8-3-2004 Missouri residents Vote to Ban Same Sex Marriage - Now 5th Official Anti-Gay State

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Dave, Dave... sigh...

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Many posters here (including Moonie) have made the mistake of quoting "the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness" as part of the Consititution, which it is not.

The problem I have with the gay marriage issue, as it is currently being pursued, is that the pro-gays are working to increase government control over marriage. Hence, the "right" to marry. Marriage is not a right, and the government should not have any control in the bedroom. Marriage is a freedom, i.e. a personal area that belongs to the people without government oversight.

What happened in Missouri is democracy, whether you like it or not. The people decided. Instead of hypocritically denouncing democracy or the people or the freedom of religious exercise, the pro-gay crowd may want to look into where they went wrong.

Wrong, just plain wrong.

I never said the The Declaration of Independence is law, it's an ideal set by the Forefathers to break away from Oppression and Bigotry of Government. The Constitution was written as Law in the hopes of upholding that such said Oppression and Bigotry never happens again. It is clear that as we move further away from the original days of the Forefathers we move further away from their ideals and we plunge right back into being an Oppressive and Bigoted Government that we broke away from to begin with.

Democracy did not prevail here, the Religious Nut Job Right did only because they currently are in the Majority. That WILL change, just a matter of time.

"The problem I have with the gay marriage issue, as it is currently being pursued, is that the pro-gays are working to increase government control over marriage. Hence, the "right" to marry. Marriage is not a right, and the government should not have any control in the bedroom. Marriage is a freedom, i.e. a personal area that belongs to the people without government oversight."

You don't see your own Bigotry and Oppression??? You contradict yourself in the very same sentence.

If as you say "Government should not have any control in the bedroom" and "Marriage is a freedom, i.e. a personal area that belongs to the people without government oversight" , then none of us would be having this conversation at all, the Missouri Vote or any other vote would've never happened.

So sad

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Dave, Dave... sigh...

The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Many posters here (including Moonie) have made the mistake of quoting "the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness" as part of the Consititution, which it is not.

The problem I have with the gay marriage issue, as it is currently being pursued, is that the pro-gays are working to increase government control over marriage. Hence, the "right" to marry. Marriage is not a right, and the government should not have any control in the bedroom. Marriage is a freedom, i.e. a personal area that belongs to the people without government oversight.

What happened in Missouri is democracy, whether you like it or not. The people decided. Instead of hypocritically denouncing democracy or the people or the freedom of religious exercise, the pro-gay crowd may want to look into where they went wrong.

I've known it's not the constitution since forever, Vic. What it is is American and what it means to be independent.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
here's on for you moonie -

union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony

- USSC

Vic - "mirror"

CkG

Answered in my previous post:

"
Opponents of same-sex marriage reject the interracial analogy on the ground that marriage, by definition, involves a man and a woman. This argument is empty. It invokes the statutory definition of marriage, but that definition is precisely what the gay litigants challenged. Marriage can be redefined -- must be redefined -- if it violates the Constitution.

That's what happened in Loving, when the court effectively redefined marriage to include interracial couples.

Some argue that the concept of same-sex marriage is a departure from the traditional understanding of what constitutes the institution of marriage -- but as late as 1950, in many states that understanding entailed a man and woman of the same race. By the time Loving was decided, 16 states still maintained that definition."

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh, btw, I especially love your hypocracy. How everyone who disagrees with you is a "bigot" but your hatred of religious people is not bigotry in anyway.

Vic, there is absolutely no hypocracy in Moonie's stance. To say so is 100% meaningless, it is quite literally babble.

In fact, as Fin pointed out to someone in another post here, it is your stance which some such as Fin himself might call appaling and bigotrous.

(Lord help me, this is fun!)

In conclusion, I ask you all, can we not put such meaningless would be epithets aside and seek instead to embiggen ourselves?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Vic
embiggen

I like that word. I'm going to find a way to use it in a sentence at work today.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

What you have is your head up everybody else's ass.

no, what you have is your designs for how we should view what is moral as the only thing that's good.

Unfortunately you are causing actual harm with your ignorance and anti-Christian hate-speech, as such are yourself are a true bigot.

One more time, Separation of church and state means that the church doesn?t over rule the people, if the people agree then it?s not for anyone else?s church to over rule them; even if your church hold?s as its tenant?s the views of urban liberalism.

The liberals are the ones trying to force a minority social view on the majority, just as the church did before the American revolution.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

What you have is your head up everybody else's ass.

no, what you have is your designs for how we should view what is moral as the only thing that's good.

Unfortunately you are causing actual harm with your ignorance and anti-Christian hate-speech, as such are yourself are the true bigot.

One more time, Separation of church and state means that the church doesn?t over rule the people, if the people agree then it?s not for anyone else?s church to over rule them; even if your church hold?s as its tenant?s the views of urban liberalism.

The liberals are the ones trying to force a minority social view on the majority, just as the church did before the American revolution.

But it's perfectly fine for State to rule Church of course as long as it is the Church that the majority of the people belong to. :roll: Bigot Elitists in the Truest Definition

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

What you have is your head up everybody else's ass.

no, what you have is your designs for how we should view what is moral as the only thing that's good.

Unfortunately you are causing actual harm with your ignorance and anti-Christian hate-speech, as such are yourself are the true bigot.

One more time, Separation of church and state means that the church doesn?t over rule the people, if the people agree then it?s not for anyone else?s church to over rule them; even if your church hold?s as its tenant?s the views of urban liberalism.

The liberals are the ones trying to force a minority social view on the majority, just as the church did before the American revolution.

But it's perfectly fine for State to rule Church of course as long as it is the Church that the majority of the people belong to.

That doesn't even follow.

The point of separating church from state is that we don't want the two most powerful governing institutions of the people to work together giving one more power than the other and thus leaving the will of the people out of it.

That you've got faith in the urban point of view is just as much a matter of your own social norms and personal values as someone who's got faith in the conservative Christian point of view. Calling it a 'church' that's doing this is as silly as my saying you belong to the 'church' of the NewYorkTimes.

Fact is that we disagree about what is moral; homosexual behavior isn't something that should be generally accepted and it isn't something that' is right or moral. Surely you disagree because of your social norms and that we disagree is why we are both broken up into states and why we don't allow anyone's social norms to be the basis of federal policy:
but being against homosexual activity and being a bigoted hater of people because of their value system is two different things.

You libbies honestly speak hatefully against Christian Conservatives because of their social norms, we Christian conservatives, on the other hand, don't go about using hate speech against you simply because of your social norms.

So as it stands like the old church you liberals want to force your view of society on everyone, while we conservatives are willing to let the government, instead of ideology, decide this

 

[onelove]

marriage - bah. so you get different tax treatment and entitlement to privileged communications. and the etherial "legitimacy" we all seem to crave... (Now if the GF could only see it that way - haha.)

Seems like there's some other important things going on apart from what people in Misery are up to. Just be glad you don't live there. (apologies if you do) They can vote again if/when bible-fever subsides a bit. peace - live & let live

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The point of separatin church from state is that we don't want the two most powerful governing institutions of the people to work together giving one more power than the other and thus leaving the will of the people out of it.

Fact is that we disagree about what is moral; homosexual behavior isn't something that should be generally accepted and it isn't something that' is right or moral.

"The point of separating church from state is that we don't want the two most powerful governing institutions of the people to work together giving one more power than the other and thus leaving the will of the people out of it."

Thank you for pointing out that is exactly what is happening.

You and unfortunately for this Country a majorty of others happen to be part of the Religious Nut Job Right that is working together with the State to squash the rest of the monority that disagrees in your Moral Interpetation that homosexual behavior isn't something that should be generally accepted and it isn't something that' is right or moral.

Only God has that Judgement to make not State or Church, it's both Ironic and Sad this is happening.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Dmcowen, have some self-respect or shame and stop posting unfactual subject lines and deliberatly deception misinterpretations.

This is NOT anti-gay...it says NOTHING about gays or polygamists or anybody else...it just affirms that marriage is just between a man and a woman. The sooner you preachy liberals grasp that concept the sooner we can get to arguing the underlying issues.

Hero,
If it is NOT anti-gay ok.. fine... it is, however, by definition, limiting in the notion of marriage. It would exclude same sex marriages. One can reasonably conclude that unless Non Gay folks may wish to marry folks of the same sex the end result is to clarify and to exclude. It has the effect of precluding all folks of the same sex from being married to each other and they generally are Gay folks.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Perknose
In conclusion, I ask you all, can we not put such meaningless would be epithets aside and seek instead to embiggen ourselves?

I've been ordering from spam emails so I'm -already- embiggened.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

working together with the State

people working with the state is fine; the church working with the state against the majority is what we are trying to avoid in put a crow bar of separation between laws and dogma.

that crow-bar is the people themselves!

your the one trying to oppress the majority with your backward ideology.

Only God has that Judgement to make not State or Church, it's both Ironic and Sad this is happening.

Judging the heart of the individual is for God, having laws that don't encourage immoral acts such as bestiality and animal torture and polygamy isn't judging the individual.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: judasmachine I thought christianity was a religion of love, well that's what Jesus said, guess he didn't read the republican section.

There is nothing unloving about defining marriage and choosing not to encouraging self-destructive behavior.

What you have is your head up everybody else's ass.

no, what you have is your designs for how we should view what is moral as the only thing that's good.

Unfortunately you are causing actual harm with your ignorance and anti-Christian hate-speech, as such are yourself are the true bigot.

One more time, Separation of church and state means that the church doesn?t over rule the people, if the people agree then it?s not for anyone else?s church to over rule them; even if your church hold?s as its tenant?s the views of urban liberalism.

The liberals are the ones trying to force a minority social view on the majority, just as the church did before the American revolution.

But it's perfectly fine for State to rule Church of course as long as it is the Church that the majority of the people belong to. :roll: Bigot Elitists in the Truest Definition

Translated this says that if you are a bigot in a majority of bigots it's no fair for if you can't practice your bigotry just because it's unconstitutional. "Damn it, if its unconstitutional we need to change the Constitution. The majority must rule." Like I told you, LMK, you live in the wrong country. You will find bliss in Iran where bigots do rule. And besides I thought you were just worried about the health of gays and didn't want them smoking at the wedding.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Vic
embiggen

I like that word. I'm going to find a way to use it in a sentence at work today.

Sounds like a perfectly cromulent thing to do, Fin, devoid of bigotrous hypocracy!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

You CANNOT agree to disagree on gay marriage. It's either going to be one way or the other. I think it's just appalling how people all of a sudden place so much value in marriage being between a man and a woman, when our country has some of the highest divorce rates ever. If anything, the definition of marriage has been readily going down the sh!tter. Gay marriage would actually do more to help if anything.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I think it's just appalling how people all of a sudden place so much value in marriage being between a man and a woman, when our country has some of the highest divorce rates ever.

I think it?s appalling that we allowed common acceptance to make a 50% divorce rate something to be expected.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

And besides I thought you were just worried about the health of gays and didn't want them smoking at the wedding.

I'm not being confronted with a rational utilitarian counter argument, i'm being told that it's a moral argument on your side, and your arguments on said morality are being supported only by your hate speech and intent to harm thorough intolerance of other?s who think differently than you do.

 

[onelove]

Sudheer, you're right that you can't agree to disagree, but you can abstain. How about a simple sub-S corporation in lieu of marriage? Or, perhaps a partnership?

If you let the camel put his nose in your tent, he'll soon be inside. The state has no need to be involved in your private affairs.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I think it's just appalling how people all of a sudden place so much value in marriage being between a man and a woman, when our country has some of the highest divorce rates ever.

I think it?s appalling that we allowed common acceptance to make a 50% divorce rate something to be expected.

great, you have every right to be appalled. It is a fact, though - people live a long time now and the world has changed a lot since marriage was invented. You live your life the way you want and everyone else can do the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
You CANNOT agree to disagree on gay marriage. It's either going to be one way or the other. I think it's just appalling how people all of a sudden place so much value in marriage being between a man and a woman, when our country has some of the highest divorce rates ever. If anything, the definition of marriage has been readily going down the sh!tter. Gay marriage would actually do more to help if anything.

And to think we just had a whole big thread where we asked the bigots to provide one instance where some liberal made the case that gays would be better at marriage then straights. Hehe, I said if they did I'd call them a bigot. It is bigotry to assume that gays will get marriage any better than straights. That is not the issue. They should have the same right to f#ck up as everybody else. There is no reason to assume they will do better than straights at all without actual scientific studies. It's pure speculation. Of course statistically they have a good shot at it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

And besides I thought you were just worried about the health of gays and didn't want them smoking at the wedding.

I'm not being confronted with a rational utilitarian counter argument, i'm being told that it's a moral argument on your side, and your arguments on said morality are being supported only by your hate speech and intent to harm thorough intolerance of other?s who think differently than you do.

I just point out that you are a bigot. That in no way can harm you. It may lead others to see you in a different light and examine the hidden hate in your stance, but that can only be good. The less people believe in bigotry the better off we will all be. And you are not confronted with a rational utilitarian counter argument because you have not presented such an argument. You presented the absurd notion that what dangers there are in homosexual sex should prevent gays from marrying but the dangers from straight sex don't prevent, and shouldn't prevent straights from marrying. It is not your place to nanny others about the risks they are willing to take for the sake of love. You are just trying to pawn off your bigotry under the false rubric of utility. But you don't give a rats ass about the health of gays.

 

[ToBeMe]

Ran across this and thought it to be germain to the thread........................

Here is the legal status of gay marriage in Europe and other parts of the world:


Belgium: Legalized gay marriage in 2002.


Britain: Plans to introduce legislation soon authorizing civil unions giving gay couples legal recognition apart from traditional marriage with some of the rights enjoyed by married partners.


Canada: Considering legislation to legalize gay civil unions.


Denmark: The first country to legalize same-sex unions in 1989, later giving couples adoption rights. Other Nordic countries followed in the 1990s.


France: Allows civil unions since 2000.


Germany: Introduced same sex civil unions in 2001 apart from traditional marriages.


Italy: Does not recognize same-sex unions.


Russia: Does not recognize same-sex unions.


China: Does not recognize same-sex unions.


The Netherlands: Became the first country to legalize gay marriages outright in 2001.


Portugal: Lesbian and gay couples who live together acquire the same rights as heterosexuals in common-law marriages.


Spain: Like most Roman Catholic countries, Spain does not recognize gay unions. But some northern regions, such as Navarra and the Basque country, recognize gay common-law couples but accord them none of the rights of spouses.


South Africa: Recognized gay rights in its constitution after apartheid ended in 1994. Activists are preparing litigation to have the common law definition of civil unions extended to include same-sex couples without the benefits of actual marriage.


Switzerland: Its largest city, Zurich, started recognizing registered gay couples last July. Geneva also recognizes same-sex couples, although grants them fewer rights. Swiss authorities are considering whether to introduce a national law to harmonize treatment throughout the country.


Mexico: Does not recognize same-sex unions.


Most South American Countries Do not recognize same-sex unions.


No Middleastern Countries recognize same-sex unions due to strong religious beliefs making homosexual activety illegal.

Source: AP

 

[LunarRay]

Separate but equal is not equal...

IF there is to be a 'national' clarification then ALL 'unions' must be under the same umbrella and called the same thing for purposes of Governmental consideration and without any distinction what so ever.
IF the 'couple' choose to be 'unified' in a church and that church having all the requisite qualifications to 'unify' and they call it 'cobblestoned' fine and if another similarly stead entity calls it 'marriage' fine. That then makes the matter equal under the law and separate under the particular belief... of course the Catholics will sue the Baptists cuz as everyone knows the Catholics have first dibs between the two for the term they will want to use.

 

[dmcowen674]

Good Post TobeMe

Certainly shows the road the U.S. is heading down, to be just like Communist China, great :thumbsup: