marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Where do these notions come from, anyway?
There is exactly zero evidence that any of this is true. Furthermore, it defies common sense (not to mention reason).
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
will the homosexuals be happy now ?
- Thread starter Ca Patriot
- Start date
Where do these notions come from, anyway?
There is exactly zero evidence that any of this is true. Furthermore, it defies common sense (not to mention reason).
fighting_for_freedom
Regular Member
You know, CA Patriot, up until now I have silently supported you. I know I haven't read all your threads, but the few that I have seemed to show a man who would have his rights, rather than beg for them. Many have decried you as a liar, a hypocrite, and as a self-aggrandiser. Just like the justice system is supposed to work: I believed you without proof that you were guilty.
You have proven yourself guilty today. If you, yourself, desire freedom, in whatever form; can you then deny it to your fellow man? You may wish to own firearms, or to refuse to speak to police, or to have safety in your person and property; but what of those who wish to marry whom they choose? What of those who would imbibe of narcotics? What of those who would worship the God (or not) of which they choose?
All of these are personal choices, nothing more. They Declaration of Independence references the 'pursuit of happiness'. What is the pursuit of happiness, if not the ability to decide what you may do with your own life, so long as it does not HARM another?
As a staunch Libertarian, no, as an Anarchist, I believe in the supremacy of the individual's choice. A person may do as they choose; they must cause no injury to another.
You should not be angry or jealous of another simply because they have become free; no, you should be ecstatic, or at the very least indifferent to the fact that they have achieved something that you have not.
Let each man be, and enjoy the freedom that comes from not needing to care.
You have proven yourself guilty today. If you, yourself, desire freedom, in whatever form; can you then deny it to your fellow man? You may wish to own firearms, or to refuse to speak to police, or to have safety in your person and property; but what of those who wish to marry whom they choose? What of those who would imbibe of narcotics? What of those who would worship the God (or not) of which they choose?
All of these are personal choices, nothing more. They Declaration of Independence references the 'pursuit of happiness'. What is the pursuit of happiness, if not the ability to decide what you may do with your own life, so long as it does not HARM another?
As a staunch Libertarian, no, as an Anarchist, I believe in the supremacy of the individual's choice. A person may do as they choose; they must cause no injury to another.
You should not be angry or jealous of another simply because they have become free; no, you should be ecstatic, or at the very least indifferent to the fact that they have achieved something that you have not.
Let each man be, and enjoy the freedom that comes from not needing to care.
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
You obviously haven't even read my posts because I have clearly said a number of times that I oppose any government prohibitions against same sex marriage.
Every single new station I turn on is nothing but celebrations over the ruling. I don't recall seeing a single celebration on the news after the Heller or McDonald rulings. I don't recall reading any Facebook posts by hundreds of people about how great the Heller and McDonald decisions are.
Why doesn't the news run a story on the California government officials who committed perjury when they swore to uphold the laws of the state ? How about Obama and Holder who swore to uphold federal law like DOMA ?
Today isn't anything to celebrate. Today is a day that celebrated government corruption and very shady interpretations of the US Constitution.
I am in California right now. My gun rights are almost completely gone in this state. But hey, thanks to my elected government officials, I learned I don't have to even follow the law, I can just ignore it and the courts will reward me.......
Gay marriage is fine. Trampling the constitution and rewarding corrupt government officials is not the way to achieve equality.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
CA Patriot There is no such thing as "constitutional rights"!
The courts went about a convoluted manner when they simply could have recognized fundamental rights of individuals and that the law and justice is supposed to be one a negative effect on people not a positive one.
So that any proposition that infringed upon someone's individual rights is negated (hence negative effect) and no law at all.
The courts went about a convoluted manner when they simply could have recognized fundamental rights of individuals and that the law and justice is supposed to be one a negative effect on people not a positive one.
So that any proposition that infringed upon someone's individual rights is negated (hence negative effect) and no law at all.
What happened to all those who were screaming "states' rights" over the past several years?
What the SCOTUS said in the DOMA decision is that if a state recognizes a marriage, the federal government will too.
States' rights. Pure and simple.
--------------------------
What happened to all those who were screaming that civil rights are not subject to majority vote? The SCOTUS affirmed that. It said all married persons will be treated equally under federal law.
What the SCOTUS said in the DOMA decision is that if a state recognizes a marriage, the federal government will too.
States' rights. Pure and simple.
--------------------------
What happened to all those who were screaming that civil rights are not subject to majority vote? The SCOTUS affirmed that. It said all married persons will be treated equally under federal law.
cteaglesfan
Regular Member
I have no problem with them being able to marry. They have the right to be miserable just like everyone else. :lol:
MamabearCali
Regular Member
It comes from the rhetoric I hear out of the mouths of the LGT advocates. It comes from the experiences of the church in other countries with this agenda advanced. As far as it not making sense.....it does not make sense that we force Catholics to buy contraception and abortion inducing drugs, but here we are with the HHS mandate.
Like I said before, I don't care about govt benefits. If it is a ruling in favor of states rights then that is better than the feds winning out. What I care about is keeping my church free of govt intervention and my freedom to educate my children as I see fit.
No one is forcing a Catholic to use contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.
They are, and rightly so in my opinion, modifying the terms of the contract with churches, to wit: If you want to receive government benefits, you must follow laws which ensure every person is treated the same under the law.
You don't have to agree with the law, but you do have to apply it equally to everyone.
Churches are not forced to perform same sex marriages(separation doncha' know). Most LGBT folks can find churches that willingly perform the ceremony (which is all it is). Same sex marriges will generate jobs in the marriage industry (and it is a 40 billion dollar a year business). Those folks that claim same sex marriage damages the institution of marriage should push for laws that outlaw divorce, which does real damage to the institution AND THE CHILDREN.
Last edited:
MamabearCali
Regular Member
The govt is forcing god fearing people to violate their conscience and pay for abortifacients. That is not good. That is like forcing a Jewish deli to serve ham. Or making a vegan restaurant serve steak. Those employers and churches are not telling their employees and congregants that they wil be terminated for using birth control, they simply do not wish to pay for it.
How far do you want to push that you have to follow whatever new law we set up. How about you have to say the pledge before every service if you want to remain tax free. How about you have to take an oath to not protest any govt actions including this you find reprehensible. How about telling pro-life groups you ant attend rallies or protest planned parenthood. Pretty soon we have totally gutted the first amendment. The govt is establishing it's own religion right now......statism....worship of the state. The state is God and you must kowtow to everything it says.
This is a second amendment open carry forum. Most of us here think we should be able to carry our weapons openly without harassment. Most of us deplore the "you can carry a gun when and where we tell you you can". If it is not ok for them to do that to gun owners why is ok for the to do that to people of faith. Those who have a stong faith have just as much protection that we should be able to practice our religion without govt infringement. Start taking apart th bill of rights for one group and you start to undo them all.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
MamabearCali
Regular Member
I am fine with limiting divorce, but most people would find that distasteful as many are willing to change wives and husband with the seasons. Divorce is horrible on kids and adults. Disposable marriage was one of the major sources of moral decay in our culture and it has taken it's toll.
Like I said before the exercise and establishment clause of the constitution has not stopped the govt from mandating that Catholic pay for abortifacient drugs, so why would I think that it would stop them from forcing churches from performing gay marriage ceremonies?
Churches have this little quirk, though; they want the tax benefits but nothing else. Tax-free status is a government gift. Don't want them? Don't follow the rules, and pay your taxes willingly.
NB: For full disclosure, I was raised Catholic, but still believe the Catholic church wants to push this issue so it doesn't have to admit a large majority of its women practice birth control at some points in their lives, church teaching be damned. AND, I do not believe ANY organization - religious, political, fraternal, or any other, should have tax-exempt status.
"The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, citing new research, declared last March that Plan B does not inhibit implantation but instead blocks fertilization. Germany's Catholic bishops also cited the research in February, which prompted them to drop their opposition to using morning-after pills in Catholic hospitals for victims of rape."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/does-plan-b-cause-abortion.html
MamabearCali
Regular Member
I think we should go to a flat tax or a fair tax and gut the whole system. That way there are no govt gifts to hand out like candies. But I digress.
Like I said before, in order to get the gov't gifts as you call it, should we make those organizations agree with whatever admin is in office? So when a conservative gets in office should the IRS then be used to bully NOW or the NAACP or a gay rights organization? I don't think so. Govt benefits should not be based on politics. Right now they are and that is unacceptable.
Like I said before, in order to get the gov't gifts as you call it, should we make those organizations agree with whatever admin is in office? So when a conservative gets in office should the IRS then be used to bully NOW or the NAACP or a gay rights organization? I don't think so. Govt benefits should not be based on politics. Right now they are and that is unacceptable.
MamabearCali
Regular Member
And? So what? Catholics and some very conservative protestants would still object to paying for that. Germany jumped on it. I find it very convenient that after so many years of saying the pill thickens the uterine lining thereby causing very early abortions that when there is controversy suddenly there is a study saying it doesn't. I find that suspect.
mobiushky
Regular Member
So I take it no one here bothered to read the rulings or tried to comprehend them? We're just gonna broad brush it and say stuff that's not accurate?
Let's take them separately. DOMA. SCOTUS did NOT strike down DOMA. They struck down one portion of it. That portion was the portion that prevented federal benefits from "legally married" couples. What that means is that if a state recognizes a marriage the fed will also. Regardless of the participants. BUT, if the state does not recognize a marriage, the fed does not either. So in states where gay marriage is legal, those couples will receive the same federal benefits as any other. But in states that do NOT legalize gay marriage, the fed will not see a legal marriage and therefore no benefits. Only 12 states have some form of legal gay marriage. The court did NOT touch gay marriage as a constitutional matter.
Prop 8. First, it's important to understand WHAT the ruling was. They did not rule Prop 8 unconstitutional. What SCOTUS did was rule that the party that defended Prop 8 in district court did not have standing to do so. Prop 8 was a citizen run ballot initiative, not a legislative bill. The people of CA petitioned to have it added to the ballot and succeeded in passing DESPITE the legislatures resistance. That is critical to know. This was a citizen ballot initiative. But, SCOTUS ruled that the people, the citizens, did not have standing to defend it. Instead, they said that the State of CA was the party that rightfully had standing. So they sent to case back to district to be reviewed. In doing so, the district ruling now stands, which was that Prop 8 was not constitutional. In order for the case to be valid and heard appropriately, the state will now have had to defend the proposition. The state that was opposed to the people's ballot initiative in the first place. Are you starting to get that sinking feeling?
Let's move this to a more recent and maybe less emotionally charged issue. Recently CO passed several gun laws. Laws which the people heavily opposed. Currently there is a movement in CO to get a ballot initiative on the ballot next year to repeal those laws and add an amendment that would require any future laws be presented to the people for vote. Let's assume that passes. Keep in mind, the "state" passed the laws in the first place. Now, say some group sues to remove the recently voted initiative on a technicality. If the state (the one that passed the laws in the first place) does not choose to defend the initiative (that the people passed in opposition to the state) then the initiative that the people passed, because the legislators won't listen, is now rendered null. And the laws that the state passed remain in effect even though the people opposed them and passed a law to stop them. That is scary business right there.
To be honest, this was more a states rights victory. The gay marriage issue was nearly untouched. And at best it's a hollow victory. Because the take away is that the states have the right to ban gay marriage if they so choose. Worse though is that SCOTUS nullified the citizens initiative process that many states use. That's bad.
I'm not touching the moral issues because everyone has their own beliefs and we should respect them. Beside, the interwebs are not the forum to bully more people into your position because it isn't going to work anyway.
Let's take them separately. DOMA. SCOTUS did NOT strike down DOMA. They struck down one portion of it. That portion was the portion that prevented federal benefits from "legally married" couples. What that means is that if a state recognizes a marriage the fed will also. Regardless of the participants. BUT, if the state does not recognize a marriage, the fed does not either. So in states where gay marriage is legal, those couples will receive the same federal benefits as any other. But in states that do NOT legalize gay marriage, the fed will not see a legal marriage and therefore no benefits. Only 12 states have some form of legal gay marriage. The court did NOT touch gay marriage as a constitutional matter.
Prop 8. First, it's important to understand WHAT the ruling was. They did not rule Prop 8 unconstitutional. What SCOTUS did was rule that the party that defended Prop 8 in district court did not have standing to do so. Prop 8 was a citizen run ballot initiative, not a legislative bill. The people of CA petitioned to have it added to the ballot and succeeded in passing DESPITE the legislatures resistance. That is critical to know. This was a citizen ballot initiative. But, SCOTUS ruled that the people, the citizens, did not have standing to defend it. Instead, they said that the State of CA was the party that rightfully had standing. So they sent to case back to district to be reviewed. In doing so, the district ruling now stands, which was that Prop 8 was not constitutional. In order for the case to be valid and heard appropriately, the state will now have had to defend the proposition. The state that was opposed to the people's ballot initiative in the first place. Are you starting to get that sinking feeling?
Let's move this to a more recent and maybe less emotionally charged issue. Recently CO passed several gun laws. Laws which the people heavily opposed. Currently there is a movement in CO to get a ballot initiative on the ballot next year to repeal those laws and add an amendment that would require any future laws be presented to the people for vote. Let's assume that passes. Keep in mind, the "state" passed the laws in the first place. Now, say some group sues to remove the recently voted initiative on a technicality. If the state (the one that passed the laws in the first place) does not choose to defend the initiative (that the people passed in opposition to the state) then the initiative that the people passed, because the legislators won't listen, is now rendered null. And the laws that the state passed remain in effect even though the people opposed them and passed a law to stop them. That is scary business right there.
To be honest, this was more a states rights victory. The gay marriage issue was nearly untouched. And at best it's a hollow victory. Because the take away is that the states have the right to ban gay marriage if they so choose. Worse though is that SCOTUS nullified the citizens initiative process that many states use. That's bad.
I'm not touching the moral issues because everyone has their own beliefs and we should respect them. Beside, the interwebs are not the forum to bully more people into your position because it isn't going to work anyway.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Its part of the wider 1A proscription against establishment of religion.
As late as 1994 the citizens of Germany had to pay a tax to support the Lutheran church. In this country during the colonial period, some people had to pay government to support certain churches, whichever was the officially sanctioned in their area. For example, it would have been a Puritan church in New England, perhaps a catholic church in Maryland, etc.
Thomas Jefferson wrote his own epitaph. He didn't mention president of the United States, nor governor of VA. The three most important accomplishments for which he wanted to be remembered were: author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of UVA, and author of the VA statute of religious freedom.
Lets not open that can of worms again.