California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:01 pm

Noevo wrote:And that's great! for you, but what a lot of people are saying is don't force your views on them. Allow them to make up their own minds the way you did.

When we say don't murder or molest children arent we imposing our views on someone? That argument just holds no water.

Noevo · Post by **Noevo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:02 pm

Brent wrote:When we say don't murder or molest children arent we imposing our views on someone? That argument just holds no water.

morality does not equal religion

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:03 pm

Brent wrote:When we say don't murder or molest children arent we imposing our views on someone? That argument just holds no water.

Oh come off it Brent. Murdering and molesting children is so far from allowing gay marriages. Gay marriages hurt no one, they create no danger to society.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:04 pm

brembo wrote:Oh come off it Brent. Murdering and molesting children is so far from allowing gay marriages. Gay marriages hurt no one, they create no danger to society.

So if someone proves that gay marriage does hurt someone, or causes danger to society, then it would be bad?

I think we can all agree that murdering someone is wrong, well, where do we get those morals that tell us that it is wrong?

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:11 pm

Brent wrote:So if someone proves that gay marriage does hurt someone, or causes danger to society, then it would be bad?

I think we can all agree that murdering someone is wrong, well, where do we get those morals that tell us that it is wrong?

LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Right there. It's the crux of this argument, if I can stomach calling it that. Not once have you addressed my questions straight on without some stupid non-sequitur about faith. This is not about faith, this is about society as a whole having to interact and get along. You are going to have to separate faith from law, there is no place in law for faith. Law governs all and must do so fairly across the board, no dispensations for religions.

Now, with above text in mind, how do you rationalize a law that is decidedly in favor of one religion to the detriment of some citizens (not getting the marriage they want)?

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:37 pm

Jesus is a flaming kawk smoker

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:38 pm

Randy wrote:Jesus is a flaming kawk smoker

chimdogger · Post by **chimdogger** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:44 pm

Brent wrote:Tolerance is a very evil tool used by the devil

You are joking right?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:45 pm

Randy, quite offensive, no?

Respect is a 2-way street. I have not insulted you.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:46 pm

Brent, answer me plz.

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:47 pm

Brent wrote:Randy, quite offensive, no?

Respect is a 2-way street.

yeah well you did not reply to anything els I have mentioned And I Rarely POST in religous threads

Moses Loves jesus < thats offensive too depending on your perception

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:48 pm

I am definitely not going to respond now, that is not the way to debate an issue Randy.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:49 pm

Brent wrote:I am definitely not going to respond now, that is not the way to debate an issue.

Gee thanks.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:51 pm

brembo wrote:Gee thanks.

Tallking to Randy, what was your question?

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:52 pm

http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=85

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:56 pm

brembo wrote:LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Right there. It's the crux of this argument, if I can stomach calling it that. Not once have you addressed my questions straight on without some stupid non-sequitur about faith. This is not about faith, this is about society as a whole having to interact and get along. You are going to have to separate faith from law, there is no place in law for faith. Law governs all and must do so fairly across the board, no dispensations for religions.

Now, with above text in mind, how do you rationalize a law that is decidedly in favor of one religion to the detriment of some citizens (not getting the marriage they want)?

I cannot seperate faith from law, faith comes before law and Gods law comes before mans law for me.

I view homosexual marriage AS a detriment to those citizens, so not allowing it would be a move in the right direction.

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:56 pm

Brent wrote:I am definitely not going to respond now, that is not the way to debate an issue Randy.

ok thats fine I am going to put on some womens clothing now .. say you dont have a pretty dress i can borrow? .. oh yeah you're not going to respond... must be PMS

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:59 pm

Brent wrote:I cannot seperate faith from law, faith comes before law and Gods law comes before mans law for me.

I view homosexual marriage AS a detriment to those citizens, so not allowing it would be a move in the right direction.

So, in your view YOUR Gods laws are in fact more important and relevant than what MY Gods laws are? Do you not see the problem here?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:07 pm

brembo wrote:So, in your view YOUR Gods laws are in fact more important and relevant than what MY Gods laws are? Do you not see the problem here?

I believe that there is only one God, not mine, not yours, just the one, and his law.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:12 pm

Brent wrote:I believe that there is only one God, not mine, not yours, just the one, and his law.

Yeah so? I don't believe that there is just one God(for the sake of this convo at least).

Again, your beliefs do not trump anyone else's. A compromise must be reached when dealing with society at large, otherwise oppression occurs.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:41 pm

brembo's already mentioned it and it needs repeating.

IMHO, the government shouldn't be in the marriage business and religion should never be in the business of pushing laws to force morality.

Let's quit calling marriages for things related to government, insurance, benefits etc. etc. and start calling them civil unions.

Problem solved. Unless of course you want a church wedding and you're LDS and gay and not caught up on your tithing. .

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:51 pm

downhill wrote:brembo's already mentioned it and it needs repeating.

IMHO, the government shouldn't be in the marriage business and religion should never be in the business of pushing laws to force morality.

Let's quit calling marriages for things related to government, insurance, benefits etc. etc. and start calling them civil unions.

Problem solved. Unless of course you want a church wedding and you're LDS and gay and not caught up on your tithing. .

couldn't agree more!!

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:59 pm

stevebakh wrote:Religion is the excuse of the stupid. Get a clue Brent, seriously.

So true it hurts.

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:02 pm

Joel wrote:With all due respect, that is a very offensive statement sir. Whether you disagree or not, to call everyone who believes in religion (what is it, 83% of Americans believe in some religion or another?) does not bode well for your standing as a knowledgeable and respectful member.

I agree with Brent and respect him standing up to you all.

That's not what I got from Steve's post at all. The way I took it was more along the lines of "because the ___INSERT FAVORITE RELIGIOUS TEXT HERE___ said so" is just an idiotic way to make an argument. If we go with your statistic that most people believe in some sort of deity, then they likely believe said deity also gave them an independent mind to think with and thus it should be simple for them to see that referencing a book that many other people, of other religions who may or may not believe in the same deity or text, may not believe in is a silly way to make an argument. <-- wow, that's a long sentence.

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:06 pm

Brent wrote:I cannot seperate faith from law.

You should move to Iran

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:16 pm

Joel wrote:...the sanctity of marriage...

Really, Joel. What sanctity of marriage? We have something like a 50% divorce rate here in the States. People don't take marriage seriously and using another word really just masks it, no?

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:18 pm

brembo wrote:Not once have you addressed my questions straight on without some stupid non-sequitur about faith.

He's not answering your questions because there aren't any answers he can give to prove his point aside from non sequiturs, which don't really prove anything aside from ignorance and a lack of willingness to think on one's own.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:51 pm

Amro wrote:He's not answering your questions because there aren't any answers he can give to prove his point aside from non sequiturs, which don't really prove anything aside from ignorance and a lack of willingness to think on one's own.

Yet he is the one who posts so rationally about losing enough weight to see his own dick, enjoying the smell of his own farts, dressing in womens clothing, changing your underwear...then spouts his jesus dumbshit.

frostybear · Post by **frostybear** » Thu May 15, 2008 9:55 pm

amazing ihop omlette

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:11 pm

frostybear wrote:amazing ihop omlette

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:12 pm

I have trouble believing that you Brent, are so gung ho about spiritual matters when you come up with the kinds of threads that you do. If you are as spiritual as you say you are, just keep them in your prayers and leave it at that. That lifestyle doesn't really phase me. I still think it's gross, but I'm desensitized to them for the most part. Though seeing 2 guys kissing or just holding hands always makes me sick no matter how many times I see it, that's just disgusting.

With that said, if they want to get hitched, let them, they're the ones that are going to be in for a shock when they see that marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. When one of them realizes that he's stuck looking at the same ass crack for the rest of his life, he'll surely regret it.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:34 pm

frostybear wrote:amazing ihop omlette

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:46 pm

frostybear wrote:amazing ihop omlette

lol i noticed that too, i wonder who did it -- funny stuff

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:49 pm

Good for California. If the people don't like it, they can move to a different state and spew their hate there. I hear Lousiana is looking. They just need to bring their whole family along for admission.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:55 pm

The day we all agree with each other we'll all be dead.

frostybear · Post by **frostybear** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:32 pm

It is incredibly hot tonight......im sweating like a mofo, had to take the top off..

triniwasp · Post by **triniwasp** » Fri May 16, 2008 12:13 am

De Plano wrote:About time.

Divorce rate, adultery, fighting, marriage for citizenship, and marriage for tax breaks seem more insulting to the sanctity of marriage than the issue of them being the same sex. Not that I think the sanctity of marriage makes a difference when you are talking about the governments role in it. Let the churches decide for themselves whether a same sex couple can get married in their church if they think god plays a role in it

A few divorces and ask them again whether they think it is a good thing though

You forgot to mention the population control benefit, we need to export this kind of thinking to China and India

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri May 16, 2008 12:14 am

Some posts have been removed.

The thread is about a legal maneuver in the state of California. It's not about religion, although it's expected that religion might be brought into the discussion.

Let's try and keep it on track and if it wavers, let's not start the usual attacks on personal beliefs, religous beliefs etc etc.

Thanks.

OSULLY · Post by **OSULLY** » Fri May 16, 2008 12:31 am

I suppose we could all be more tolerant.

P.S. Sorry Downhill but I had to. OSULLY

triniwasp · Post by **triniwasp** » Fri May 16, 2008 12:33 am

Brent, god just e-mailed me and said for you to stop ignoring my PM's.