed
Loco80 almost 14 years ago
lonecat - in the Catholic church anyways, you must be “open to concieve.” This may be moot in some heterosexual situations, but there was Abraham and Sarah. And yes, there are many “Catholics” who do not follow the faith, yet claim the title. I will pray for them. And I hope that you might pray for me as well. We all can use it. The definition was established by God, not me. But it is your choice to believe or not. I just don’t understand all the time and efforts of so many people on a small matter of semantics.
lonecat over 13 years ago
Loco – I will happily wish the best for you – that’s all I can do, and I do it sincerely.
But I don’t see why the opinions of the Catholic Church or any other church should determine the rules of a secular society.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“The popular vote for the ban was more than 60%.”
You are completely and utterly wrong. It was 52%“Homosexual unions have always existed, and always will. Those who exist in those relationships enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples in almost every circumstance.”
Except in 1035+ State and Federal instances, right? So “almost” every.” But the term “marriage” has a specific definition of one man and one woman who can procreate, reproduce though their love.”
So then any heterosexual relationship with one barren or sterile or “I need Viagra” partner is automatically null and void because these couples cannot procreate. Dang, sucks to be them.” The definition was established by God, not me”
Yet in the Bible there’re multiple instances of men of God such as King David and King Solomon who had multiple wives, and concubines. So God’s definition of marriage is “1 man, as many women as he feels like it, and as many whores beyond that as it takes to keep him interested.” Sounds really sanctimonious.But keep it up, it’s absolutely baseless reasoning like the above that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. You merely have no basis in fact.
Loco80 over 13 years ago
Jade, I’m not sure what state you are referring to, but it isn’t California. I don’t recognize your referrence to 1035 instances, but that is an extremely small minority, and I do not know the extenuating circumstances in them. The couple must be open to the conception of a child. That does not mean that it will occur. Again, the Old Testament does offer much knowledge, but the New Covanent brought in by Jesus Christ does trump some of the old teachings.
fennec and lonecat- thank you, and peace be with you. Dr- I’m sorry that you don’t believe, but that was predestined also.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
So, minorities don’t count.
mrdoody over 13 years ago
The Fourteenth Amendment was ill thought out and poorly drafted at a time when the nation was fractured by civil war. It has given the Courts far more power than I believe the Courts should have and probably much more power than the authors intended. We can literally go to bed one day and wake up the next to see that only 5 of 9 judges have altered traditions going back hundreds of years. The equal protection and civil rights portion of the Fourteenth have been both boom and bust for Americans. After reading the full opinion it is clear that the case was about social acceptance and not about any individual right or privilege that was being denied. The case is not over yet but analysis suggests that the final vote will be a 5/4 against Prop 8. There after the lawsuits will go forth and multiply. Schools and even churches will be required to socially accept homosexual marriage or forfeit great sums of money. I am not against gay marriage by any name and I am not a member of any organized religion but I believe it is patently wrong to use the Constitution as a means for social change especially when such change is mandated by so few. So feel free to celebrate the demise of prop 8 if you will but for me it is just a new form of government intrusion.
myming over 13 years ago
^^^LOCO80 -
if predestination reveals the full extent of god’s love and the preservation of god’s freedom i can certainly understand why some people question this love of his. ok, then i’m not predestined. i can’t understand why god would keep his predestined ones in line w/ fear, but i suppose that’s in keeping god’s freedom… i don’t know, but that sounds like bigotry to me.
just sayin’… :->
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 13 years ago
FOR ALL!!
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
I hold to the US constitution, but I believe God’s “constitution” written in the Bible supercedes and is sovereign over any national law.
God, whether atheists admit it or not, is the Ultimate Ruler of the Universe….and no “ruler” of any nation can rise to power without God’s direct will or God’s permissive will. (IMO the latter in the rise of evil rulers, and IMO God “gave” us Obama and the Democratic congress as a punishment for our gross sins)…..
on where homosexuality and the push for same sex “marriage” (total contradiction of meaning and logic)..come in on God’s scoreboard….Paul explained it from a Jewish scholar’s viewpoint….God’s word on rebels and how He sees them…..Romans chapter 1: 18 to 32.
my point is that no matter how many “laws” men pass to legalize gross sin, God will be the final judge of nations and of individual leaders and of course of all humans.
lonecat over 13 years ago
I don’t want to live in an Islamic theocracy, and I don’t want to live in a Christian theocracy.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ Taxpayer’s words are pretty much a definition of a theocracy.
Not much difference with Saudi ARabia…except from a different religion.
comYics over 13 years ago
Hey look, it’s Sodom and Gomorah, again.
kennethcwarren64 over 13 years ago
But without the piller of salt.
lalas over 13 years ago
Yawn - Once again the story devolves into how the 2000 year old legends of dirt-farmers trumps everything.
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” trumps your hatred of “gross sin”. Don’t like it… don’t be gay. But don’t think your little fairy tales mean you can run other peoples’ lives. What is that the right wing always says about the Left? … oh right… we’re elitists who know better than everybody else. Is that not your EXACT argument in this case? “My Bible tells me that I know better than you sinful gays!” Put your nose back in The Book and move on.
The judiciary is there to defend the minority against the tyranny of the majority. It did it’s job in this case. Let’s hope the ideologues in the Supreme Court know their jobs too.
charliekane over 13 years ago
From TJ to dtp:
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just…
I know where you are coming from. It fits my own upbringing. However, by necessity, and our founding, we must broaden the scope of our civil law beyond religious belief.
That government governs best which governs least.
Why should we prohibit any consenting adult from forming a legally recognized bond with another?
WarBush over 13 years ago
^Because the ancient book of fairy tales says its not right.
comYics over 13 years ago
Murder isn’t accepted, yet, by citizens, for obvious reason’s. Yet it’s a right of enforcement officers and cia and fbi and dea…etc.
What happened to the “Every man born equal…” motto. Thrown out the window, yet a mask for motivation.
To uphold the Law is a law giver’s and law abider’s responsibility.
Stealing 20% from citizens paychecks is stealing. You can’t be of the law and breaking the law. The breakers of the law are bound by the law, under the law. To follow the Law is to abide in the law. One cannot abide in the law when one is breaking the law. Those killing and stealing aren’t Law enforcers, they’re law breakers. So unless your for a murderous and thiefing government, your not for those that do so.
If your against “Do what I say and not what I do” statement, than your obviously against those in government that practice such.
Suggested Solutions:
Eliminate forced taxes and encourage a tithe offering(choice to pay to country).
Use rubber bullets and stun guns for crowd control and enforcement actions, eliminate killing.
I don’t want to pay taxes for homosexual benefits. Otherwise I’d suggest you start increasing benefits for singles also.
I’ve heard a teacher say to a student when he/she was snacking in a classroom, “Do you have enough for the rest of us?”
charliekane over 13 years ago
What “taxes for homosexual benefits”?
Where I work, couples pay more for insurance coverage than singles. The rate is based upon experience.
BTW,better that we all participate in health insurance to spread the costs of health care.
comYics over 13 years ago
Ask yourself charliecane.
What benefits are homosexuals asking for?
then…
Where does that money come from?
Really it is a process to “understanding”.