What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

  • Thread starter Clint
  • Start date
  • #121
Outsiders, do you even understand what he's saying? Dennis Prager, the writer of that article, is saying that if homosexuals are allowed equal rights, they will take over and then deny heterosexuals of their rights. It's absurd. This man fears equal rights.

I predicted that everything that was said in that article was going to be written off as bigotry or hatred.


I did too, mainly because everything about it interprets to bigotry and hatred.
 
  • #122
Isn't it arrogant for 4 people to decide for the rest of the state of California? If I'm not mistaken the citizens of California chose how they wanted to define marriage. 4 people denied the citizen's choice and told them how California was going to define marriage.

Actually, the state legislature has tried to get gay marriage bills past TWICE, only to have them vetoed by the Governator, who wanted the courts to rule on whether such laws passed constitution muster before signing them. The courts in this case were 100% conforming to the will of the people (via their elected representatives).

Of course, this also means gay marriages in CA must be recognized elsewhere, because the only barrier to that (DOMA) is a flat-out violation of the "full faith and credit" clause (states must accept legal documents etc of other states) so egregious that even the bigots realize it won't stand up under judicial review (and actually have suggested passing laws making it illegal for the courts to review it, which is even MORE unconstitutional).



It's endlessly funny watching morons fall over themselves to try to prop up an obsolete rule, especially when they don't have a leg to stand on.

Mokele
 
  • #123
Far from arrogance, it's the patriotic duty of the members of the Supreme Court to protect the state Constitution from the tyranny of the majority. That's why you have a Supreme Court and a Constitution in the first place!

Capslock
 
  • #124
The irony is that people like him try to decide what's best for everyone else. They try to regulate morality for people he'll never even meet. There is hatred... and then there's ignorance. I believe you can be ignorant (not necessarily stupid) and not really hate anyone.

People did elect the person who put those judges into power. That's really the way this country works. That's their job.

It's not illegal for bush to let his religion influence his politics, just unprofessional. The minute he said that God told him to do this or that, there should have been a hearing. I don't want my president acting on what an invisible being says, or at least what he thinks it says.

Politics and religion are not supposed to be mixed in the US gov't. Why do you think its illegal to put baby Jesus on gov't property without say....reindeer?
 
  • #125
It's illegal to put baby Jesus there with or without a reindeer :) The difference is that this is Bush's personal beliefs. If he put a baby Jesus on the white house lawn, that would be illegal.

It's not a formal integration of politics and religion. It's just a chimp talking about God in public. It's funny how we made Christmas a secular, government Holiday. It's just too fun to give up hehe. Even atheists celebrate Xmas! Lots of loopholes. In front of the courthouse in our city, there's a HUGE marble sculpture of a boy reading a book to woodland creatures. The book says "In the beginning...". Just that. If they sculpted the next word in, it would be illegal to put it there.
 
  • #126
It's illegal to put baby Jesus there with or without a reindeer :) The difference is that this is Bush's personal beliefs. If he put a baby Jesus on the white house lawn, that would be illegal.

It's not a formal integration of politics and religion. It's just a chimp talking about God in public. It's funny how we made Christmas a secular, government Holiday. It's just too fun to give up hehe. Even atheists celebrate Xmas!

bush could put baby Jesus on the front lawn of the WH as long as santa is there or a snowman...something not religious
I noticed that about xmas too...even though they call it "winter break" we know it's xmas break...drive's me banana sandwhich...we get Christian holidays off but if Buddhists missed a day of school due to a holiday it counts as an absence....
 
  • #127
Well... I don't know much about religious holidays other than the Christian ones, and those are all commercial and the tiny ones like Lent are mostly ignored by... almost everyone, but a religious holiday of any religion shouldn't count as an absence. Get a note from the equivalent of a rabbi/imam/pastor, and if you feel it's worth it, contact the ACLU. I don't the school will find it worth fighting if you're respectful but let them know you're prepared to get legal help.

Schools close on Christian holidays because the government recognizes them as secular, but they call it "Winter break" because it's politically correct and they should. That's why I say "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" , because I don't want to offend anyone. This is pretty much done so government employees can get a day off, but also because the majority is Christian *yet also secular* and celebrates these, too. Christian holidays are de fact about presents and candy these days, whether some like it or not. If we let everyone out of ever religious holiday, we'd never go to school.
 
  • #128
oh im not saying thats the situation and i would i it happens to my kids should they choose that path of spirituality (or one where holidays are ignored)...
you ever thought of bein a lawyer Clint? I notice you and i like to debate...quite a bit actually...And i do enjoy these debates :D on a friendly level of course
 
  • #129
You can celebrate Xmas if you want. It's really fun lol. It's really no a religious holiday in the public sphere anymore. Even some Jews celebrate it.

I'd make a terrible lawyer. I'm too fair and honest :) After attending many long meetings with my rents and seeing the legal process first hand, there's no way in hell I'd ever be a lawyer. I've wanted to be a doctor since I was five and that's my life's plan. I don't know if I want to be a specialist or not... but considering the pay difference when you specialize in one field, I think I'll end up one. Too early to worry about that; I'll do whatever makes me happiest.
 
  • #130
Isn't it arrogant for 4 people to decide for the rest of the state of California?

No. It's their job. It's just another day at work.

that article said:
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this.

Maybe they don't acknowledge this because it's common sense? And, it's their job. When I complete a routine job at work, I don't make it a big deal. "Holy cow, I just gave a developmental judicial sanction to a student who violated the student code of conduct by harassing a homosexual student! Give me a freaking cookie and look at how awesome I am!"

xvart.
 
  • #131
Medicinal related posts moved to their own thread! Please redirect your responses here.

xvart.
 
  • #134
I will admit to never reading a bible, but I have been meaning to so I can provide better arguments to you the things your saying. Just like the claims of others that their words were being taken out of context so can a single verse in the bible.

This is what is absolutely shocking to me. You readily admit to never reading the Bible, yet you are using it to argue against a Christian perspective and a person who seems to me to know the Bible quite well. You are doing what so many people do... you use the bible when it is convenient and when it fits in with your agenda. People will discredit it in one breath and then pick and choose verses in another. If you are going to read the Bible to refute a Christian perspective, why even bother? You have a biased view and you will learn nothing. You cannot simply pick up the Bible, read it once, and grasp the full meaning of its content.

For everyone else, let me preface what I am about to say with this. Though I do not personally agree with homosexuality, I will never shun or condemn a homosexual. I believe it is a sin just like any other sin, but its consequences can be greater. That being said, the Bible is clear on its stance regarding homosexuality (for those of you that are saying otherwise). Here are a few verses:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

And there you have it... cut and dry. I realize not everyone thinks the Bible has the authority I do, but at least do not claim it does not condemn homosexuality.
 
  • #135
Worse consequences? Can you elaborate?

It is not cut and dry. Nothing is cut and dry. PLEASE don't say that, because if you REALLY are going to stick to that and say that it is so just because it's in the Bible, then you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to believe this is perfectly fine too, because it's in the Bible. By your own argument, you HAVE to believe this.


"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.



If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

The list goes on. If you are going to take the bible literally, and you say something is cut and dry because it's in the Bible, then you HAVE to believe the above are OK, because if you don't, then you're a hypocrite. You MUST, by your own argument, believe the above are perfectly acceptable.

You MUST believe I should be put to death for having sex with a man.
You MUST believe that keeping slaves is fine.
You MUST believe it's perfectly acceptable to sell your own daughter as a slave, and that polygamy is fine.
You MUST believe it's OK to beat your slave, as long as you don't kill the slave.
You MUST believe if a man is caught raping a woman, he gives her father some money, then has to marry her and can't divorce.
You MUST believe that if a man has an affair with a married women, they should both be stoned to death.

And there you have it. It's in the Bible. It's cut and dry. And the list goes on.

You don't personally agree with homosexuality. That's fine. Would you vote against same sex marriage?
 
  • #136
Let me play!

You also have to believe that if a city worships another god, you have to kill everyone in it.
Or that everyone that works on the sabbath should be put to death.
 
  • #137
Worse consequences? Can you elaborate?

Sure can... worse condequences as in possible diseases you can pick up... physical consequences of the body. Pretty simple, no?


It is not cut and dry. Nothing is cut and dry. PLEASE don't say that, because if you REALLY are going to stick to that and say that it is so just because it's in the Bible, then you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to believe this is perfectly fine too, because it's in the Bible. By your own argument, you HAVE to believe this.

You're right, not everything is cut and dry. When looking at the Bible you have to consider many things; the context, culture and what type of literary device is being used. The verses I provided span the old and new testament. There is no hidden meaning and it states it is an unatural act. You can interpret it how you like, but that is the meaning. PERIOD.


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

I am running out of time this morning, but that Bible never endorses slavery... slavery was a fact of life in the Old Testament. It existed before Israel was a nation and existed afterwards. Just as God does not approve of murder yet it is a reality, so he does not approve of slavery, yet it was a reality. Let's take a look at what God did to give slave as close to equal rights (keeping in mind it was a reality) shall we?

The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),

The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)

The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)

The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).

The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).

The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).

When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive


You MUST believe I should be put to death for having sex with a man.
This one is easy... different culture, different time. Stoning was used in the old testament as well... that does not mean I am to pick up something and stone you for sleeping with a prostitute (hypothetically of course). You are not reading things in their context.

You MUST believe that keeping slaves is fine.
See above examples... again, wrong context. Slavery was a reality and was in no way endorsed by God. In fact, God made laws to helps slaves.

You MUST believe it's perfectly acceptable to sell your own daughter as a slave, and that polygamy is fine.
If you are referring to King Solomon, it is clear he made many mistakes in his life. Look at the trouble King David had when having children with multiple wives. It is clear there were more complications in life with multiple wives than with one wife.

You MUST believe it's OK to beat your slave, as long as you don't kill the slave.
Again, see the verses I provided

You MUST believe if a man is caught raping a woman, he gives her father some money, then has to marry her and can't divorce.
I don't know this one off the top of my head, so it would be great if you could provide the verse... thanks.

You MUST believe that if a man has an affair with a married women, they should both be stoned to death.
Again, culture and time.

And there you have it. It's in the Bible. It's cut and dry. And the list goes on.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "The Bible is cut and dry." I did say the verses I provided were cut and dry. In fact, I emphasized that people take things out of context all the time.

You don't personally agree with homosexuality. That's fine. Would you vote against same sex marriage?[/QUOTE]
Good question. This is something I still struggle with. So in all honesty, I don't know what I would vote for. I see the merits from a government standpoint, but I also see it as possibly endorsing something I do not believe in the first place.
 
  • #138
I haven't read all the posts since last night because I'm sitting in an airport on my phone; but, I do have to say this quickly: the context of the book of leviticus is entirely and totally "whack." Seriously, using leviticus in any debate is about as pointless and useless as using a calculator as a spellcheck. I think I saw Clint post some other "famous" versus from leviticus so I'm sure I won't have to whenever I get a wireless signal in my hotel.

xvart.

Sure can... worse condequences as in possible diseases you can pick up... physical consequences of the body. Pretty simple, no?

The same is true of heterosexual couples. The same is true of any couple that irresponsibly engages in sex.

And, how is the context different in your examples but not in your "examples" that condemn homosexuality? Because you say so? Or, because we don't have slaves anymore so that isn't relevant? Everything is out of context when the world changes. Was it in context up until Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation? The everyone said, "welp, those bible versuses aren't in context anymore."

xvar.
 
Last edited:
  • #139
Let me play!

You also have to believe that if a city worships another god, you have to kill everyone in it.
Or that everyone that works on the sabbath should be put to death.

Jesus made it clear that there was a misunderstanding of the law... the Pharisees were so caught up in tradition and themselves that they totally missed the point of any kind of law:

Mark 3
1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
 
  • #140
The same is true of heterosexual couples. The same is true of any couple that irresponsibly engages in sex.

I agree; however, I was simply saying greater consequences as far as coveting vs homosexuality or lying vs homosexuality. But yes, ANY type of sin can have bad consequences. That is the very reason why sin is detestable to God. I do not want to be lumped in with those that feel homosexuality is a greater sin... IT IS NOT. Sin is sin, either way you look at it.



And, how is the context different in your examples but not in your "examples" that condemn homosexuality? Because you say so? Or, because we don't have slaves anymore so that isn't relevant? Everything is out of context when the world changes. Was it in context up until Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation? The everyone said, "welp, those bible versuses aren't in context anymore."

The difference between our verses is that no where in the Bible does it endorse Homosexuality... all verses that pertain to it clearly condemn it; furthermore, I also provided a verse from Romans, so you can scrap Leviticus if you want. There are certain core truths in the Bible that do not change, even with culture.

If everything in the Bible changes with culture, what good is it? You are touching on relativism; I believe in absolutes, and the Bible is my absolute reference point on what is good and bad. It does not cover everything under the sun, but it definitely gives us solid ground on making decisions. Shall we go with Hitler's philosophy (or better yet, Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy) or maybe Joseph Stalin? I use the Bible as a moral absolute and do not believe that anything goes. What Hitler and Stalin did were totally justified by their philosophies... there are no absolutes, so it is ok to round up millions of people and kill them.
 
Back
Top