• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

veganshawn said:
There is a federal law to protect women from discrimination and only 17 states have laws protecting gays from discrimination.
If we allow them to make gays second class citizens you can bet women will be the next in their line of fire, don't think for one second these religious fanatics respect your rights as a women, throwing gays under the bus doesn't help you one bit, it hurts you and every one who doesn't want to live under extreme religious conditions.
Click to expand...

A recent report from the Department of U.S. Labor showed that women today are paid only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns. “Even more troubling -- the study found that at least one-third -- or about 11 cents -- of the pay gap is caused by pay discrimination against women -- and this is 38 years after the Equal Pay Act became law." said Senator Tom Harkin.


Even that report is off because it assumes women in lower positions are there for fair reasons in calculations. Women have ALWAYS been the majority in this county, yet men have ALWAYS controlled every institution.

All rushed for affirmative action to undo racial inequality - but women were left out of that - although women were denied the right to vote, own property, and legal equality in pay half a century longer than black men. There still is no constitutional protection against gender discrimination - a-ok with you, though you want constitutional protection of the sexuality of gays?

NOT OK WITH ME!

Sure, gays can have equality after women get it first. These claims of "we won't forget you" have been made by every group demanding equality in relation to inequality for women. Never happens.

The danger is not if gays don't get equality then women might become 2nd class citizens. Women ALWAYS have been second class citizens in the USA. Paid 1/4th less. Every institution remains dominated by men. "Religious fanatics" are the enemy of women's rights.

Watch this board. Those posting sexist slurs against women are those also who post liberal and Democrat messages. Most "religious fanatics" at least show some respect towards women as common courtesy. I've NEVER heard or read any Republican or conservative sneering at the topic of equality for women in my lifetime. As we just saw in California, gays obtaining equality in no manner would do anything for equality for women, just as electing a black president with huge minority turnout hurt, rather than helped, gay rights.

On the topic of equality I'm looking out for ME and mine. Not some other possibly oppressed group saying they should be next again.
 
Last edited:
I am going to say this again........Its not about gay marriage......Its about acceptance of the gay lifestyle as and acceptable alternate.......Its about teaching children that the sex acts gays engage in are OK and most people in this country believe that the sex acts they engage in are perversion and before you say it if straight people engage in those acts its perversion to.........
 
Bonnie1988 said:
A recent report from the Department of U.S. Labor showed that women today are paid only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns. “Even more troubling -- the study found that at least one-third -- or about 11 cents -- of the pay gap is caused by pay discrimination against women -- and this is 38 years after the Equal Pay Act became law." said Senator Tom Harkin.


Even that report is off because it assumes women in lower positions are there for fair reasons in calculations. Women have ALWAYS been the majority in this county, yet men have ALWAYS controlled every institution.

All rushed for affirmative action to undo racial inequality - but women were left out of that - although women were denied the right to vote, own property, and legal equality in pay half a century longer than black men. There still is no constitutional protection against gender discrimination - a-ok with you, though you want constitutional protection of the sexuality of gays?

NOT OK WITH ME!

Sure, gays can have equality after women get it first. These claims of "we won't forget you" have been made by every group demanding equality in relation to inequality for women. Never happens.

The danger is not if gays don't get equality then women might become 2nd class citizens. Women ALWAYS have been second class citizens in the USA. Paid 1/4th less. Every institution remains dominated by men. "Religious fanatics" are the enemy of women's rights.

Watch this board. Those posting sexist slurs against women are those also who post liberal and Democrat messages. Most "religious fanatics" at least show some respect towards women as common courtesy. I've NEVER heard or read any Republican or conservative sneering at the topic of equality for women in my lifetime. As we just saw in California, gays obtaining equality in no manner would do anything for equality for women, just as electing a black president with huge minority turnout hurt, rather than helped, gay rights.

On the topic of equality I'm looking out for ME and mine. Not some other possibly oppressed group saying they should be next again.
Click to expand...

Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women. You don't think that's a women's issue? So you only CLAIM to be fighting for equality, when in fact that's not your agenda at all.

The only place in this country where women are not equal is the military.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am going to say this again........Its not about gay marriage......Its about acceptance of the gay lifestyle as and acceptable alternate.......Its about teaching children that the sex acts gays engage in are OK and most people in this country believe that the sex acts they engage in are perversion and before you say it if straight people engage in those acts its perversion to.........
Click to expand...

If straight people engage in oral sex it's a perversion? LMFAO I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you.

Anywho, do you seriously think that the nonsense you're talking about above will be different if homosexuals are all getting "civil unions" instead of "married"? When they're purported to be the exact same legal thing with a different name? How will what you're talking about be any different at all? Are you making the claim that civil unions *wouldn't* be the exact same legal thing under a different name? Which would be odd since most anti-gay folks keep claiming that they''re EXACTLY the same. (separate but equal)

Lastly, YOU don't need to "accept" the gay lifestyle. YOU can keep right on having biggotted opinions when homosexuals are allowed to marry. They're allowed to marry in some places and you still have those opinions, do it didn't change much for ya did it?
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women. You don't think that's a women's issue? So you only CLAIM to be fighting for equality, when in fact that's not your agenda at all.

The only place in this country where women are not equal is the military.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, women have it better then men in the military...........They have very laxed physical requirements, and are not required to serve in actual combat unless they volunteer to do so...........

Reminds me of a joke I saw.........A bunch of men and women in the army were in formation.......The squad leader orders any women who want to serve in combat take 3 steps forward........Then he says all men take 3 steps forward.......
Click to expand...
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah, women have it better then men in the military...........They have very laxed physical requirements, and are not required to serve in actual combat unless they volunteer to do so...........

Reminds me of a joke I saw.........A bunch of men and women in the army were in formation.......The squad leader orders any women who want to serve in combat take 3 steps forward........Then he says all men take 3 steps forward.......
Click to expand...

Yeah, they have it better. :roll: They're not ALLOWED to do what they want to do, that's SOOOO much better than having a choice.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am going to say this again........Its not about gay marriage......Its about acceptance of the gay lifestyle as and acceptable alternate.......Its about teaching children that the sex acts gays engage in are OK and most people in this country believe that the sex acts they engage in are perversion and before you say it if straight people engage in those acts its perversion to.........
Click to expand...

All children should be taught there is nothing wrong with gay people! If I have to tolerate people clinging to their believe in a white old guy in the sky then the lest they can do is accept that some people are different and that there is nothing wrong with being so. Being a christian is a lifestyle, should I be allowed to discriminate against Christians because I don't agree with their lifestyle? Fine you don't like gays that is your choice, but you lose that choice when you try and force your dislike on them.
And a lot of people in this country once tolerated racism and sexism, didn't make it right for them nor does it make it right now.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
A recent report from the Department of U.S. Labor showed that women today are paid only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns. “Even more troubling -- the study found that at least one-third -- or about 11 cents -- of the pay gap is caused by pay discrimination against women -- and this is 38 years after the Equal Pay Act became law." said Senator Tom Harkin.


Even that report is off because it assumes women in lower positions are there for fair reasons in calculations. Women have ALWAYS been the majority in this county, yet men have ALWAYS controlled every institution.

All rushed for affirmative action to undo racial inequality - but women were left out of that - although women were denied the right to vote, own property, and legal equality in pay half a century longer than black men. There still is no constitutional protection against gender discrimination - a-ok with you, though you want constitutional protection of the sexuality of gays?

NOT OK WITH ME!

Sure, gays can have equality after women get it first. These claims of "we won't forget you" have been made by every group demanding equality in relation to inequality for women. Never happens.

The danger is not if gays don't get equality then women might become 2nd class citizens. Women ALWAYS have been second class citizens in the USA. Paid 1/4th less. Every institution remains dominated by men. "Religious fanatics" are the enemy of women's rights.

Watch this board. Those posting sexist slurs against women are those also who post liberal and Democrat messages. Most "religious fanatics" at least show some respect towards women as common courtesy. I've NEVER heard or read any Republican or conservative sneering at the topic of equality for women in my lifetime. As we just saw in California, gays obtaining equality in no manner would do anything for equality for women, just as electing a black president with huge minority turnout hurt, rather than helped, gay rights.

On the topic of equality I'm looking out for ME and mine. Not some other possibly oppressed group saying they should be next again.
Click to expand...

Bonnie1988- Let me say it again, (straight) women are protected against discrimination under federal law, only 17 states protect gays and lesbians.
A lot of religions teach that a woman should be subservient to their husbands or other men, have you ever read the bible?
Gay rights would help a lot of women who happen to be gay, do you really think that gay women shouldn't have the same rights as you a straight women?
You seem like a really smart person, but I have to say you are a little misguided.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
I can give a reason. There's nothing in it for me. I'm not gay. I see no reason to allow another lesser minority group to jump in line in front of women.
Click to expand...


Wrong. That fails test D:

D) Making an argument in which the word "gays" can be substitute out for "blacks" without changing the basic premise of the argument.
Click to expand...

Bonnie1988 said:
As for your logic, make an argument in which the word "women" can be substituted out for "gays" without changing the basic premise of the argument.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're even *talking* about.

Bonnie1988 said:
I found Jon Stewart's comment of how "oppressed blacks" at the same moment of winning the presidency became the "oppressors of gays" interesting. I'm against gay rights because gay rights activists aren't for my rights and therefore are one of the enemies. Easy to understand.
Click to expand...

Again, if you expect a rebuttal, you'll first need to explain what the hell you're even *talking* about. Gay rights activists aren't for women's rights? Huh? :confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
I am going to say this again........Its not about gay marriage......Its about acceptance of the gay lifestyle as and acceptable alternate.......Its about teaching children that the sex acts gays engage in are OK and most people in this country believe that the sex acts they engage in are perversion and before you say it if straight people engage in those acts its perversion to.........
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with allowing them to get married like everyone else? :confused:

If the topic is gay marriage and your thoughts immediately turn to anal sex, it sounds to me like YOU are the one who has issues.
 
Last edited:
concerning studies showing women get paid less than men, I was part of one prior to 1985...and it was rigged from the start. The people doing the study were temps, hired for the study, and knew almost NOTHING about the jobs being studied. They decided to group secretaries in with electronics techs, among other things. So since secretaries make less than electronics techs, it was determined that techs didn't need a pay raise next time around. It backfired big time....
These studies are often rigged from the start. A similar one in AZ wasn't about gender, just what the jobs pay compared to other states with cost of living factored in. Results made sense except for one area, and again, the temps didn't know the difference between electricians, Inst. and Control Techs, and Metrologists, so they just guessed at it, placing Metrologists in the lower grade with electricians. I managed to correct the mistake by simply calling every nuclear power plant that had both I&C techs and Metrologists on site, and it was clear that ALL of the other sites paid metrologists the same, or more, than I&C techs.
Of course, the HR department had it in for me after that...and eventually that interference on my part was punished....
After witnessing 2 flawed studies, and helping to write another unrelated to personnel issues, I have seen how the data can be manipulated, or just skewed right from the start...
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
There is a simple solution for "christians"...stop digging into the OT of the Bible...
Click to expand...

Its not a problem for Christians but rather a problem for you gay advocates that they believe so. They have no need to seek anything as they are content with their views. As I related above, none of your arguments ever seriously dents most of the Christian community because it is flawed.

I am confident even as a relative Christian Bible amateur, I could easily take apart any argument on the matter you might put forward but within this web forum much less this thread, it is not the place for serious structured debate and will otherwise just end up a pizzing contest. Thus this is not a challenge to do so. There is a vast amount of serious argumentation on the matter already available on the web anyone can readily search into. You obviously don't want to believe such logic presented and would rather just read those within your own cause who twist the matter to suit your own goals that you seem to parrot. In the mean time you put forth amateur arguments that reflect your own lack of knowledge of the matter. Otherwise you might already understand the real points scholars have on the controversy and simply have a hidden agenda of dragging a few relatively ignorant of the Bible Christians in with some simplistic statements.
 
Last edited:
70s_guy said:
Its not a problem for Christians but rather a problem for you gay advocates that they believe so. They have no need to seek anything as they are content with their views. As I related above, none of your arguments ever seriously dents most of the Christian community because it is flawed.

I am confident even as a relative Christian Bible amateur, I could easily take apart any argument on the matter you might put forward but within this web forum much less this thread, it is not the place for serious structured debate and will otherwise just end up a pizzing contest. Thus this is not a challenge to do so. There is a vast amount of serious argumentation on the matter already available on the web anyone can readily search into. You obviously don't want to believe such logic presented and would rather just read those within your own cause who twist the matter to suit your own goals that you seem to parrot. In the mean time you put forth amateur arguments that reflect either your own lack of knowledge of the matter. Otherwise you might already understand the real points scholars have on the controversy and simply have a hidden agenda of dragging a few relatively ignorant of the Bible Christians in with some simplistic statements.
Click to expand...

So you admit that you and your ilk twist the words of the bible to suit your agenda.
Just ask this question of yourself, what would Jesus do?
 
70s_guy said:
Its not a problem for Christians but rather a problem for you gay advocates that they believe so. They have no need to seek anything as they are content with their views. As I related above, none of your arguments ever seriously dents most of the Christian community because it is flawed.

.
Click to expand...

funny, you calling me a gay advocate and NP calling me left wing, altho I have never actively supported anything liberal, unless you count education. I just believe in live and let live, as long as it doesn't cost me or the govt money, and it is between consenting adults behind closed doors.
How is any of that flawed?
 
Kandahar said:
What does that have to do with allowing them to get married like everyone else? :confused:

If the topic is gay marriage and your thoughts immediately turn to anal sex, it sounds to me like YOU are the one who has issues.
Click to expand...

I was a sailor, and trust me, there is a reason for don't ask, don't tell.
 
70s_guy said:
Its not a problem for Christians but rather a problem for you gay advocates that they believe so. They have no need to seek anything as they are content with their views. As I related above, none of your arguments ever seriously dents most of the Christian community because it is flawed.

I am confident even as a relative Christian Bible amateur, I could easily take apart any argument on the matter you might put forward but within this web forum much less this thread, it is not the place for serious structured debate and will otherwise just end up a pizzing contest. Thus this is not a challenge to do so. There is a vast amount of serious argumentation on the matter already available on the web anyone can readily search into. You obviously don't want to believe such logic presented and would rather just read those within your own cause who twist the matter to suit your own goals that you seem to parrot. In the mean time you put forth amateur arguments that reflect your own lack of knowledge of the matter. Otherwise you might already understand the real points scholars have on the controversy and simply have a hidden agenda of dragging a few relatively ignorant of the Bible Christians in with some simplistic statements.
Click to expand...
UtahBill said:
So you admit that you and your ilk twist the words of the bible to suit your agenda.
Just ask this question of yourself, what would Jesus do?
Click to expand...
I sense the challenge to a true debate
 
jfuh said:
I sense the challenge to a true debate
Click to expand...

Nah, too many rules, and I ain't so good at rules....
But if he wanted to debate grace vs. works, I can nail that one immediately. Got a long list of scriptures in a data base with each one identified as either pro grace only, or works only, and WHO is being quoted. Christ is in favor of works along with grace, Paul is all over the map but with very few times being quoted in a way that leads one to think that grace alone is the way....
Long story short, it takes both, but how many churches teach that?
It is my view that many christian churches have reduced the words of Christ to some status well below those of Paul.....so they should be calling themselves Paulists...
 
Navy Pride said:
I am going to say this again........Its not about gay marriage......Its about acceptance of the gay lifestyle as and acceptable alternate.......Its about teaching children that the sex acts gays engage in are OK and most people in this country believe that the sex acts they engage in are perversion and before you say it if straight people engage in those acts its perversion to.........
Click to expand...

Do you consider oral sex between heterosexuals perversion?

What about kissing?

Holding hands?

Loving one another?
 
disneydude said:
Do you consider oral sex between heterosexuals perversion?

What about kissing?

Holding hands?

Loving one another?
Click to expand...
Don't forget sex without a bedsheet with a hole in it - and sex for the sole purpose of procreation, not enjoyment.
 
Re: Dazed And Confused

Monk-Eye said:
"Dazed And Confused"
Verily, I am trying to figure out how you could draw the moronic conclusion (without yourself actually being a moron), as indicated directly above, that I stated only citizens are entitled to equal protection, based on my assertion (of the strictest interpretation) that non-citizens, which are illegally present, are not under US jurisdiction and therefore not entitled to equal protection.
Click to expand...

I specifically asked, "Can I legally kill an ILLEGAL immigrant?" To most people, the term ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT indicates that I'm speaking of those ILLEGALLY PRESENT on U.S. territory. And you said that they could, in fact, be killed - legally. If you continue down this path, I will be forced to link the post in which you said this. You were proven wrong, of course, by a Supreme Court decision and, more importantly, a statement from the author of the Fourteenth Amendment. Verily, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Opinions which you do not agree with are judicial activism, and opinions you agree with are constitutional, that is classic idiocy.
Click to expand...

Not true. I disagree with tons of Supreme Court decisions, but the only one I consider to be judicial activism is Roe v. Wade. The rest I just disagree with but I can understand where the majority opinion arises from.

You are running away again like a coward.
Click to expand...

Um, sure.

You quoted the unalienable (endowed by creator) words of the preamble as the source of "natural rights" (conventional definition is faulty) which you promptly extended to anything you deemed a person.
Click to expand...

Yes, genius, because it's clear to most people that laws against murder, involuntary servitude, etc. come from these rights you say do not exist. They have been legislated, which means they are laws. Which means that the Equal Protection clause guarantees these laws protect all people, not just citizens.

My proposition stipulated that the laws of the institution are based on positive law, not "natural law" (conventional definition is faulty), wherefore the laws are drafted in the initial contexts for citizens at the exclusion of all else.
Click to expand...

And these laws come from? Yay! Natural Law!

Moreover, I expounded that equal protection cannot abate, and must be compliant with, the requirements incumbent upon a citizen to receive rights, most notably, the specific requirement of birth. (off topic)
Click to expand...

Which is false. Why don't you tell the members of this thread why you were unable to prove what you say. "My logic has not found its way into mainstream consideration." P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C

Permit this preamble comic assay - (all MEN - literally unincluding females?) :lol:
Does this trump your first rung of stupidity cited in this post?
Click to expand...

Why don't you just admit that you have no clue what you're talking about and that your legal reasoning is comparable to that of a smurf's?
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
It is my view that many christian churches have reduced the words of Christ to some status well below those of Paul.....so they should be calling themselves Paulists...
Click to expand...

The only version of Christianity that survived was Paul's. The Jerusalem church ended when the city did. Sad, really... Jesus' stuff is sooooo much better than Paul's.
 
ludahai,

Your thread is about a very good topic, but next time please use the proper language, the title of this thread should use a better expressive language like, Ban on gay marriage in CA still foggy...:shock:
 
Why don't Christian follow this order from the bible?

If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean. (Leviticus 15:19-24)
Click to expand...
 
veganshawn said:
Why don't Christian follow this order from the bible?
Click to expand...

This passage has to do with having sexual relations with a woman while on her period. Coming in contact with the blood flow is what God forbids.

Why did you bother posting it? To bash Christians?
 
Macintosh said:
This passage has to do with having sexual relations with a woman while on her period. Coming in contact with the blood flow is what God forbids.

Why did you bother posting it? To bash Christians?
Click to expand...

Nope to show the hypocrisy of picking and choosing passages from the bible to follow while ignoring others because they are "outdated".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom