Page 10 of 54 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 539

Thread: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

  1. #91
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    No. You have that all wrong. What makes you think homosexuality is a right anyway? I mean really?
    Nope I have it right. You are epitome of the Pharisees.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #92
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    It is Prop 8, no hate involved. Just morality.
    Jesus didn't come to Earth to legislate morality. Jesus didn't say "Go into all the world and make sure your governments don't pass laws that allow sin to be legal."


  3. #93
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    I have it on a higher authority.
    Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

    Bob Jones University, (1998): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

    Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

    Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

    Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

    State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

    Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

    From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


    Do you get it from the same higher authority as these people?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  4. #94
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,127

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    No. You have that all wrong. What makes you think homosexuality is a right anyway? I mean really?

    It isn't any more "right" than any other form of sexual behavior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #95
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,943

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    No one was denied the right to marry. If you are a man, you could marry a woman. And a woman could marry a man. So if you are one of those, you had the right to marry.

    This was about changing the definition of marriage. So don't come on here claiming people were being denied their constitutional rights, that's just plain wrong. This was about the left using the judiciary to force a majority of the people to comply with the minority's wishes. The state of California voted to keep marriage the same, and one (gay?) judge was able to overturn the will of the people.
    So please, I don't want to hear about the rights, of freedom, or will of the people because you are on the wrong side of every one of those points.
    Then no one was being denied their right to marry when it came to interracial marriage bans. If they were a black person, they could marry a black person. If they were a white person, they could marry a white person. So if you are of any race, you had the right to marry. Some simply wanted extra rights to marry outside of their race. They wanted to change the definition of marriage. It was about some people using the judicial system to comply with a minority's (interracial couples') wishes. The state of Virginia and South Carolina and Alabama and many more voted to keep marriage the same, no interracial couples, and a few judges overturned the will of the people.

    See how horrible that argument is.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #96
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    "We the People of the United States, in order to perform a more perfect union..."
    ... delegate our decision-making authority to people we trust, at least until we no longer trust them, and enshrine certain basic principles in a document that will be difficult to change now and next to impossible as the nation grows.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #97
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    So much for the the voice of the people.
    Right, because homophobic conservatives didn't get their way, therefore the people must have not had a voice. How about the voice of the same sex couples in California and around the nation?
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  8. #98
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah, but it was the pro-gay marriage folks that raised nine kinds of hell that this should be put to a referendum. Then, when things didn't go their way, they through a temper-tantrum. It is what it, bro; ain't no denying it.
    There is a distinct difference between having a referendum and any political process (including but not limited to referendums) where a deluge of cash floods the marketplace of ideas with fear and lies.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #99
    Sage davidtaylorjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,775

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

    Bob Jones University, (1998): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

    Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

    Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

    Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

    State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

    Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

    From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."


    Do you get it from the same higher authority as these people?
    All of those have recanted, I believe, and they also say the Bible doesn't directly speak against it. However, the Bible does speak against homosexuality. It's not the same, you compared apples and oranges.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  10. #100
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,943

    re: To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    governments make laws and polices in its institutions whenever gay marriage has been had legal in a state.

    examples, the state brings in homosexual relationships in the the schools

    they direct business that they must pay benefits to SS couples, ...however these infringes on the rights of people.

    if government would stop applying force to people to get them to do what government demands, you would see less people against gay marriage, but government is not going to stop, they will continue to violate rights of the people.
    Then your problem is with those additional laws and policies, so you cannot legitimately claim it is same sex couples getting married that affects you, but those additional laws and policies, which you are completely free to complain about. You cannot use them against ssm though because that is not how the laws on equality and rights work.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 10 of 54 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •