There is no "right" to marriage in the US Constitution. Get a clue.
So it's me that's clueless. Proposition 8 (which is what we are discussing here) doesn't amend the U.S. Constitution. It amends the State of California Constitution.
The religious roots of marriage became irrelevant the moment government made it a civil institution and assigned a set of guaranteed rights to it.
Our government has no business enforcing morality.
The word "marriage" has never been the issue - it's just a convenient excuse by those looking to justify their bigotry.
In a perfect world the government would get entirely out of the business of issuing "marriage" licenses and EVERYONE would get a civil union. If you want to get "married" that's between you and your church. the government doesn't recognize nor sanction marriage because as the fundamentalists are quick to point out, it's a "religious" institution.
Of course, we don't have time for rational solutions, and the "yes on 8" camp wouldn't actually want this anyway because it exposes their true fears and motivation.
I applaud Apple and eagerly look forward to the inevitable day when we provide basic rights and respect to everyone - even those we disagree with.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
The last pole I checked had the vote on Proposition 8 closer then 95% Yes and 5% no.
Sorry Apple. You lost me on this one. Off come the Apple logos on our vehicles and I will no longer encourage my clients, friends and family to purchase Apple products. Even though Apple has superior products in the marketplace, I do not want to be associated with a company that's willing to chance alienating many of its customers by challenging their moral stance on an issue. To be more direct. I cannot associate with anyone that opposes the will of our Creator.
Serious?!
'Twas ever the slogan "Think Ignorant" more apt...
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
So it's me that's clueless. Proposition 8 (which is what we are discussing here) doesn't amend the U.S. Constitution. It amends the State of California Constitution.
Show me the current right within the California Constitution. You can't because it isn't there, and it never was. What you do have is judicial activism allowing gay marriage, voiding the will of the people, but there is currently no such right written into the California Constitution, and there never has been. The passage of prop 8 will place language in that Constitution that deals with what marriage is.
It's not in the US Constitution either. Next, you'll tell me that driving your car is a right.
If you don't see the religious connection to marriage laws, then you're blind. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and our laws reflect that. The US is the only country in history to so define itself. We are unique in that we have a secular government with a society based on religious values.
Secularists hate that, they don't want to to be called to account for morals.
Agreed. The amoral crowd loves to try to make our founding fathers and their generation to be, at the most, deists leaning towards agnosticism. If that's the case, why did our early states' law books have laws against sodomy and even cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman? Heck, here in Michigan a few years ago someone got ticketed for swearing in public. It's an old law that was still in the books (or maybe it's been stricken from the books since that came out in the news.)
No one can claim that our founding fathers intended to keep religious morals out of our law books, because many of our first laws DID come from religious-based morality.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
So, what you believe is real, and the rest of us live in ignorance. You didn't have to tell me that you're secularist, it stands out like a red light on your nose.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
Real science is only mere facts. There is always a paradigm or world-view attached to a person's view of those facts and their implications. So really, even as a secularist, you view things in a context of your own beliefs or world-view. You have more of a religion than you think.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
Tactic #1: When backed into a corner, dismiss argument or arguer as "liberal", make baseless assumptions and insults, and refuse to address the matter at hand.
Been here before, sport.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
40 years ago your parents or grandparents were having this same discussion about interracial marriages. How comforting to know that we can now look back on them as scared fools, and that in another 40 years our children will be able to do the same. Each subsequent generation results in a few more individuals freeing themselves from the walls put around them by blind fundamentalism.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
So how come, if our country was supposedly founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing, did our earliest lawbooks have laws banning sodomy and banning the cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman?
Why were America's first laws so darn un-American?
Tactic #1: When backed into a corner, dismiss argument or arguer as "liberal", make baseless assumptions and insults, and refuse to address the matter at hand.
Been here before, sport.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
40 years ago your parents or grandparents were having this same discussion about interracial marriages. How comforting to know that we can now look back on them as scared fools, and that in another 40 years our children will be able to do the same. Each subsequent generation results in a few more individuals freeing themselves from the walls put around them by blind fundamentalism.
Sport?
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
Real science is only mere facts. There is always a paradigm or world-view attached to a person's view of those facts and their implications. So really, even as a secularist, you view things in a context of your own beliefs or world-view. You have more of a religion than you think.
Yep. Let's get back to computers. When the those facts result in real advances such as iPhones and longevity they are more then a mere point of view based on folklore.
Since the "will of the people" (regardless of constitutionality) matters so greatly, I assume that if prop 8 fails, you'll accept it and move on?
If that happens, I shall have no choice. Maybe you should look at the stats from the last time voters voiced their opinion on gay marriage. IOW, don't count your chickens before they're hatched there, Kerry.
Comments
That's anarchy, and it's very bad for society.
Treating everybody equally under the law has nothing to do with anarchy.
There is no "right" to marriage in the US Constitution. Get a clue.
So it's me that's clueless. Proposition 8 (which is what we are discussing here) doesn't amend the U.S. Constitution. It amends the State of California Constitution.
The religious roots of marriage became irrelevant the moment government made it a civil institution and assigned a set of guaranteed rights to it.
Our government has no business enforcing morality.
The word "marriage" has never been the issue - it's just a convenient excuse by those looking to justify their bigotry.
In a perfect world the government would get entirely out of the business of issuing "marriage" licenses and EVERYONE would get a civil union. If you want to get "married" that's between you and your church. the government doesn't recognize nor sanction marriage because as the fundamentalists are quick to point out, it's a "religious" institution.
Of course, we don't have time for rational solutions, and the "yes on 8" camp wouldn't actually want this anyway because it exposes their true fears and motivation.
I applaud Apple and eagerly look forward to the inevitable day when we provide basic rights and respect to everyone - even those we disagree with.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
The last pole I checked had the vote on Proposition 8 closer then 95% Yes and 5% no.
Sorry Apple. You lost me on this one. Off come the Apple logos on our vehicles and I will no longer encourage my clients, friends and family to purchase Apple products. Even though Apple has superior products in the marketplace, I do not want to be associated with a company that's willing to chance alienating many of its customers by challenging their moral stance on an issue. To be more direct. I cannot associate with anyone that opposes the will of our Creator.
Serious?!
'Twas ever the slogan "Think Ignorant" more apt...
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
Well-said, zinfella!
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
So it's me that's clueless. Proposition 8 (which is what we are discussing here) doesn't amend the U.S. Constitution. It amends the State of California Constitution.
Show me the current right within the California Constitution. You can't because it isn't there, and it never was. What you do have is judicial activism allowing gay marriage, voiding the will of the people, but there is currently no such right written into the California Constitution, and there never has been. The passage of prop 8 will place language in that Constitution that deals with what marriage is.
It's not in the US Constitution either. Next, you'll tell me that driving your car is a right.
If you don't see the religious connection to marriage laws, then you're blind. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and our laws reflect that. The US is the only country in history to so define itself. We are unique in that we have a secular government with a society based on religious values.
Secularists hate that, they don't want to to be called to account for morals.
Agreed. The amoral crowd loves to try to make our founding fathers and their generation to be, at the most, deists leaning towards agnosticism. If that's the case, why did our early states' law books have laws against sodomy and even cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman? Heck, here in Michigan a few years ago someone got ticketed for swearing in public. It's an old law that was still in the books (or maybe it's been stricken from the books since that came out in the news.)
No one can claim that our founding fathers intended to keep religious morals out of our law books, because many of our first laws DID come from religious-based morality.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
So, what you believe is real, and the rest of us live in ignorance. You didn't have to tell me that you're secularist, it stands out like a red light on your nose.
I am a secularist and I think religion has some good ideas, but has caused many problems. I believe in real science.
Real science is only mere facts. There is always a paradigm or world-view attached to a person's view of those facts and their implications. So really, even as a secularist, you view things in a context of your own beliefs or world-view. You have more of a religion than you think.
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
Tactic #1: When backed into a corner, dismiss argument or arguer as "liberal", make baseless assumptions and insults, and refuse to address the matter at hand.
Been here before, sport.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
40 years ago your parents or grandparents were having this same discussion about interracial marriages. How comforting to know that we can now look back on them as scared fools, and that in another 40 years our children will be able to do the same. Each subsequent generation results in a few more individuals freeing themselves from the walls put around them by blind fundamentalism.
Well-said, zinfella!
Still waiting to hear your opinions on the rest of Leviticus.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
So how come, if our country was supposedly founded with the idea that consenting adults had the freedom to choose to do what they liked with the partner of their choosing, did our earliest lawbooks have laws banning sodomy and banning the cohabitation of an unmarried man and woman?
Why were America's first laws so darn un-American?
At this point I think you should declare your State.
I think he should declare independence and start his own country
What you do have is judicial activism allowing gay marriage, voiding the will of the people,
Since the "will of the people" (regardless of constitutionality) matters so greatly, I assume that if prop 8 fails, you'll accept it and move on?
Tactic #1: When backed into a corner, dismiss argument or arguer as "liberal", make baseless assumptions and insults, and refuse to address the matter at hand.
Been here before, sport.
Dismissing discrimination as "societal morals" is just another excuse to protect your anti-american religious fundamentalism. There are lots of countries on this planet where that might fly, but real americans understand the importance of protecting basic and equal rights for EVERYONE, not just those that go to our church.
Debating the "morality" of which consenting adult another consenting adult chooses to partner with is a non-starter.
40 years ago your parents or grandparents were having this same discussion about interracial marriages. How comforting to know that we can now look back on them as scared fools, and that in another 40 years our children will be able to do the same. Each subsequent generation results in a few more individuals freeing themselves from the walls put around them by blind fundamentalism.
Sport?
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
I think he should declare independence and start his own country
I always worry about what folks in Amsterdam think.
Real science is only mere facts. There is always a paradigm or world-view attached to a person's view of those facts and their implications. So really, even as a secularist, you view things in a context of your own beliefs or world-view. You have more of a religion than you think.
Yep. Let's get back to computers. When the those facts result in real advances such as iPhones and longevity they are more then a mere point of view based on folklore.
Since the "will of the people" (regardless of constitutionality) matters so greatly, I assume that if prop 8 fails, you'll accept it and move on?
If that happens, I shall have no choice. Maybe you should look at the stats from the last time voters voiced their opinion on gay marriage. IOW, don't count your chickens before they're hatched there, Kerry.