California Gay Marriage Prop

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by mmayes, Nov 5, 2008.

  1. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,724
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    We can start here if you want to talk about answering questions....

    "You and the "I'm Ok, your OK" moral relativist crew still have not provided an adequate answer to the following question: Should society be stripped of its ability to provide governing boundaries based upon a perceived set of societal "morals? Answer yes, and you shoot your own argument out of the water. Answer no, and you open the door to throwing out a good number of our laws that are based upon societal discretion."
     
  2. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    We could if it was agreed that said morals were the basis for those boundaries. I assume you and I differ on 'discretion' as to its usage as a basis for laws.:l Or, if that had relevance to this discussion we could start there.

    The things you're trying to tie to this are not necessarily equal rights issues as this is. This isn't about 'allowing' homosexuality or not, nor is it about them doing it in your front yard--or you having sex in your front yard. This is about govt dictating which relationships it will recognize and attach rights to and doing such based on one's partner selection--i.e. the gender of said partner.

    Per your logic, Jim and Steve are fine getting married if Steve has a sex change operation first, right? Then society won't fall apart, right? If he marries Sue and then Sue gets a sex change operation should they then not be able to file taxes together?:l Should their marriage be dissolved automatically?

    Your above question has been addressed--(which I said, as opposed to FB saying it when it isn't true, anyway):

    Wasn't addressed specifically to you but addresses your point.

    So, are you REALLY for the govt mandating traditional family as it was originally intended, or do you just want to sound like it when the subject is equal recognition by govt--who caused this mess--of adult, consensual relationships?
     
  3. duck01

    duck01 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Petit Jean River Bottoms, Ar.

    This is not a equal rights issue. These people, homosexual activists, who are claiming to have thier right violated have the exact same rights as you and I. They can get married, just not to one another.

    The real issue is about redefining marriage. It has always been defined as being between one man and one woman. Now a small radical group wants that changed.

    Can't wait to see what is next............




    "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
     
  4. lancej

    lancej Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,114
    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Location:
    Mt. Aukum, CA
    Sorry, but your use of "ALWAYS" makes your statement completely, irrevocably wrong.

    Lance
     
  5. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory

    I would've suggested a different translation, but anyway.....

    I have no doubt that homosexuals that don't repent and turn to God will receive the result of such from God. Just as adulterers, gossips, liars, and non-believers will.

    That and supporting my govt being discriminatory are two very different things.

    In my view God did, can, does, should, and will discriminate (depending on one's definition). Govt did, can, does, and shouldn't.
     
  6. duck01

    duck01 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Petit Jean River Bottoms, Ar.

    Okie,

    It is obvious we view this issue very differently. You see it as discrimination and I don't. This is not the civil right movement of the 50’s & 60’s which fought to abolish racial discrimination. They have the exact same rights that I do. We are equal across the board.

    To compare the homosexual agenda to the right to keep and bear arms is like comparing apples to oranges. The second amendment protects our right to bear arms. The gun owner’s fight is not to establish that right but to protect it from those who want to take it from us.



    I am sorry we don’t side on this issue, but that is what makes this country sooooooo great. Now let the downward spiral continue!!!!!!!!!
     
  7. lancej

    lancej Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,114
    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Location:
    Mt. Aukum, CA
    Recognize that? Comes from the CONSTITUTION. Guess what it applies to. What your argument boils down to is that 50% +1 can take away that equal protection. Your argument will be the death knell of gun ownership. The tyranny of democracy is raising it head. Hopefully those "Activist judges" will remember that we are a republic, and properly overturn the ban.

    Lance
     
  8. ducks101

    ducks101 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tri Cities Washington
    I don't care if gays marry...that means soon after they wont be having sex:D I dont care if they go out to dinner or whatever...its the sex thing that freaks me out.....so hurry up and get hitched:dv:dv:dv
     
  9. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    -------------
     
  10. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,724
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    The thread that wouldn't die.
     

Share This Page