Way to go California Supreme Court

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2614884
Whats your problem with religion? You have some serious issues

Now that's the typical response I get from the religious right. Because I don't believe in some 'All Seeing, All Powerful' deity someone dreamed up in a book centuries ago, I have serious issues? Yet again, you think because you have faith and believe in some Supreme Being, you are better than me, and I'm just a second-class citizen. I don't need religion to lead a happy and successful life. I do quite well without it. I don't need to leave my house every Sunday and go sit in a building listening to some robed invidual tell me how 'I've sinned and need to do pennance'. Of course to resolve those sins, I have to tithe 20% of my hard-earned income to their institution because "God would want it that way". It's laughable to sit and listen to people talk how good Church-Goin', God Lovin people they are. Then the next thing you hear, that same person has killed his neighbor, beat his wife, or r@ped his daughter. You can't even run for a political position in this country unless you're photographed walking out of a church on Sunday, with you wife and kids in tow. Your faith has created controversy in this world for centuries. Wars have started because of it. I honestly think the world would be a better place if religion was never brought into the mix. It separates classes of citizens worldwide, for what? You'll defend your religious viewpoints to the death. Why? What do you have to gain doing that? Show me one PHYSICAL proof God exists. Don't give me the "Just look around you" speech. Neither you, me, or any other person that has lived on this planet that is accurately documented in history can prove where trees came from, how man came to being, or even why dinosaurs became extinct. We know they are here, or have been here, but have no real proof how they got here in the first place. Scientists have tried to prove theories how man and this planet evolved, but the religious right just tell them they have "serious issues". Where exactly is this Heaven and He11 you think people go to when they die? Do you have any proof they exist? The only way to find out is to die. Unfortunately, there's no known way to come back to tell the rest of us if they are really there. If God is this All Caring and Loving Entity, why does he allow death, cancer, grief, murders, ...? If having religion makes you feel better, gives you a sense of well being, and helps you live a happy and successful life, good for you. But don't look down on me because I don't agree with your philosophies. Trust me, just because you have faith in some Supreme Being, doesn't make you better than me.

 

[renogaw]

amen!

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2614869
So, according to your argument, men who enjoy french kissing poodles should have the same rights as an ethnic minority group?
Please tell me exactly what bill was signed into Law allowing homosexuals the right to get married? Hasn't the argument here been Californians voted down such Law?
They voted against making it a law. So the individuals who disagreed with this decision followed legal procedures and protocols and took it too the California Supreme Court. They 'sued' the state for vilolating their civil rights and won. Now the State of California will put the issue up again on the November ballot, which will overturn this decision made by the Court if a majority of people oppose the decision. That's what's called a Democratic process.
If you ask me, any individual who opposes a minority class of citizen the ability to live their lives with the same freedoms and opportunitues as any other majority class in this country, are nothing more than racists. Go back and read your posts in this thread, and compare them to the thoughts and discussions of people who lived back in the 50's and 60's -
"I don't hate the Negr0es. I know some who are fine and outstanding people. I just don't want them eating in the same restaurants I do, drinking out of the same water fountain, using the same bathrooms I do, or riding in the front seats of my buses. I can't believe a group of judges are trying to grant them the same rights as white folk. We even voted to keep them out of our public schools and colleges, and they overruled that! Shoot, they even want me to quit using the work Negr0, and start using the word Black. How dare they try to change the definition of a word."
Negro
"member of a black-skinned race of Africa," 1555, from Sp. or Port. negro "black," from L. nigrum (nom. niger) "black," of unknown origin. Use with a capital N- became general early 20c. (e.g. 1930 in "New York Times" stylebook) in ref. to U.S. citizens of African descent, but because of its perceived association with white-imposed attitudes and roles the word was ousted late 1960s in this sense by Black (q.v.).
Does that sound eerily familiar to you?

 

[aquaknight]

No, not really. I don't think anyone would be offended at gay's doing anything of those. What we are fighting over is a technical definition. Gays can still have all the fake-mock wedding they want and file for a civil union. They want to be apart of something that clearly does not want them. Wow, imagine if everyone was like this when they tried to become a member of a country-club and were turned down, or tried out for a sports team and didn't make the cut. jeeze

I can't imagine and you're failing to see bionic, is that this is really a case of trying to keep the flooding gates up. Arguing for the 'minitory' when you talk about sexual preference doesn't make any sense. People who like to r ape and murder college kids girls are a minitory. So, really, should 'their rights' be looked after too?

 

[nwdyr]

I am not gay, but I do feel everyone has a right to be happy. I am not god and do not judge people. I say mind you'r own business, nobody has a right to tell me not to be with a woman, so I feel I do not have the right to tell anyone else who to be with!

 

[stdreb27]

Seriously, someone explain to me why passing a bill to not allow for a tax break is imposing beliefs on another person?

 

[renogaw]

well, the same could be said about tax breaks for married vs singles. it's discriminating against single people.

 

[renogaw]

oh oh also!!
home owner vs non homeowner!! those darn homeowners get tax breaks!!!
guess what. the tax laws are there from VOTED IN representatives, NOT judges with their own agendas. if someone doesn't like what a representative does, they have a couple years and they can change it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2615099
No, not really. I don't think anyone would be offended at gay's doing anything of those. What we are fighting over is a technical definition. Gays can still have all the fake-mock wedding they want and file for a civil union. They want to be apart of something that clearly does not want them. Wow, imagine if everyone was like this when they tried to become a member of a country-club and were turned down, or tried out for a sports team and didn't make the cut. jeeze

I can't imagine and you're failing to see bionic, is that this is really a case of trying to keep the flooding gates up. Arguing for the 'minitory' when you talk about sexual preference doesn't make any sense. People who like to r ape and murder college kids girls are a minitory. So, really, should 'their rights' be looked after too?
I still don't get your paranoia about opening up these floodgates you keep talking about. You think there are all these eccentric people just sitting around waiting for this law to pass, just so they can jump on the bandwagon? What's to stop them now from just trying to get a law passed for whatever agenda they have? It's ironic you used the country club and sports team analogy. Go find how many lawsuits have been filed for those very same situations (Augusta National, YMCA and YWCA teams, etc.) How shallow can you be to actually think anyone who lives in a normal society, would allow these far-fetched groups you describe to even be considered?
Basically, you're comparing homosexuals to rapist, murderers, and all these other crazy groups you've come up with. Sorry, but I'm part of the 'something' group, and I have no problem with them joining the club.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2615159
oh oh also!!
home owner vs non homeowner!! those darn homeowners get tax breaks!!!
guess what. the tax laws are there from VOTED IN representatives, NOT judges with their own agendas. if someone doesn't like what a representative does, they have a couple years and they can change it.
Uh, most judges are voted in as well. If you don't like their 'agendas', vote them out.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615316
Uh, most judges are voted in as well. If you don't like their 'agendas', vote them out.
Not on the federal level. They are appointed by the prez and approved by congress. At state and local levels depending on state and local law they are voted in.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615316
Uh, most judges are voted in as well. If you don't like their 'agendas', vote them out.
supreme court and federal judges are appointed by the president afaik...

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615313
I still don't get your paranoia about opening up these floodgates you keep talking about. You think there are all these eccentric people just sitting around waiting for this law to pass, just so they can jump on the bandwagon? What's to stop them now from just trying to get a law passed for whatever agenda they have? It's ironic you used the country club and sports team analogy. Go find how many lawsuits have been filed for those very same situations (Augusta National, YMCA and YWCA teams, etc.) How shallow can you be to actually think anyone who lives in a normal society, would allow these far-fetched groups you describe to even be considered?
Basically, you're comparing homosexuals to rapist, murderers, and all these other crazy groups you've come up with. Sorry, but I'm part of the 'something' group, and I have no problem with them joining the club.
It's just that a line has to drawn somewhere IMO. Today it's gay's, 5 years, it's not blood related kin, after that, who knows.

My point is that they are fighting for "rights for sexual minitories." I dunno how to cut this anyway way, so anything but a traditional man/women marriage is not the norm. The pro-gay movement, not the norm, wants rights. I can't see how you can discriminate against the other minitories (even if some of them are very wrong in your and/or my opinion) and only grant rights to gays. A sister-sister or brother-sister couple could very well love each other just as much as any gay couple. Just because they're 'a little guy' their voices shouldn't be heard? I thought that was one of the basic principles of this country.
IMO, it's like when you got caught with gum at school. Pretend you are the traditional marriage and your classmates are all the sexual miniroites. What did the teacher always say? "Unless you have enough for everyone....." No way on Earth she would say, "Well since, you only have 1 stick left, pick a friend and give it to him."
If you say that the creeps numbers so small their numbers don't matter, what does that prove? The numbers for pro-gay marriage were to small to pass and we really wouldn't be discussing this if it weren't for 4 judges.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2615063

Now that's the typical response I get from the religious right. .
That was as much of your post as I bothered to read. Last time I was in a Church was a Christmas service I was obligated to attend when the wife and I did Christmas back in her home town the year we got married. Yep, I am a right wing religious nutjob

Are you not able to make you case based on the merrits without blaming everything on the "religious right", "Religious Zealots" etc.?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2615448
That was as much of your post as I bothered to read. Last time I was in a Church was a Christmas service I was obligated to attend when the wife and I did Christmas back in her home town the year we got married. Yep, I am a right wing religious nutjob

Are you not able to make you case based on the merrits without blaming everything on the "religious right", "Religious Zealots" etc.?
well at least you haven't heard bible thumper yet.

 

[reefraff]

Double post

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2615483
well at least you haven't heard bible thumper yet.
Yeah,
I believe but I am a very unreligious person. I go back to that passage about a spec in another's eye and a board in mine. I have no room to be calling anyone on might might be considered sinful behavior.

 

[oscardeuce]

So, here's the next case before this judge. NAMBLA sues it is a violation of their civil rights to outlaw child ---- and the legal age for consent should be lowered to 8 years so they can persue happiness. They want consentual relations, it's their civil rights, and they are in love.How would this judge rule?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613409
That article was written with a pro gay slant on it whether you want to admit it or not. To try to compare the way animals for bonds to human relationships is rediculous in the first place. Put in the right situations animals will form the same bonds with their human keepers as they would with a mate.
The siblings thing was just thrown in as another point.
As far as

[hr]
goes the argument for allowing gay relationships period is that two consenting adults have the right to do what they want. Are not adult siblings consenting adults? It is absolutly no different than allowing same --- couples to hook up. Why would you assume to have the right to judge one and not the other?
Many animals in nature eat or abuse their young also, should we repeal all the laws we have against child abuse?

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2615624
So, here's the next case before this judge. NAMBLA sues it is a violation of their civil rights to outlaw child ---- and the legal age for consent should be lowered to 8 years so they can persue happiness. They want consentual relations, it's their civil rights, and they are in love.How would this judge rule?
It depends, did the general population vote for or against it?