• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
Matt 5:27-28
27 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


The idea of homosexual lust is not even mentioned, it being such a ridiculous idea, but surely Adultery prohibition covers that as well.
Click to expand...

I love the sound of bigotry dying a slow, painful death.

Make no mistake Prey - that's exactly the sound you're making. Your views are dying. In very short time, being against this is going to be the same as being for slavery. The VAST majority of people are going to look at it and ask themselves why it was ever a big deal.

Hopefully you'll be around to hate every minute of it, so we can point at you and laugh.
 
NoahFence said:
I love the sound of bigotry dying a slow, painful death.

Make no mistake Prey - that's exactly the sound you're making. Your views are dying. In very short time, being against this is going to be the same as being for slavery. The VAST majority of people are going to look at it and ask themselves why it was ever a big deal.
Click to expand...

This.

Robert's brand of hate is going to go the same way as hatred against interracial marriages and hatred against women voting. It won't die completely. This kind of irrationality never does. It will, however, get pushed to the laughing stock corner of history as another stereotype of hatred that are obviously backward and wrongheaded, right down there with Nazis and Klansmen.
 
I have no problem with people believing in a sky god.

It's when they expect us to change how we comport ourselves to match the commandments passed down in some ancient book that they step over the line.

I mean, some mentally ill person in ancient Palestine hears voices and writes them down, and we are supposed to obey them now?

There is an insane guy on some corner saying similar things now, why don't they follow him, too?
 
DarbyII said:
As a conservative I'll state the case as I see it - the States (including the Federal Government) need to get out of the business of licensing marriage altogether. Marriage should be declared a contractual agreement between consenting adults, albeit an admittedly very special sort of contractual agreement.

That solves the problem without involving politics, political correctness or trashing both the Federal and States’ Constitutions.

Maine, Vermont and New York have also recently enacted sex-neutral language in their marriage laws. New York's law in Article I, Sec 2 states, "Legislative intent: Marriage is a fundamental human right." Therein lays the problem. I've read the new statutes for all three states. Vermont forbids first cousins from marrying, Maine allows first cousins to marry, New York's law is mute on the subject (though I assume it is likely covered elsewhere).

The California case argued the situation as involving rights under the 14th Amendment. Why? It is after all a rather weak argument because it doesn’t refer to any specific right of a US Citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The answer is because the correct argument is the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”), as indirectly recognized by the New York law. Admitting that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right under the 9th Amendment calls into question the States’ ban on marriage between any consenting adults including close relatives such as siblings and first cousins, or even polygamous marriages. And look closely at the language of the 9th Amendment - it's not a reference to Federal Govt rights or State's rights. It refers to the third specific class mentioned in the Constitution - the people.

Marriage either is or it isn’t a fundamental right. If it is the State can’t fall back on “social norms” to ban sibling/polygamous marriage whether it is opposite or same sex marriage (mixed couples or triads?). If the State can apply “social norms” to such relationships then it can apply the same sort of criteria to all marriage relationships. The "right" in the latter case ends up not being quite so fundamental - it is conferred, instead, by the State...a privilege subject to changing laws.

Instead of making weak politically motivated, desired outcome based Constitutional arguments the best and most secure situation to protect marriage rights is to get the government the hell out of the business and let consenting adults decide on their own without Big Brother’s nose in their private affairs.
Click to expand...
Two things...

Yes, getting out of the business altogether sounds great, and I for one would not mind seeing it happen... except for the fact that it's never going to happen. A gay marriage Supreme Court ruling on the other hand, is very likely to happen in the near future.

The 14th is the proper amendment from which to argue the issuance of a license from a government office, as was made clear in Loving.
The more nebulous idea of 'marriage' as a whole really wouldn't need to be established if the 14th were followed. (And yes, the test of 'reasonableness' under the 14th still leaves room to deny licenses to children, animals, corpses, and so forth).
 
Upchurch said:
This.

Robert's brand of hate is going to go the same way as hatred against interracial marriages and hatred against women voting. It won't die completely. This kind of irrationality never does. It will, however, get pushed to the laughing stock corner of history as another stereotype of hatred that are obviously backward and wrongheaded, right down there with Nazis and Klansmen.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be amused when years from now, conservatives and Christian leaders insist that they were the ones leading the charge for gay marriage; any contrary evidence will be dismissed as coming from No True Conservatives.
 
dunstan said:
i'm going to be amused when years from now, conservatives and christian leaders insist that they were the ones leading the charge for gay marriage; any contrary evidence will be dismissed as coming from no true conservatives leftist communist democrats.
Click to expand...
ftfy ;)
 
Travis said:
Is Robert now arguing women should be locked away out of sight?
Click to expand...

When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...

Question him mercilessly and demand evidence for his claims. Same thing we're doing to you.
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...
Why would it matter? One guy, 2000 years ago, is not necessarily a valid moral authority on present day situations.

Regardless, this:
Cleon said:
Question him mercilessly and demand evidence for his claims. Same thing we're doing to you.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...

Are you claiming with 'WWJD', that Jesus would not say 'Let gays be happy, fall in love, and get married'?
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...

Present him with a roomful of wine bottles filled with water and drop some strong hints.
 
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...
Piece of advice: when you've been reduced to spamming pointless one-liners such as this one, you've already lost.
 
Robert Prey said:
The best way to test objective reality is to take a jump from a ten story building. You might pretend it's just an illusion, but pretty soon the "Splat" will set you straight.
Click to expand...


Now try to justify your statement which my comment to you was in reference. (You haven't done that yet, by the way.)
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to questions of morality, some would ask the question: "What would Jesus do?" But I ask, what would the Deep Thinkers on this board do to Jesus?????
Click to expand...
Well, you are ignoring the teachings of Jesus (and the laws of Moses) in the present, what makes you think you wouldn't be the same in the past?

Many of us would probably just get out of your way as you rushed to cheer the crucifixion.
 
Guys, you have allowed a single troll commandeer this thread completely. Might I suggest you all ignore Robert Prey? He has ably demonstrated that he won't ever post anything of value.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we have to get rid of all the immigration, tax, inheritance, protection from testimony, legal standing in wrongful death and so forth that accompany marriage?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The legal mechanism for becoming married is currently a licensing process - a license issued by the state. That is based on "social norms" and not the Constitutional rights of the married people. The States are free to define marriage in any otherwise arbitrary or political manner it sees fit - and they have (thus the current round of court cases).

The question becomes, then, by what Constitutional authority does the State assume the right to dictate, limit or abridge what is termed in the New York law a "fundamental human right" when the 9th Amendment makes clear that the holder of this particular non-enumerated right is the people and not the State? If consenting adults have the right to determine, as a fundamental right, what their domestic relationship is or isn't what is the over arching concern of the State that trumps their 9th Amendment rights? None that I can see.

All of the other body of law that you've noted is currently covered in several States' "domestic partner" laws. It's not a particular problem.

As to immigration, Federal law already covers cases of fraudulently entering into a marriage relationship for the purpose of obtaining legal immigration status as well as time limits required for a non-citizen spouse to apply for citizenship. That is not a case of the Federal government generally limiting or defining the marriage. It is a lawful assertion of Congress' Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom