| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 tikited
|
Prop 8-California |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 1885 11/14/08 11:21 PM |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 707 11/16/08 10:08 AM |
Blame Mark Madsen.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gopher4Life |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 12909 11/17/08 11:13 AM |
Last Edited By: Gopher4Life 11/17/08 11:15 AM.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 713 11/17/08 12:15 PM |
Please offer a defense of Prop 8 without mentioning religion. And go!
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
bga1 |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 6676 11/17/08 12:29 PM |
Ole- each of us has a worldview. For you to ask G4L to offer a defense of Prop 8 is to disallow his worldview. His worldview is every bit as legitimate as
whatever yours is and I would in fact argue that the worldview he operates from is the very worldview that this country was founded upon and therefore THE most
relevant worldview available. This nation was never formed on secular views and the founding fathers predicted that movement to a secular worldview would be
the death of our nation.
So if you want to void all of the history of our nation and the world to arrive at a new standard than have at it. It is those that are arguing for gay marriage that are trying to change history not those that are arguing against it. So please offer a defense of gay marriage in the context of history - what society prior to the past 10 or 20 years has ever legitimized gay marriage? Also in your reasoning tell me why we shouldn't then offer to legitimize marriage for polygamists and even give special rights to swingers, transvestites, and those that would intermarry in their own families or even marry children. Please argue that without using your own worldview (whatever it is) to back you up. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gopher4Life |
Ole... | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 12910 11/17/08 12:37 PM |
Please attack Prop 8 while respecting religion and the longstanding definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Go.
P.S. Also, recognize that the statutory rights of civil unions are already equal to those of marriage in CA.
Last Edited By: Gopher4Life 11/17/08 12:51 PM.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#6 | |||
|
Posts: 714 11/17/08 1:15 PM |
Religion is fine. Making laws based on religion is unconstitutional.
Bga, your same arguments kept blacks from marrying whites for way too long. The courts have ruled that civil unions and marriages are not the same in CA, hence the "need" for Prop 8. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gopher4Life |
Ole... | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 12911 11/17/08 1:25 PM |
Many of our laws are based on religious tradition.
Marriage will always be a sacred bond between one man and one woman...regardless of what today's liberal judges say. The task is to avoid trampling on that tradition while also guaranteeing the same rights and responsibilities for same-sex unions. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 715 11/17/08 1:31 PM |
Sacred sounds vaguely religious.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#9 | |||
|
Posts: 716 11/17/08 1:50 PM |
Gopher4Life wrote: So if that is what you believe, why do you care if two people who love eachother are able to get married? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bga1 |
Ole | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 6678 11/17/08 2:41 PM |
False. Religion - at least mine, does not espouse undermining one race at the expense of another. Laws against inter-racila marriage were laws based on
prejudice and ignorance not out of the proper reading of the Bible.
Almost all laws are rooted in religion. Tke a look at the Ten Commandments and see for yourself. Now please go ahead and answer my questions, just as I have answered yours. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bga1 |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 6679 11/17/08 2:42 PM |
Ole- again religious views are legitimate world views- just as legitimate and actually more legitimate through history than current secular views.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 717 11/17/08 2:46 PM |
So we should pass laws based on your reading of the bible?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
bga1 |
#13 | |||
|
Posts: 6680 11/17/08 3:37 PM |
It was done long ago and we would do extremely well to continue with them. Nobody is stopping these people from behaving sexually as they please, let's not
start making laws that reward them for it.
Now would you anwer my questions? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#14 | |||
|
Posts: 718 11/17/08 3:42 PM |
Your questions are irrelavent to the issues at hand.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinnesotaMadman |
#15 | |||
|
Posts: 629 11/17/08 3:47 PM |
Looking at this from my interpretation of a Christian Lens:
God created man with Free Will (hence there is evil in the world, no free will = no evil or else God would could not be considered 'all good') The God of the old testament punished the wicked, but spared the good (ex. Noah) In the end, we are all judged as individuals, not as a society It is therefore my duty as a Christian to allow others to exercise their Free Will as they see fit. I should be willing to show people what I believe is the correct path, but I should not prohibit them from choosing a different one if they so choose (as long as it doesn't directly hurt me or the innocent in any physical way). To inhibit their ability to choose how they live would mean I was infringing on their God given right of Free Will If homo-sexuals want to enter into unions that essentially give them the same rights as married couples, then that is their choice and they will be judged in the end for it Whether to call it marriage or something else is just semantics. Meanings of words shift over time anyways.
Lois, everyone has their sanctuary. The Catholics have churches, fat people have Wisconsin, and I have the Pawtucket Brewery. Now, come help me drink these
beers.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#16 | |||
|
Posts: 719 11/17/08 3:50 PM |
polygamists- odd thing to bring up since the mormons supported prop-8 after fighting for decades to be able to marry who they want
Swingers are in commited relationships, who knew? Transvesites should be able to marry whomever they want. Children are not adults, so unless you are implying that gay people aren't adults I'm not sure what you are getting at. And I ask again, what society prior to the last 50 years legalized interracial marriage? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MinneapolisOle |
#17 | |||
|
Posts: 720 11/17/08 3:52 PM |
Not to mention that homosexuality is not a choice, according to dreaded...wait for it...science, one would then have to assume that God created homosexuals, if
one believes he creates individuals.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jike Spingleton |
#18 | |||
|
Posts: 3836 11/17/08 4:09 PM |
Please offer a defense of Prop 8 without mentioning religion. And go!Because two gay people who love each other are not as prepared to raise a child as two straight people who love each other. And if that child grows up thinking same-sex marriage and "traditional" marriage are one and the same....well, the universe will unravel. At least, that's what the damn liberal MSM told me.... |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bga1 |
#19 | |||
|
Posts: 6682 11/17/08 4:30 PM |
Homosexuality is a product of sin in the world. We all have sins -so we all fall short. However, no one should ask that their sinful nature pass for what is
right and natural to the creation. However, I agree that they should be free to choose their own behavior. They should also be loved and treated with dignity.
Special rights should not be awarded that would raise the behavior to a level of legitimacy in society. Homosexuality produces nothing for the future of
society. marriage between heterosexuals is the basis for stable families when the commitment is honored. Stable families with children are essential for the
future of society.
Again, by what standards would you then not allow polygamy or even worse sexual behaviors? The question is relevant. There is indeed a slippery slope. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
ChemEGopher |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 122 11/17/08 4:33 PM |
This will be a non-issue in few decades.
|
|||
|
|
||||
0 Kudo
