toldailytopic: Gay-marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional.

[LadyGreenEyes]

If a politically correct decision was challenged as unconstitutional, and a court overturned it, they would be screaming bloody murder that the "will of the people" was overruled. Since this is a politically correct issue, though, the will of the people goes right out the window.

Fact is, there is NO Constitutional right of marriage. This ruling is completely wrong. Welcome to the new Babylon.

 

[Desert Reign]

But imposing your definition of marriage on others who disagree IS bigotry and hate.

Definitions only work if they are commonly accepted. It is commonly accepted that marriage means a faithful union of a man and a woman.

If homosexuals can accept this obvious truth, then they will be quickly emancipated. But their failure to do so, instead trying to muscle in on real marriage, will mean them being pitted against the vast majority of ordinary married couples who feel aggrieved at their own faithful relationship being demeaned. In this circumstance homosexuals will be forever generally opposed. All they have to do is to accept the position that their relationship is not a marriage but something else and the bulk of ordinary married couples will no longer feel threatened. Then they can get their rights established for what they should really be.

Society will break down badly and quickly if ordinary marriage is undermined. Society does not depend on homosexual relationships but it does depend greatly on ordinary marriages. These are facts, not opinions. Don't oppose facts otherwise it will be clear that you are the bigot.

 

[MaryContrary]

Makes me wonder what the difference is between this and another idea I heard fielded recently. That biological parents don't really have any right to raise their own children. That this "right" is entirely assumed and recognized by law. That the "right", in fact, is the child's. The right to be raised by whoever would provide them the best care and growth environment. Hence social services being given the authority to decide who gets to raise the child. Any child. All of them. In every instance.

If this idea grew, caught on, became a movement...and it followed largely the same trend we've seen gay marriage take...would the same arguments be put forth, I wonder? Would we see the same folks here be putting forward the same arguments about the definition and meaning of "parent"?

 

[annabenedetti]

Makes me wonder what the difference is between this and another idea I heard fielded recently. That biological parents don't really have any right to raise their own children. That this "right" is entirely assumed and recognized by law. That the "right", in fact, is the child's. The right to be raised by whoever would provide them the best care and growth environment. Hence social services being given the authority to decide who gets to raise the child. Any child. All of them. In every instance.

If this idea grew, caught on, became a movement...and it followed largely the same trend we've seen gay marriage take...would the same arguments be put forth, I wonder? Would we see the same folks here be putting forward the same arguments about the definition and meaning of "parent"?

That's what Castro did - took the kids from their parents when they were seven years old, so the state could raise them.

Also, I saw an upcoming story on the news about polygamy, but I forgot to watch the segment, darn it. Had to do with wanting it legalized. That's the next frontier, I think.

 

[ThermalCry]

Makes me wonder what the difference is between this and another idea I heard fielded recently. That biological parents don't really have any right to raise their own children. That this "right" is entirely assumed and recognized by law. That the "right", in fact, is the child's. The right to be raised by whoever would provide them the best care and growth environment. Hence social services being given the authority to decide who gets to raise the child. Any child. All of them. In every instance.

If this idea grew, caught on, became a movement...and it followed largely the same trend we've seen gay marriage take...would the same arguments be put forth, I wonder? Would we see the same folks here be putting forward the same arguments about the definition and meaning of "parent"?

Then all of those "Christian Scientists" weirdos would freak out. As it is now, the state has quite a hard time getting those morons to get cancer treatment for their children. Do you think it is the parents' right to let their children die because of their outlandish and silly religious beliefs?

 

[MaryContrary]

Then all of those "Christian Scientists" weirdos would freak out. As it is now, the state has quite a hard time getting those morons to get cancer treatment for their children. Do you think it is the parents' right to let their children die because of their outlandish and silly religious beliefs?

There's one liberal bubblebrain who's already prepared to support the movement. And it doesn't even exist yet. :nono:

 

[LadyGreenEyes]

But imposing your definition of marriage on others who disagree IS bigotry and hate.

That is EXACTLY what the liberal judge has done, exactly what the "gay marriage" people are doing; imposing THEIR definition of what marriage is on the rest of us. Nice to see you admit this.

 

[MaryContrary]

That is EXACTLY what the liberal judge has done, exactly what the "gay marriage" people are doing; imposing THEIR definition of what marriage is on the rest of us. Nice to see you admit this.

 

[Bright Raven]

The 9th Circuit gets it wrong again as usual.

 

[rocketman]

But imposing your definition of marriage on others who disagree IS bigotry and hate.

Imposing your vile, immoral acts upon society and expecting people to accept it is what is the true hatred. Though you may be a sodomite eameece and approve of this vile act does not make it acceptable. Even if this battle is won in the Supreme Court the sodomites will still never gain the acceptance of society as a whole. The battle may be won but, the war for acceptance is far from over...Good Luck with that.

 

[rocketman]

That is EXACTLY what the liberal judge has done, exactly what the "gay marriage" people are doing; imposing THEIR definition of what marriage is on the rest of us. Nice to see you admit this.

I have to disagree with you, it has never been about marriage, or rights, or anything like that LGE. This is a battle for acceptance and always has been. It started with "Tolerance", we all just need to be tolerant but, now the paradigm has shifted, now what the sodomite crowd desires is the acceptance of society. What they ask for to the majority, is quite unacceptable and the overwhelming passage of prop 8 in liberal CA is proof that even here on the left coast gay marriage and homosexuality is still socially unacceptable.

 

[Zeus]

Let's remind ourselves, is this war already won or not? According to God, it is. So do we fight these battles to win? Or is there another reason?

Considering why we fight, that we lost this small battle is rather irrelevant. Rejoice in this lost battle, knowing that God's glory will be all the more made evident.

Be samurai's for God. Fight because it is right to fight. Not to win but to fight! In that there is only victory, in every battle. We are blessed with the ability to do this because the war has already been won. The fight itself, then, is what we fight for. Why else? Victory we already have.

As for the world, we don't fight to convince courts to rule correctly. We fight so that we may be seen to fight.

To those who celebrate this ruling...you lost. You may not realize it yet, but you did. Enjoy your celebration while you can, because it'll pass.

And be quick about it! We're already spoiling for the next fight! :box:

Nice spin. Although methinks you be the one in denial.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

:mock: Liberals

 

[MaryContrary]

Nice spin. Although methinks you be the one in denial.

Bruce Lee encourages you to develop some reading comprehension.

 

[MaryContrary]

I have to disagree with you, it has never been about marriage, or rights, or anything like that LGE. This is a battle for acceptance and always has been. It started with "Tolerance", we all just need to be tolerant but, now the paradigm has shifted, now what the sodomite crowd desires is the acceptance of society. What they ask for to the majority, is quite unacceptable and the overwhelming passage of prop 8 in liberal CA is proof that even here on the left coast gay marriage and homosexuality is still socially unacceptable.

No, you're both right. The purpose of having homosexual partnerships recognized as marriage is entirely in the pursuit of that simple feeling of acceptance and justification. It's just that they're finally realizing that requires forcing others to provide it. Persuasion and education have failed, and will continue to fail. And, as you say, this will fail as well.

It will never be accepted. It's sexual and deviant. Either provokes discomfort in your average person. And anyone who isn't already sexually deviant themselves will find sexual deviancy extremely difficult to tolerate. Most people simply can't tolerate it.

It's all a wasted effort and damage done with no gain. And the even sadder thing is that, even if the public acceptance homosexuals envision here were to be somehow gained...it still wouldn't satisfy the need they are feeling, that they've wrongly identified as a need for acceptance. :nono:

 

[LadyGreenEyes]

I have to disagree with you, it has never been about marriage, or rights, or anything like that LGE. This is a battle for acceptance and always has been. It started with "Tolerance", we all just need to be tolerant but, now the paradigm has shifted, now what the sodomite crowd desires is the acceptance of society. What they ask for to the majority, is quite unacceptable and the overwhelming passage of prop 8 in liberal CA is proof that even here on the left coast gay marriage and homosexuality is still socially unacceptable.

Only on a small scale is it about marriage. The bigger goal is to destroy ALL moral values, of course. To force people to accept sin as "normal", and call those that won't do so "haters", etc. You aren't disagreeing, you are simply pointing out the bigger picture. Quite accurately.

Interesting thing, too. For many years, proponents of this abominable behavior have claimed that that is their "only goal", that it would not lead to other sorts of marriage, yet we are already seeing polygamy being brought into the courts. Then we have children, YOUNG children, being raised as the opposite gender, other children charged with "sexual assault", for a fight with a kid of the same sex, and more. Next up will be allowing these children to marry adults. The opposition will, of course, deny this, but they will, as usual, be lying.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I would suggest that Christians be Christians, and stop proposing homosexuality as okay. God hears you.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Only on a small scale is it about marriage. The bigger goal is to destroy ALL moral values, of course. To force people to accept sin as "normal", and call those that won't do so "haters", etc. You aren't disagreeing, you are simply pointing out the bigger picture. Quite accurately.

Interesting thing, too. For many years, proponents of this abominable behavior have claimed that that is their "only goal", that it would not lead to other sorts of marriage, yet we are already seeing polygamy being brought into the courts. Then we have children, YOUNG children, being raised as the opposite gender, other children charged with "sexual assault", for a fight with a kid of the same sex, and more. Next up will be allowing these children to marry adults. The opposition will, of course, deny this, but they will, as usual, be lying.

I agree.

 

[Tambora]

But imposing your definition of marriage on others who disagree IS bigotry and hate.

That is EXACTLY what the liberal judge has done, exactly what the "gay marriage" people are doing; imposing THEIR definition of what marriage is on the rest of us. Nice to see you admit this.

Yeppers! :thumb:

 

[Alexandros]

That is EXACTLY what the liberal judge has done, exactly what the "gay marriage" people are doing; imposing THEIR definition of what marriage is on the rest of us. Nice to see you admit this.

How does it impact you personally what two random people you've never met claim as the status of their relationship?
Is it going to directly affect your own prospects of entering heaven if Suzy and Jennifer down the street tie the knot?
Why do you care?
Since you say that both sides are doing the same thing, what makes you right and them wrong? The Bible says so? :kookoo:
If you don't want to have sexual relations with people of your own sex, then don't. Why do you care when others do it? Why do you care what others are doing with their own reproductive organs?

Is your concern the perceived erosion of social mores? If anything we have progressed (this article indicates it).

Imposing your vile, immoral acts upon society and expecting people to accept it is what is the true hatred.

Imposing your own opinions and marking those who differ from you as "vile" and "immoral" is what is the true hatred.

Honestly I don't get why gay rights and abortion are such heavy issues in American politics, seems like everyone wants to control how everyone else lives and what they do with their own bodies. God gave you ONE body, he did not give you dominion over everyone else's. Sheesh...