It is not legitimate to use the courts to force same-sex marriage on the people

[G.T.]

gay marriage doesnt impose anything on anybody

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And they'd have the same reaction if you told them about radios, automobiles and landing on the moon...

Yes, we've made great progress.

We can now land on the moon.

And our TV shows celebrate homosexuality constantly to the point where men are regularly shown having make-out sessions in men's restrooms.

Non sequitur response.

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

The Inquisition for starters.

 

[mdk]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

I support marriage rights for polygamists so long as all parties involved willingly consent to the marriage.

 

[Rotagilla]

Yes, we've made great progress.

We can now land on the moon.

And our TV shows celebrate homosexuality constantly to the point where men are regularly shown having make-out sessions in men's restrooms.

Non sequitur response.

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

The Inquisition for starters.

He's talking about in america..as you well know...but go ahead and try to drag the thread off topic...maybe you'll fool a few people...

 

[Newby]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

I support marriage rights for polygamists so long as all parties involved willingly consent to the marriage.

As should all people who are supporting 'marriage equality', there's really no good reason not to support it.

They feel that if they come out in support of any legal marriage arrangement then that will be used as an excuse to stop 'gay marriage', so while shouting for equal rights for themselves, they deny it to others. Cowards.

 

[Steven_R]

Non sequitur response.

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

There are any number of examples in US history of religious intolerance in the colonial era and 19th centuries. America s True History of Religious Tolerance History Smithsonian

Colonial Era?? Were people arrested for not 'believing', what did you mean by 'condemned' exactly?

People in New England were arrested for not going to church. Outside of Maryland, Catholics couldn't hold office. Reread newspapers from the day and see how often Jews and Catholics were badmouthed, to say nothing of non-Christians. Indian children taken from their parents and forced to attend white schools and convert to Christianity because native religions were looked at as inferior.

Non-Christians might not have been burned at the stake, but it wasn't like the atmosphere of religious tolerance we have in America today.

 

[AugmentedDog]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

LOL!
That ancient, straw argument again?
Try to stay on topic.

What was 'strawman' about it? He stated that no one should have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? It doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, etc... All of that stands true for polygamous marriage, and all you bigots who supposedly support 'marriage equality' all deny the same rights to them while demanding it for others. You're a bunch of loud mouth hypocrites. "Marriage equality" for some, but not for others! You're a bigot!

It's has become a hackneyed phrase used by the opposition to misdirect from the issue at point. It's used as a snare. The poster to whom I replied doesn't support either. I'm only surprised he didn't lump beastiality in with the set.
For your own information, I hold no objection to plural marriage. Your bigot remark is an absurd emotionally reactive leap to a conclusion.

 

[mdk]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

I support marriage rights for polygamists so long as all parties involved willingly consent to the marriage.

As should all people who are supporting 'marriage equality', there's really no good reason not to support it.

They feel that if they come out in support of any legal marriage arrangement then that will be used as an excuse to stop 'gay marriage', so while shouting for equal rights for themselves, they deny it to others. Cowards.

It is a postilion that I am not sure how people can reconcile. There are a lot of hypocritical positions on both sides of this issue but at least I can take pride in knowing that I am not one of them.

 

[bodecea]

Non sequitur response.

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

The Inquisition for starters.

He's talking about in america..as you well know...but go ahead and try to drag the thread off topic...maybe you'll fool a few people...

The Puritans (and the Pilgrims at the end)...they even hung fellow Christians.

 

[Taz]

Heteros who object to gays getting married should a) realize that they are homophobes, and b) find something useful to occupy their time with other than thinking about the gay people they hate.

 

[Taz]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

I support marriage rights for polygamists so long as all parties involved willingly consent to the marriage.

As long as everyone is an adult.

 

[Newby]

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

There are any number of examples in US history of religious intolerance in the colonial era and 19th centuries. America s True History of Religious Tolerance History Smithsonian

Colonial Era?? Were people arrested for not 'believing', what did you mean by 'condemned' exactly?

People in New England were arrested for not going to church. Outside of Maryland, Catholics couldn't hold office. Reread newspapers from the day and see how often Jews and Catholics were badmouthed, to say nothing of non-Christians. Indian children taken from their parents and forced to attend white schools and convert to Christianity because native religions were looked at as inferior.

Non-Christians might not have been burned at the stake, but it wasn't like the atmosphere of religious tolerance we have in America today.

But you alluded to a societal condemnation, saying people were 'badmouthed' hardly qualifies, people are 'badmouthed' all the time today, so that hasn't changed, only the groups badmouthed have changed.. So unless you think going from what you're saying is one extreme, over to the other extreme we're heading towards today is a good thing, then nothing has changed, bad 'ethics' haven't really improved, they've just targeted different people. So as long as the people targeted are those you disagree with, then everything's fine and dandy, which is exactly what we had in the times you described. And we're now more 'ethical'? I'm not buying that at all.

And if you call thread after thread of atheists attacking Christians in the USMB Religion forum 'religious tolerance', then you're dreaming if you think we've achieved it today.

 

[Hollie]

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

There are any number of examples in US history of religious intolerance in the colonial era and 19th centuries. America s True History of Religious Tolerance History Smithsonian

Colonial Era?? Were people arrested for not 'believing', what did you mean by 'condemned' exactly?

People in New England were arrested for not going to church. Outside of Maryland, Catholics couldn't hold office. Reread newspapers from the day and see how often Jews and Catholics were badmouthed, to say nothing of non-Christians. Indian children taken from their parents and forced to attend white schools and convert to Christianity because native religions were looked at as inferior.

Non-Christians might not have been burned at the stake, but it wasn't like the atmosphere of religious tolerance we have in America today.

That's a portion of history that the more excitable of the religionists would hope not to address. The early colonies of settlers were conclaves of religious intolerance, wherein a Baptist in one colony was safe, but a Roman Catholic was a criminal, yet in a different colony the reverse was true. This is completely unworkable and the Founding Fathers knew it.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Anyone can research the laws of the original 13 colonies. It's amazing what one can learn.


America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


I'm actually entirely supportive of freedom from religion. I wouldn't want to live in a nation that was subject to religious (Christian) intolerance that defined the early colonies.

 

[Newby]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

LOL!
That ancient, straw argument again?
Try to stay on topic.

What was 'strawman' about it? He stated that no one should have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? It doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, etc... All of that stands true for polygamous marriage, and all you bigots who supposedly support 'marriage equality' all deny the same rights to them while demanding it for others. You're a bunch of loud mouth hypocrites. "Marriage equality" for some, but not for others! You're a bigot!

It's has become a hackneyed phrase used by the opposition to misdirect from the issue at point. It's used as a snare. The poster to whom I replied doesn't support either. I'm only surprised he didn't lump beastiality in with the set.
For your own information, I hold no objection to plural marriage. Your bigot remark is an absurd emotionally reactive leap to a conclusion.

So you're saying it's not a legitimate issue? Anyone who doesn't have a marriage that fits whatever your description of it should be is left in the dust on the trail to 'marriage equality'?

What possible excuse can you have for supporting gay marriage but not polygamous? I have yet to hear one legitimate response to that?

 

[hobelim]

In every state where same-sex marriage was on the ballot, even liberal states like Oregon and California, it was defeated.

And yet, the courts are now imposing same-sex marriage on the states, despite what the people voted for.

Same-sex marriage will therefore never be legitimate in this country, since it was imposed contrary to the wishes of the American people.

The issue will cause further polarization of this country into two warring camps, in the same way Roe v. Wade polarized this country over abortion.

The liberals have given up trying to push their agenda through legitimate democratic means.

They mean to turn this country into a tyranny, with them calling the shots..

I find it astonishing that some people would object to people of other sexual orientations being granted equal rights even above the objection of bigots..

When those tyrannical democrats force you to marry another man then you'll have something to cry about........

 

[mdk]

The mood gets ugly when people feel their vote doesn't matter.

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

I support marriage rights for polygamists so long as all parties involved willingly consent to the marriage.

As long as everyone is an adult.

Exactly. Children cannot willingly consent to marriage.

 

[AugmentedDog]

Why should we have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? Did I get to vote on your marriage?
If some guys want to marry, or some girls want to marry, let em, doesn't affect your marriage or mine does it?
Just because some book of fairytales says certain things are forbidden you all get your pants in a twist!
The bible also says you cannot divorce, get tattoos, wear gold, go to church if you have no gonads, have your fortune told, use contraception or eat certain meats amongst other things. I bet everybody has at least one of those vices.
Let em marry, what is the worse that god can do? Bury you under six foot of snow!

So you support legal polygamous marriage as well?

LOL!
That ancient, straw argument again?
Try to stay on topic.

What was 'strawman' about it? He stated that no one should have a vote on whether somebody wants to marry? It doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, etc... All of that stands true for polygamous marriage, and all you bigots who supposedly support 'marriage equality' all deny the same rights to them while demanding it for others. You're a bunch of loud mouth hypocrites. "Marriage equality" for some, but not for others! You're a bigot!

It's has become a hackneyed phrase used by the opposition to misdirect from the issue at point. It's used as a snare. The poster to whom I replied doesn't support either. I'm only surprised he didn't lump beastiality in with the set.
For your own information, I hold no objection to plural marriage. Your bigot remark is an absurd emotionally reactive leap to a conclusion.

So you're saying it's not a legitimate issue? Anyone who doesn't have a marriage that fits whatever your description of it should be is left in the dust on the trail to 'marriage equality'?

What possible excuse can you have for supporting gay marriage but not polygamous? I have yet to hear one legitimate response to that?

No, I'm absolutely NOT saying that. What part of "no objection to plural marriage" don't you understand?
If all parties are consenting adults, I support that arrangement as a legal entity, as well.
Not sure if you're defensive on the topic, or just being argumentative.
Just to clarify, the thread title is 'same sex marriage.' I've been staying on topic and challenging the OP to do the same.
If you wish to start a thread on legalizing plural marriage, go right ahead and I'll stand with you in support on that topic. OK?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Non sequitur response.

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

The Inquisition for starters.

He's talking about in america..as you well know...but go ahead and try to drag the thread off topic...maybe you'll fool a few people...

That's not what he said but okay ...

Read this then -

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

There are any number of examples in US history of religious intolerance in the colonial era and 19th centuries. America s True History of Religious Tolerance History Smithsonian

Colonial Era?? Were people arrested for not 'believing', what did you mean by 'condemned' exactly?

People in New England were arrested for not going to church. Outside of Maryland, Catholics couldn't hold office. Reread newspapers from the day and see how often Jews and Catholics were badmouthed, to say nothing of non-Christians. Indian children taken from their parents and forced to attend white schools and convert to Christianity because native religions were looked at as inferior.

Non-Christians might not have been burned at the stake, but it wasn't like the atmosphere of religious tolerance we have in America today.

And this -

My response was appropriate as a compare and contrast exercise.

I compared the huge advances our society has made in technology, and contrasted it with the giant leap backwards we have made in morality and ethics.

Agreed. We should totally go back to when it was considered a fine and just thing to own other humans beings, beat our wives and children, and condemn people who weren't Christians. What a mistake we made in leaving those quality morals ad ethics behind.

'And condemn people who weren't Christians'? When did that happen?

The Inquisition for starters.

He's talking about in america..as you well know...but go ahead and try to drag the thread off topic...maybe you'll fool a few people...

The Puritans (and the Pilgrims at the end)...they even hung fellow Christians.

K?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In every state where same-sex marriage was on the ballot, even liberal states like Oregon and California, it was defeated.

And yet, the courts are now imposing same-sex marriage on the states, despite what the people voted for.

Same-sex marriage will therefore never be legitimate in this country, since it was imposed contrary to the wishes of the American people.

The issue will cause further polarization of this country into two warring camps, in the same way Roe v. Wade polarized this country over abortion.

The liberals have given up trying to push their agenda through legitimate democratic means.

They mean to turn this country into a tyranny, with them calling the shots..

I find it astonishing that some people would object to people of other sexual orientations being granted equal rights even above the objection of bigots..

When those tyrannical democrats force you to marry another man then you'll have something to cry about........

This board can be a real eye-opener to human hypocrisy. The very same people who yammer on about the Constitution would gladly deny equality to other Americans. People who say they're "christians" behave in the most un-christian-like ways imaginable.

Any and all sexual activity and yes, I really do mean ANY AND ALL sexual activity between consenting adults, that harms no one else, is their business alone. Marriage equality is here to stay and the Peeping Tom meddlers really do need to mind their own business.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's a trick the left uses to bypass the constitution...If they federalize everything by taking it to court and shopping for a liberal judge to rule in their favor, it allows unelected judges to bypass the vote of the people....
So now in order to UNDO the mess there has to be a constitutional convention...
it's a clever trick and further illustrates how all three branches of government have become irredeemably corrupt.

So that's why you hate the constitution.

No..I hate people that try to evade the constitution by stacking courts with liberal judges so they can federalize anything they disagree with by challenging it in court.....activist judges who are appointed, not elected, are then able make "rulings" that bypass the constitution

I already explained it to you once. Focus.

People have voted on this issue...and activist judges have overturned the results of the democratic process. That is unamerican and anti democratic.

Why do YOU hate the constitution is the question.

The constitution set forth the way the judicial system is supposed to work. I agree that some judges make stupid decisions, though. Who ever said Corporations were people is certifiably insane in my opinion. What could I have possibly said that led you to believe I hate the constitution? Could it be that with all the tea party rhetoric about the constitution, without actually knowing what it said, has led you to believe it is a right wing document? I assure you, it is not.