TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- California and their contorversy over gay marriages
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Re: Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 Hell is for hateful shitheads like you.

\

** Watch your self, and cut out the vulgar language in my thread**

**"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
~~Why is it that states are afraid to allow people to live their lifes? Being of homosexuality is not a crime on earth, yet is in the Bible.

**Diginut-you also cut down on the language. If this thread is bullcrap why did you post? Yes according to the first amendment you have the freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want pertaining to the subject. And also, you can cuss, but not in my thread.

***If gay marriages are illegal, and they are punished for a long period of time, I consider that cruel and unusual punishemtn(8th amendment). Contrary to the fact that if someone persay, murders a child by very violent actions and is only put in jail 8 years with bail is herendous. Which in another one of my threads (that supposively was "stupid", is there really freedom in America? No. There is not. Seeing that people can simply not be with the person they love, yet you are allowed to murder someone with only 8 years in jail is sinister by the government of the U.S. By which means, I'm saying that this government is backwards and serves injustice as means to our citizens. Love is the one thing everyone needs in their lives. Whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, opposites attract, love at first site, etc. Everyone deserves to be loved. And Diginut, if you have a problem with this thread because it does not pertain mainly to the stupid government, then don't reply after you respond to my quote(if you even do.)

Re: Re: California and their contorversy over gay marriages

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz this is a repost. the discussion is kinda over last week in the other homo threads. but, let them do as they want. people no longer care to follow god's will, but rather their own. this world is only temporary. they will get what they deserve in time...

**Heinz, sorry forgot you. No, most people do not care anymore what the Bible says. I know that reading the Bible is your only source to know what has happened in the past. The Bible, for anyone against heinz states only what you choose to believe. I believe it is true and it is not fiction(but, that's my opinion). In the end God does choose where to put you; he judges you on the day of judgement. Also, heinz is right, this world is only temporary. This comes a little off the gay subject, but, I believe this is hell. Look at the world, there is only few things good that come out of it. And love, love is the most valuable thing that comes from it. You can believe you stay here in the ground when you die, ghosts, demons, you go to Heaven or Hell....what have you. Yes being of homosexuality is against God's words, yet in the end, you have to do what you believe in. Everyone committs wrong-doings, even christians, for no one is perfect except God.

Ahem, you don't have any say in what people post just because you started the thread, any more than you'd have a say in how people speak when you started a conversation, so stfu. It's an open forum, and people can post whatever replies they want. As for responding to your post, I couldn't make much sense out of it (I'm replying to the people who make coherent arguments), but all I can say is this:
1. Marriage has nothing to do with love, the law was built around the concept of FAMILY.
2. They haven't been punished yet so you can hardly call it cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Even if it is "cruel and unusual punishment" (bull, it's nothing of the sort even if it is unconstitutional), the way to go about that would be to address the issue in court, AS THE LOBBY GROUPS ARE DOING, NOT simply break the law.

Down with n00bs acting like they're the shit!

Edit: Actually, I've been thinking about it, and I apologize for saying the thread was shit. I wasn't insulting the topic or the thread, and I wasn't insulting you trancepixie, I just think a lot of the replies in this thread are shit (i.e. devoid of logic and not addressing the real issue, which is that they broke the law, not all this BS about constitution and morality).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ahem, you don't have any say in what people post just because you started the thread, any more than you'd have a say in how people speak when you started a conversation, so stfu. It's an open forum, and people can post whatever replies they want. As for responding to your post, I couldn't make much sense out of it (I'm replying to the people who make coherent arguments), but all I can say is this: 1. Marriage has nothing to do with love, the law was built around the concept of FAMILY. ** Well, the concept if for people like you who are cold-hearted. My family believes in living with someone you are not only compatible with but are inlove with rather than someone who is arrogant and obnoxious and who does not love you. 2. They haven't been punished yet so you can hardly call it cruel and unusual punishment. ** YES THEY HAVE. Homosexuals are punished everyday. What about the one boy who was murdered a few years ago because he was gay?! Also, discrimination is a punishment. I guess you would not know because you are cold-hearted! 3. Even if it is "cruel and unusual punishment" (bull, it's nothing of the sort even if it is unconstitutional), the way to go about that would be to address the issue in court, AS THE LOBBY GROUPS ARE DOING, NOT simply break the law. ** did you not understand what i was implying? Down with n00bs acting like they're the shit!

**"It's an open forum, and people can post whatever replies they want."
~~Did I not state before that people have the right to say what they want. I know you can cuss I just ask of you not to. But now that i know you are conceited and cold-hearted, I can understand why you are opposed to what I had said. Yes, I do cuss too, but i'm trying to cut down.**

quote:

Originally posted by trancepixie17 **"It's an open forum, and people can post whatever replies they want." ~~Did I not state before that people have the right to say what they want. I know you can cuss I just ask of you not to. But now that i know you are conceited and cold-hearted, I can understand why you are opposed to what I had said. Yes, I do cuss too, but i'm trying to cut down.**

Yeah, I'm sorry, I was unnecessarily harsh in that post. It wasn't supposed to be a knock against you or the thread at all.

It's just that, with about 50% of the posts in this thread, I could take them apart word by word and show how completely inconsistent and irrational and downright ignorant they are, but I don't see the point in wasting my time because I know those people are just going to post even more emotionally-charged nonsensical garbage in response to it.

Here's a tip to the other posters though: comments like "Bush is an idiot" may bring you nods of agreement from the drooling masses, but unfortunately they don't give you much intellectual credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If I remember correctly, I believe the issue is since the Constitution does not expressly give the power of marriage licensure to the federal government it is given to the states. This is why you have some states such as Hawaii and I believe Connecticut allowing gay marriages and others, such as Ohio not allowing it. It really depends on the state thus far...unless by some extreme measure Bush gets it added as an amendment to the Constitution. At this point the federal government really has no say so in the matter, it's totally up to the states.

Federal law is supreme over state law. The issue here is the "Full faith and credit" act. In the consititution it clearly states that each state has to comply with the judicial and legislative decisions from another state (including marraige). So if Hawaii is allowing gay's to marry, it is unconstitutional for Florida to not accept the marraige. That is what the uproar is about aorn.

I think that it's quite obvious that what's happening in San Francisco is nothing less than a violation of law. I think it's pertinent to admit that philosophically speaking, a law is a definition of what is right vs. what is wrong, therefore, no law can be held any higher than other, for a the definition of a law remains the same regardless of the context, otherwise, it's simply not a law.

However, it seems viable to raise the question of how a society contests a law in a court system that is by definition, bias. Social change is brought about the movement of ideas through a mass of people. While gays in San Fran. ARE violating the rule of law, they are nonetheless doing so in a way that is peaceful. We can atleast appreciate the fact that gays are not killing politicans or judges or taking courts and civil offices hostage to gain momentum in their cause. They all understand that their marriage licenses are not valid, yet they pursue them anyway. This is a symbolic gesture meant to challenge both the moral and legal basis for the law. Part of what defines a criminal act is criminal intent. Their "intent" here is not to take what is not theres, or kill what is living, or rape what is virgin, but to expose a law having no legal validity in light of the constituion, the document which gives guidance on what can and can't be law. True, the constituion is open to interpretaion, but in it's fundamental, semantic sense, it says that people have a right to be free and that no law shall interfere with this. Now, one can spend a lifetime arguing morals, but words were chosen, words were written, and words are what one has to go by.

Therefore, yes, they are breaking the law. But, does the law have any legal validity based on the system that governs how laws are made? That's why Bush is trying to amend the constituion, because he knows that laws prohibiting gay marriage have no basis for legal validity in the united states.

The philosophers of ancient greece would love this one!

quote:

Originally posted by zenperson I think that it's quite obvious that what's happening in San Francisco is nothing less than a violation of law. I think it's pertinent to admit that philosophically speaking, a law is a definition of what is right vs. what is wrong, therefore, no law can be held any higher than other, for a the definition of a law remains the same regardless of the context, otherwise, it's simply not a law.

Article six of the consititution clearly states that when in conflict between Federal law and State law, Federal law is supreme. So Federal law is higher than State law. When the US Government was a Confederation, States had more power than Central Government, but once it was changed in 1787, power was more equally divided the the three branches of government and States, though it was not until Article six that the division was (almost) totally equal.

quote:

However, it seems viable to raise the question of how a society contests a law in a court system that is by definition, bias. Social change is brought about the movement of ideas through a mass of people. While gays in San Fran. ARE violating the rule of law, they are nonetheless doing so in a way that is peaceful.

Technically, they are not. The Governor has every right to overrule State law when in belief that it is unconstitutional. Since he claimed that it is in fact, unconstitutional, they aren't really doing anything against the law.

quote:

We can atleast appreciate the fact that gays are not killing politicans or judges or taking courts and civil offices hostage to gain momentum in their cause. They all understand that their marriage licenses are not valid, yet they pursue them anyway.

They are pursuing them because of the difference in the amount of rights an individual recieves when having a Civil Union rather than an actual marraige.

quote:

This is a symbolic gesture meant to challenge both the moral and legal basis for the law. Part of what defines a criminal act is criminal intent. Their "intent" here is not to take what is not theres, or kill what is living, or rape what is virgin, but to expose a law having no legal validity in light of the constituion, the document which gives guidance on what can and can't be law. True, the constituion is open to interpretaion, but in it's fundamental, semantic sense, it says that people have a right to be free and that no law shall interfere with this. Now, one can spend a lifetime arguing morals, but words were chosen, words were written, and words are what one has to go by.

This is exactly why the discussion of whether banning Gay marraiges are unconstitutional.

quote:

Therefore, yes, they are breaking the law.

Read above, they are not since the Governor has declared it unconstitutional.

quote:

But, does the law have any legal validity based on the system that governs how laws are made? That's why Bush is trying to amend the constituion, because he knows that laws prohibiting gay marriage have no basis for legal validity in the united states.

Another reason why not to vote for Bush.

quote:

The philosophers of ancient greece would love this one!

Or they could be disgusted.

We could go around and around and around until a circle is a square and still reach the same conclusion.... until someone can prove that a word actually exists, then nothing any of us says about anything really matters....

Top Story: Wedding Bells Ring for Rosie
Comedian Rosie O'Donnell and her lesbian partner, Kelli Carpenter, were wed Thursday in San Francisco, a day before the California state attorney general is slated to file a lawsuit that may end the controversial weddings, Reuters reports. O'Donnell and Carpenter said they were motivated to tie the knot after President Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment Tuesday banning same-sex weddings and cited the recent flood of gay marriages in San Francisco in his remarks. "We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did," O'Donnell said after kissing her bride.

** Yes, again the same story, different origin. It states that they were "motivated." See through the years there has been nothing but controversy over gay marriages. I brought the topic up with my dad, and (trust me, it went on a long time) he came to conclude that he was a hypocrite. Yes, my own father a hypocrite stating first that "he supported them as long as they didn't bother him", then he turned around and said he did not support them. Everyone goes by the Bible, which is good nevertheless, yet on earth, when you only recieve one chance to be with a person the rest of your life, do you screw it up or take it for all it's worth? Thanks for support, bias point of views, opinions, keep inputing your thoughts.

The blatant attempt to legally isolate a culture in our own country, and society is apalling. When I see or hear this issue being pressed, I always think of Al Pacino in Scent Of A Woman [at the stand for gays in my case] when he is owning the principle in the end scene. He talks about how he's seen boy's legs blown off, and arms amputated, but "there is nothing like the sight of an amputated soul". Disallowing gay marriage is jsut that. In a sense, amputation of ones soul (Which is not to say that anyone could ever take away the spirit, emotion, and pride of any gay couple). Although the popular arguement is that it's only a legal document, marriage is more than legality. If it were about legality, I don't think anyone would be so up in arms. What is intrinsically happening is a humiliating effort to take away the rudimentary rights of a human being. To take away the pride of marriage. Marriage is more than a document. Marriage is a sacred cerimony. An affirmation. Every time a gay couple is confronted with the question of marriage, it is in this case a tie that breaks rather than binds. It is a purposeful ignorant attempt at securing the homophobic comfort of being able to further discriminate against that which some are afraid of.

to Whomever derogatorily used the word "homo" and claimed that gays would get what they deserved.. What a dismally ingnorant human you are. If only your dad had been gay, this world would have been a better place. Eat that, bitchface.
..And to whomever made a comment about being in 1984.. You're there buddy, look around you.

Cheers to every gay man on the front lines in the fight for his rights.



P.s. DaveSZ "I say we pass a Constitutional Amendment barring Elvis from performing weddings to drunken pop stars in Vegas if we really want to protect the "sanctity" (religious word) of marriage." - You rule

And another take on this issue, this from Orson Scott Card, a science fiction author best known for 'Ender's Game'. He's also a Mormon missionary.

I don't agree with most of what he's saying, but it certainly makes an interesting read.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.