The Church and Homosexual Marriage

quote:

---

yes, but the majority is christian, and since 51% of the country rules the other 49% that is all that is needed.

---

Minorities, both racial, moral, and political, are afforded protection from the majority because of the Constitution. If something is unconstitutional, either at the state or federal level, it doesn't matter how much of the country agrees or disagrees with it.

Here is something for people who thinks the will of the majority should be regarded as the will of the almighty. It is in everybody's best interest to give rights to minority groups. This is because everybody belong to some sort of minority group. The fact that I am a guy puts me into a minority group.

In the example I was using I meant that they would be American citizens of Arabic descent. I apologize for the confusion that you had to deal with. Sometimes in my haste to make a point I am not absolutely clear in my communication.Come to think of it though, what does that really matter? It would be ok to round up any non-citizen (passport and visa in hand) and cart them off to a stockade? Is that your implication by such a flippant remark?The very issue of homosexual marriage is about the rights of the individual.Example: Even if we were married for only one day, my wife cannot be compelled to testify against me in a court of law. That recognizes the intimate relationship (we know a lot about each other) we have and does not force her to break that relationship.A homosexual couple, even if they've lived together for 25 years, do not have that protection. Shouldn't that be considered a violation of their intimate relationship to force (by threat of contempt of court...fines and jail) testimony from one against the other?What part of your or the church's rights are violated by allowing them to be married?

This is like asking a white southerner in the 50's and 60's what rights of the white southerners the gov would violate by ending segregation. The answer should be obvious to thinking people by now, but I guess it will take a while for people to get out of the bigotted mindset.By the way, I encourage you to get into this discussion with riVeRaT, one of our more famous anti-gay marriage amendments proponents. He will give an answer that will give you a unique perspective into the mindset of a very convinced bigot. I must admit that his answers to a lot of these questions are very original.

i don't know, i don think the church has any business in this matter. im talking about the power of the voters, try and put words into my mouth if you want to...if the majority of a states citizen's are against it and the federal government enforces it any way because. then that is tyrrany and its time for action. whether California wants to leagalize pot, or Alaska was to drill in ANWR, or Missouri wants to out-law same sex marriage.

what are you implying? WOW when i did something like this the admins came out and said
from the guidelines: Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. and then they gave me a link to the rules page. BTW that is rule number 3.these boards are F'ed up.

You are reading too much into my words. Um... there's nothing wrong saying someone is a bigot. I'm a bigot myself. Everybody is a bigot of some sort.In the context of "bigot" that I was using, I was referring to the type of bigotry against homosexuals.I seem to recall that he once admitted to being one. Can't insult someone if that person admits to being something.You are reading too much into my words. Just take my words at their face value and nothing more.

You are reading too much into my words. Um... there's nothing wrong saying someone is a bigot. I'm a bigot myself. Everybody is a bigot of some sort. well i have never met him or seen any of his posts, now i know he's a bigot though thanks, i guess i can call him one on the bases that he called himself one, so i guess i could also call a nigger a nigger when he refers to himself as one. somehow i don't think that will work.you have interesting logicso basically im a nigger, and everyone is a nigger of some sort, i mean we all evolved from niggers in africa, right?This message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-02-2005 09:09 AMThis message has been edited by Vercingetorix, 03-02-2005 09:11 AM

Then mobilize the people against the fourteenth amendment. You seem to have a big problem with this whole "everyone in the country will be treated equally" thing; take action!

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

proabably because not everyone is and it is an oxymoron that everyone will be.

Okay, you do know what "oxymoron" means, right? I ask because to use it in this context is kind of a verbal abortion.Regardless, you still haven't explained your problem with following the Constitution. The fact that, in your view, it's violated in certain areas doesn't mean it doesn't apply when a specific matter is taken to the courts.

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

yeah its before my morning coffee i totally fucked that up

i just think that the constitution more of an ideal than a legal document. its like the US political bible, if it were followed to the letter and the spirit then this would be a much better place for all, but like the holy bible the US constitution is misread, misused, and totally ignored, by people. it is sorta becoming a joke. i hear people talk about the bill of rights yet those amedments have been butchered recently and no longer hold the weight that they once did. i have no problem following the constitution, its just that i don't believe it is being followed.

Okay, that's your first problem, then. The Constitution is not only a legal document, it is the final arbiter in all legal decisions.You might want to think of it another way, but... well, sorry. It's just not the case. How do you figure? Then why are you advocating a gross violation of the Constitution, in reccomending that certain states be allowed to forbid same-sex marriage?

---

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-Isaac Asimov

That's a pretty good example. I want to add the caveat as an fyi, which does not undermine your example in the slightest, that your wife actually could be compelled to testify against you for anything you did BEFORE or AFTER you were married, just not something you did while you were married.