CASteinman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Myth #5: Proposition 8 prevents homosexuals from getting married. It does nothing of the sort. What it prevents is the state from recognizing these marriages. It does not stop homosexuals from being married as often as they like, nor even to as many people as they like. 1
CASteinman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 This is such a brilliant defense. Perhaps you had not noticed but even the liberal members of the court are mostly not talking about this as an equal rights issue.
WmLaw Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Myth #5: Proposition 8 prevents homosexuals from getting married. It does nothing of the sort. What it prevents is the state from recognizing these marriages. It does not stop homosexuals from being married as often as they like, nor even to as many people as they like.
WmLaw Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Myth #5: Proposition 8 prevents homosexuals from getting married. It does nothing of the sort. What it prevents is the state from recognizing these marriages. It does not stop homosexuals from being married as often as they like, nor even to as many people as they like.Myth #6: Allowing SSM in California adversely affects either you or me.
CASteinman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Myth #6: Allowing SSM in California adversely affects either you or me.No, that is not a myth. It is mathematically verifiable that it affects others.
rodheadlee Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 You are right. There is no such thing as a secular marriage in the United States is there? I mean the justice of the peace is jist a priest in disguise...No I do not want the Mormon church to be forced to marry me. That would be unconstitutional and I would do all I can to defend that right. So what do you hope to gain by the repeal of prop 8?
california boy Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Yes the myths are busted, but some people don't know they are busted or they refuse to believe they are busted. It couldn't be more clear than it already is, but some people don't see clearly even when the light is shining right in front of their face. Even the Supreme Court is operating in darkness, as if this is a relatively new issue. As if they and the rest of society in general hasn't already had enough time to see the light on this issue.I don't think there's ever been a more clear distinction between how some people operate in the light while some other people operate in the darkness of this world than is illustrated right now on this issue. It's like they don't know the difference between good and evil. It's like they need someone to tell them why something that isn't good isn't good. It's like they don't know who they should be learning from. At some point the arguments are going to come to an end and this world will choose darkness on this issue rather than the light. And all the while they'll be saying we are making progress and going in the right direction.Hell in a handbasket for sure. What we need is a Savior to save the whole world and to learn what he still tries to teach us.It is amazing that some of the greatest legal minds in the United States including the Supreme Court has been bamboozled into thinking that gays don't have the right to marry. Over half of the population of this country thinks they should have the right to marry, yet, they already have the right to marry. What is all the commotion about anyway? Unbelievable don't you think? 1
california boy Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 California boy: Tone it down.SkyllaSorry, I just find these "Myths" so amazingly absurd that I am feeling a bit scarcastic about the whole thing. We just heard the arguments before the Supreme Court argue Prop 8 and then Wade starts a thread about myths of gay marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues as if no court case was ever discussed. I will reel it back a little and try to be more civil
california boy Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) So what do you hope to gain by the repeal of prop 8?Gay couples in California having the legal right to marry once again by a secular judge. Despite Wade's proclaimation that gays have the right to marry, Prop 8 was passed to take away that right to marry by a justice of the peace. This whole issue before the Supreme Court is to restore that right to marry for gay couples. Edited March 29, 2013 by california boy
CASteinman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) You are right. There is no such thing as a secular marriage in the United States is there? I mean the justice of the peace is jist a priest in disguise...No I do not want the Mormon church to be forced to marry me. That would be unconstitutional and I would do all I can to defend that right.I don't think that Prop 8 got rid of the right to be married by a Justice of the Peace. It only removed the ability of the State to Recognize that marriage.While this may seem merely a trivial difference, I don't think so. Because one is preventing the actions of individuals, while the other is restricting the actions of the State. Not the same in my mind at all.Having said that, I think that in about 30 years, we will see lawsuits to force LDS and others to marry gays in their Temples or Churches. 30 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anyone outside of a lunatic fringe would take the idea of gay marriage seriously. What you believe is possibly unthinkable today is being prepped today. Edited March 29, 2013 by CASteinman 2
Kemara Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Just today I heard a commentator assert the "gay marriage" issue is merely the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. It was said that once ssm is made legal throughout the country, with the precident set and the definition of traditional marriage overthrown, the floodgates of change will be wide open with people like the "polyamorists" waiting in the wings to press for "marriages" of every kind.The proverbial camel's nose is a well thought out and planned route of the homosexual propagandists:In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere (The Overhauling of Straight America, 1987) There are any number of issues that the proverbial camel's nose will be used to introduce, homosexual "marriage" is just the beginning in a long list of agenda's. "Gay Shows the Way" will never be satsified with mere "equality" and it should not be confused with the end goal of the homosexual agenda. The abstract social question of "equality" is a buzz word, a tool, to let the camel's nose in the tent. There are many goals to be reached along the way but they should not be confused with the ultimate end goal. The end goal is not "marriage", the end goal is not even the normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle. The abolition of the traditional family, while certainly on the agenda according to homosexual propagandist Michelangelo Signorile, among others, who said...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely....is not the ultimate end game of the proverbial camel's nose. The acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is where the homosexual propagandists are taking the matter. The agenda is not limited to getting the whole camel in the tent, it is also about getting everyone else except the camel out."Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
CASteinman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 (edited) ...is not the ultimate end game of the proverbial camel's nose. The acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is where the homosexual propagandists are taking the matter. The agenda is not limited to getting the whole camel in the tent, it is also about getting everyone else except the camel out."Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."I am aware of these things. It is considered either unseemly or ridiculous to mention them, much less believe that they are occurring according to an "agenda". Edited March 29, 2013 by CASteinman
Kemara Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 It is considered either unseemly or ridiculous to mention them, much less believe that they are occurring according to an "agenda".Whis is also part of the agenda.
Danzo Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 How could this proposition get over ruled in both the state and federal courts? In which state did it get overruled?
teddyaware Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 The proverbial camel's nose is a well thought out and planned route of the homosexual propagandists:There are any number of issues that the proverbial camel's nose will be used to introduce, homosexual "marriage" is just the beginning in a long list of agenda's. "Gay Shows the Way" will never be satsified with mere "equality" and it should not be confused with the end goal of the homosexual agenda. The abstract social question of "equality" is a buzz word, a tool, to let the camel's nose in the tent. There are many goals to be reached along the way but they should not be confused with the ultimate end goal. The end goal is not "marriage", the end goal is not even the normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle. The abolition of the traditional family, while certainly on the agenda according to homosexual propagandist Michelangelo Signorile, among others, who said......is not the ultimate end game of the proverbial camel's nose. The acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is where the homosexual propagandists are taking the matter. The agenda is not limited to getting the whole camel in the tent, it is also about getting everyone else except the camel out."Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."An astonishing bit writing! Not quite sure if you're being legit or sardonic? I'll do some research on the people you mention to see where it leads me. For sure, there is one point on which there is no doubt: the fall of the traditional family will usher in the fall of everything else. The Proclamation on the Family leaves no doubt of that...
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The best solution is for the individual states and federal government to NOT recognize ANY "marriage" or "civil union".
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The best solution is for the individual states and federal government to NOT recognize ANY "marriage" or "civil union".Why? what is the damage caused by the recognition of marriage?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) The best solution is for the individual states and federal government to NOT recognize ANY "marriage" or "civil union".I would be OK with that, if they would instead recognize "Preferred Child Rearing Families" where there was a man and a woman and children (or a pregnancy). Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Why? what is the damage caused by the recognition of marriage?Possibly nothing. They just shouldn't recognize either. If marriage is about religion then government should turn its back on it. You can still get married wherever you want just don't expect the government to be a part of it. This is the BEST solution. 2
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 The proverbial camel's nose is a well thought out and planned route of the homosexual propagandists:There are any number of issues that the proverbial camel's nose will be used to introduce, homosexual "marriage" is just the beginning in a long list of agenda's. "Gay Shows the Way" will never be satsified with mere "equality" and it should not be confused with the end goal of the homosexual agenda. The abstract social question of "equality" is a buzz word, a tool, to let the camel's nose in the tent. There are many goals to be reached along the way but they should not be confused with the ultimate end goal. The end goal is not "marriage", the end goal is not even the normalisation of the homosexual lifestyle. The abolition of the traditional family, while certainly on the agenda according to homosexual propagandist Michelangelo Signorile, among others, who said......is not the ultimate end game of the proverbial camel's nose. The acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is where the homosexual propagandists are taking the matter. The agenda is not limited to getting the whole camel in the tent, it is also about getting everyone else except the camel out."Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."[media=]
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) In which state did it get overruled? Uh.... Is this a trick question...? The answer is: in California. Twice, so far--perhaps a third time, pending SCOTUS's ruling.In 2010:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.htmlAnd again in 2012:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.htmlAnd (likely) again in 2013:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have/ Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I would be OK with that, if they would instead recognize "Preferred Child Rearing Families" where there was a man and a woman and children (or a pregnancy).That's worthless because conservative religious opinion shouldn't be allowed to dictate families. Problem solved.
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Uh.... In California. Twice, so far--perhaps a third time, pending SCOTUS's ruling.I meant which state court system?
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 That's worthless because conservative religious opinion shouldn't be allowed to dictate families. Problem solved.Also, the government doesn't control uteruses or consensual sex.
Recommended Posts