sowhatsthetruth said this in post #15 :
<snipped> <- This arguement has NOTHING to do with this subject.
In fact I view it as entirely relevant for the very reasons I stated: yes, there is room for beliefs to be enforced under law, but only so much room. IMHO, there is room for laws laws against pedophiles who do cause harm to children, but no room for laws against same-sex marriages who cause no harm to anyone, anywhere, ever.
quote:
Like I said, the behavior is legal. The marriage is illegal. (...) Don't just break the law and expect everyone to accept it.
There are more ways than one to bring about widespread change. Passive resistance is one. Gandhi set a pretty darn good precedent for this I would say. Blacks won equal rights, and part of me suspects that not the majority of U.S. citizens voted in their favor. They won because it was the right thing to do in the face of strong opposition.
I guess by my mind there are degrees of breaking the law to make a point and one based on love, happiness and harmony seems like something of a trifling matter by comparrison to some of the tumultuous history under this country's belt. It's all a matter of putting things into perspective. You make it sound like it's a cardinal sin to break the law no matter what the form as if you've never made an unsafe lane change without signalling before.
Again, your arguement is moot Sean.
There are laws against pedophilia. There are no laws against homosexual acts.
Pedophilia is a sexual preference. Homosexuality is a sexual preference.
One is illegal the other isn't.
We're talking about marriage here. Pedophiles don't marry their victims.
Homosexuals are not victims, they choose to engage in this behavior.
And in California, they cannot marry.
As far as civil disobediance goes....
If you have ever engaged in it, or ever studied it....you would know that while engaging in civil disobedience you must be prepared to face any legal action against you. These people don't whine about the consequences and say ...look my civil rights have been violated...they focus on the issue they are fighting against.
Homosexual rights have no business being compared to Black rights. People are born black. Regardless of the rhetoric and propaganda...homosexuality is a choice. Always has been and always will be.
I am living proof that homosexuality is a choice. I lived it wholeheardedly for 16 years. I changed and haven't been down that road for 11 years. I KNOW it's a choice. And I don't buy into the civil rights aspect of homosexual marriage.
Laws exist for a reason. If you find those laws oppressive, then fight it through legal means. Because it's obvious...if breaking the law didn't change anything in California, it sure nuff isn't gonna change it in the rest of the country either.
California has the largest percentage of homosexuals in the USA. And earlier this month, the people of Calif voted to have marriage as defined by a man and a woman....something like 65 to 35%.
The large majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage.
All the Queer Eye, Queer Folk, and Will and Grace isn't gonna change it.
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #18 : Again, your arguement is moot Sean.
.. only moot to you I think as it would appear that your mind is quite set on this matter. I had pegged you for open-minded in a couple other conversations - I never realized before now that someone could be open-minded in some ways, but not in others, so for that lesson I thank you.
quote:
There are laws against pedophilia. There are no laws against homosexual acts.
Pedophilia is a sexual preference. Homosexuality is a sexual preference.
One is illegal the other isn't.
We're talking about marriage here. Pedophiles don't marry their victims.
Homosexuals are not victims, they choose to engage in this behavior.
And in California, they cannot marry.
"marriage".. "sexual preference" - you're talking fine-grained semantics. I'm looking at the bigger, more general picture: both marriage and sexual preferences are personal freedoms & choices. It just so happens that one combination of sexual preference and marriage is not a freedom. It is a double-standard in my book that marriage is defined as "man and woman" by law and OH, guess what? It's the same definition in the Holy Bible! Hmm, strange coincidence? I think not!
This country's laws are rooted in Christianity despite a proclamation of freedom of religion for all. The funny thing is that God neither signed his name, nor is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - so since when does God's will put conditions on the right ot pursuit of happiness? I believe that marriage falls quite solidly under the that right, but if you prefer we could list it under freedom of or from religion. In either event, it's wrong for California and the nation as a whole to discriminate against same-sex marriages.
For that reason, the law should be changed. It was a valiant attempt at defiance, but in the end, the law came back down on them.
quote:
As far as civil disobediance goes....
If you have ever engaged in it, or ever studied it....you would know that while engaging in civil disobedience you must be prepared to face any legal action against you. These people don't whine about the consequences and say ...look my civil rights have been violated...they focus on the issue they are fighting against.
That's exactly what's going on here - though I haven't heard anybody "whining." Do you see something different? They're not all just going to lay down and take a beating silently, but they're not whining. They will continue the fight in earnest. In fact, I find it strange that though they're not whining, you're practically dancing in the streets as if you've won the lottery or something. Does it give you pleasure to see people discriminated against, especially those who you've turned away from your own life for personal reasons? I mean honestly, I could understand the response of, "yeah all homos suck and should burn in hell" more than I can understand yours. Help me understand!
quote:
Regardless of the rhetoric and propaganda...homosexuality is a choice. Always has been and always will be. I am living proof that homosexuality is a choice.
No, you're not allowed to disregard people's opinions on the matter. In fact it is quite debatable! I personally think you're right that people make the choice to live as homosexuals, but wrong that they cannot be born into it. On that level they can be compared to discrimination against Blacks who sought change from being mistreated for simply being who they were. They are on equal fotting as "repressed people." I don't make this stuff up, I'm not the only one who you'll hear this from.
Even so, that's an entirely separate topic. Ultimately, choice or no, since they have the freedom of that choice, why should they
be denied the freedom of other choices that everyone else enjoys?
quote:
Laws exist for a reason. If you find those laws oppressive, then fight it through legal means. Because it's obvious...if breaking the law didn't change anything in California, it sure nuff isn't gonna change it in the rest of the country either.
California has the largest percentage of homosexuals in the USA. And earlier this month, the people of Calif voted to have marriage as defined by a man and a woman....something like 65 to 35%. The large majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage.
I am certain that they will fight the fight on every possible battle front, including legal means. I'll be interested to see what happens when our Christian culture becomes so diluted with immigrant interests that the majority of voting Americans is no longer interested in serving the Judeo-Christian God particularly and is more interested in doing the right thing for everyone.
Anyhow: law this, illegal that, it's apparent that you personally oppose same-sex unions though you haven't said it once. You back your argument with what everyone else thinks and what the majority voters want. But your silence on your personal view states clear enough that you oppose same-sex marriages, my guess would be on religious grounds. Personally, I have no tolerance for religious influence in law.
you said : "Anyhow: law this, illegal that, it's apparent that you personally oppose same-sex unions though you haven't said it once."
Dont's assume ever that you know what I believe. This post is about state sanctioned marriage. Homosexual unions, domestic partnerships already exist.
You can marry at the local MCC church, medicine man, whatever, but it's NOT licensed by the state. Every company I have worked for in my career has had domestic partnership benefits.
Personally, I don't believe that government has any business interfering in heterosexual marriages either. If a man and woman want to marry they should be able to go their church and marry. It's between them and God.
But as it is set up. Homosexuals have never been able to marry. It's not a civil rights issue.
My state, Colorado saw it coming and passed Amendment 2 which barred homosexuals from having "special" rights. It wasn't against homosexual civil rights, it was about special rights. Like marriage.
Judge Bayless, an arrogant pompous idiotic judge overturned the vote and will of the people by saying it went against their civil rights. Poppycock.
I worked for the state court under him, I know what a cretin he is.
Of course, in 1992, I was still living la vida loca as a lesbian activist.
It was then I began being disgusted with the homosexual population.
You've obviously not been involved in homosexual activism....it's ruthless and hate-filled toward anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin. Kind of puts a damper on your parade when there are people who believe what you feel is beautiful and wonderful and the majority of the population thinks you're sick and disgusting. So....they resort to desperate and ruthless measures to get their agenda pushed forward.
You said:
I am certain that they will fight the fight on every possible battle front, including legal means."
You are way behind the times, Sean, they've been using legal means for a long, long time.
This effort in San Francisco shows desperation. They know they will never win if put before the American people....and legislation....backing homosexual marriage will be a long time coming....IF ever.
They are not being mistreated just because the people and the states don't license homosexual marriages.
Give me a break...if people lose their jobs for being gay....yeah that is wrong.
When I ride the bus, I don't see a sign that says "homos to the back."
Water fountains and places of business do not say "no homos here."
When I started going to church....I wasn't belittled or chastised...on the contrary...I was accepted with open arms...AND I was told the truth about my actions. And I am way happier for it!!!!!!!
sowhatsthetruth said this in post #20 : Dont's assume ever that you know what I believe.
What I've done is called "drawing conclusions" which you've forced me to do because you still haven't come out and said one way or another. You force me to draw the conclusion because in order to respond to you effectively I must know your angle of approach. I've I've concluded incorrectly, then say so, but you haven't even done that. I'm forced to conclude, yet again, that my original conclusion is correct and that you're just peeved that I pegged you on the first try. Or something like that. Don't be peeved, I'm just sharp that way. heh!
quote:
Personally, I don't believe that government has any business interfering in heterosexual marriages either. If a man and woman want to marry they should be able to go their church and marry. It's between them and God. (...) It's not a civil rights issue.
The thing of it is, the govt. doesn't interfere with hetero marriages. Quite the contrary, such couples are awarded benefits such as tax breaks which is what the opposition is so bent out of shape over. If it's not a civil rights issue, then just what sort of issue classification is it? What classification of issues does "hetero marriage perks" fall under? Whatever it is, that's where the injustice lies, no matter what you label it.
quote:
Judge Bayless, an arrogant pompous idiotic judge overturned the vote and will of the people by saying it went against their civil rights.
Maybe all those adjectives you use to describe him are accurate, I wouldn't know, but it would seem that his vision is unclouded in at least one way. I think he did the right thing.
quote:
You've obviously not been involved in homosexual activism....it's ruthless and hate-filled toward anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin. Kind of puts a damper on your parade when there are people who believe what you feel is beautiful and wonderful and the majority of the population thinks you're sick and disgusting. So....they resort to desperate and ruthless measures to get their agenda pushed forward.
I can appreciate that. I have gays in my life and have been privy to a lot of the action. A very close friend died as a result of AIDS. I've seen all forms of drama involved with the lifestyle - it's definitely not an easy one. I have not indeed however been "involved" in any of the activism personally. That's their fight, not mine - but I'm sure as heck not going to try and make it any harder for them.
quote:
You are way behind the times, Sean, they've been using legal means for a long, long time.
I'm not behind the times, I was over-stating the obvious. That they've been using legal means for demonstrations and such for decades now is a no-brainer.
quote:
This effort in San Francisco shows desperation. They know they will never win if put before the American people....and legislation....backing homosexual marriage will be a long time coming....IF ever.
I was thinking about this a bit today and I realized that for what a crime you make this out to be, nobody, but nobody, will pay one fine or penalty or serve time or have to defend themselves over this matter. Simply the marriage licenses will be anulled. The reason is that there is no single person to point the finger at here and they're not going to put the whole lot in jail for wanting to be married and have the benefits that go along with it. Given that there is no one person to point at I have to wonder, just who do you view as showing desperation? The city? The people whose marriages are being anulled?
quote:
They are not being mistreated just because the people and the states don't license homosexual marriages.
Oh? How is that not being mistreated? Were women not being mistreated when states didn't recognize their right to vote? Maybe we should just change all that back too..? Things were working out just fine for us men..
quote:
..if people lose their jobs for being gay (...) a sign that says "homos to the back" (...) "no homos here."..
Actually in some places there are signs like those. It's pretty pathetic. Anyway, those forms of discrimination are far too obvious to be gotten away with in this era of political correctness. The best way to discriminate these days without getting busted for it is with under-handed maneuvers that have no accountability - which is exactly what we're seeing here now.
quote:
When I started going to church (...) I was told the truth about my actions. And I am way happier for it!!!!!!!
I'm glad you've found your path.. so few people do. Of course not everyone can follow your path - is this what you hope for?
Sean:I'm forced to conclude, yet again, that my original conclusion is correct and that you're just peeved that I pegged you on the first try. Or something like that. Don't be peeved, I'm just sharp that way. heh!
All right I'll say it. I don't give a hoot if they decide to have a civil union.....my point was....they are occurring now anyhow!!!! See, you shouldn't have assumed...because you were wrong!!! And yes, I will say you ARE sharp in many areas....maybe not in this instance, ok?
Sean: The thing of it is, the govt. doesn't interfere with hetero marriages. Quite the contrary, such couples are awarded benefits such as tax breaks which is what the opposition is so bent out of shape over. If it's not a civil rights issue, then just what sort of issue classification is it? What classification of issues does "hetero marriage perks" fall under? Whatever it is, that's where the injustice lies, no matter what you label it.
The thing of it is...yes they have and they continue to do so.
Why homosexuals would want the state involved in their relationships is beyond me...except they want to be considered like anyone else.
If my boyfriend and I went to my pastor and wanted to get married...without going to the county seat to get a marriage license, the pastor cannot marry me.
What I am saying is that government has no right getting involved with religion or personal relationships.
Everyone complains about church and state...and you know what? As an informed Christian I don't like 5013C status, and I despise the faith based initiatives.
The homosexuals cry they want the government out of their bedroom. And I agree with them there.
I am saying get the government out of my church. We are all wanting the same things.
That's why I am so concerned why anyone who was truly informed would want the government to be involved in their relationship...in any way.
So, you say it's for financial and other reasons....in my viewpoint those reasons aren't worth the risk.
Sean:Maybe all those adjectives you use to describe him are accurate, I wouldn't know, but it would seem that his vision is unclouded in at least one way. I think he did the right thing.
His decision was purely political. He didn't care either way. This decision put him on the map...and that's all he was concerned about.
Sean: I was thinking about this a bit today and I realized that for what a crime you make this out to be, nobody, but nobody, will pay one fine or penalty or serve time or have to defend themselves over this matter. Simply the marriage licenses will be anulled. The reason is that there is no single person to point the finger at here and they're not going to put the whole lot in jail for wanting to be married and have the benefits that go along with it. Given that there is no one person to point at I have to wonder, just who do you view as showing desperation? The city? The people whose marriages are being anulled?
The criminal in this instance is the mayor of San Francisco. He knew the law and blatantly went against it. When Gov. Terminator told him to stop, he still continued. It's the peons who try to change laws and government without contacting the ones in authority (in this case the state) who are guilty.
He didn't do this in a vacuum. The homosexual militants prompted this.
The homosexual militants are desperate. I was watching on C-Span last night when a group of homosexual activists were moaning and complaining about Bush. And they were trying to invoke the good ol days of Clinton when they were making what they thought headway. Under Bush, they feel attacked...and are resorting to maneuvers that are only destroying their cause.
The more they push America to accept their ways....the more they are causing right-wingers and others to push back. Pushing back looks like an attack, but it's not. The majority of Americans find this agenda repulsive. We say, "live your life, but don't start getting on our turf." (marriage)
Sean:Of course not everyone can follow your path - is this what you hope for?
If you are talking about Christianity here...actually, yes, anyone can follow this path. And it's a choice only the individual can make. As far as would I like everyone to make that choice. Sean, I am a Christian. What do you think?
08-28-2004 07:12 AM
