Prop 8 over turned in CA

[Ms Tree]

Gays are coming for me aye? I guess I better find my crotchless pink boxers and some "Oh my lube" 🙄
Who's afraid of gays? Not me, I don't care if they want to "asphalt" each other. It's just that I'm not gonna see it, don't want to know about it, and I'm not gonna pay higher medical premiums if they get HIV. My friends and family don't want to see or hear about it either, and the majority feels the same way, like it or not. Hoping people will "die off" that have this opinion is wishful thinking, because the kids are taught the difference between right and wrong, good luck with that. Recently my friends 10 year old son was admonished for saying "that's so gay", and his excuse was "everyone says that mom". I guess he's is not seeing the gay lifestyle as something to admire. If the voters of this country change this mindset, then so be it, but posting meaningless polls, screaming at old ladies, and hoping for lawsuits to change opinions isn't going to get the job done. Hasn't worked yet.

You are terrified of the gays otherwise you would not be so hell bent on depriving them of their equal rights.

If you do not want to see it or hear about it then don't visit the gay porn sites and get out of the gay chat rooms. What makes you so much more special than anyone else? Riding the short bus does not count.

Yea and I do not want to pay higher medical insurance because of smokers, over weight people and alcoholics. I wonder what cost more?

Actually it is working. I guess they do not post things on your gay hate web sites but there have been three successive polls that have shown that a majority of voters now favor marriage for gays. The mind set of America is changing and they are leaving your kind behind.

In the big reality this subject is not even on the radar of the major issues facing us from around the world, and here in our own country. We have a President that threw Israel under the bus this week, and if they go down, we are in serious trouble here in the United States. The insane muslim radicals want to kill everyone of us, and I think gays might be at the top of the list according to Iran's crazy leaders. If only the muslim terrorists would stop trying to take over the world and killing everyone in it, your liberal rants about gay injustice might get some traction. But right now it's the least of our worries.

Since we have one major issue, equal rights can be trampled? Got ya.

Please continue to twist off about it all you want, sit in front of your computer all day in your underwear, and scream about the voters of Tennessee and the "ignorant" lawmakers you hate until your blood vessels pop. Won't amount to a pile of fresh dog poop. :huh:

Gotta go....


BTW, I think Tenn has it right, the deviant gay lifestyle should not be taught in a public classroom at taxpayer expense. Good luck with the lawsuit. 😉

As I told Dell in another post, go search the internet for deviant sex and let us know what you find. Heteros participate in it as well. Ignorance is no excuse for denying reality.

I will 'twist off' till equal rights is achieved for all people in this country. While right wing idiots may not be concerned with equal rights, there are a lot of us who are.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I've been doing some reading and one of the things I found out there is no specific reference to sexual preference in any part of the COTUS. A great many rights, roles and responsibilities are defined, so at the Federal Level it is far less than a blanket endorsement of same sex marriage rights being conferred by the COTUS.

Courts have yet to rule and generate appeals so that the SCOTUS has yet to hear arguments or provide any significant guidance. Ergo that means that it's in the hands of the individual states. So as of now the TN law stands. As does DOMA. Ultimately the Supreme's will decide this. Until then it's just a lot of noisy debate on a topic that couldn't give a crap about. Fact is a VERY vocal tiny minority is trying to gain an advantage at the expense of the Majority

 

[Ms Tree]

Fact is a VERY vocal tiny minority is trying to gain an advantage at the expense of the Majority

And what expense would that be? Never heard the argument that equal rights are too expensive. Is this a budget issue?

 

[SparrowHawk]

And what expense would that be? Never heard the argument that equal rights are too expensive. Is this a budget issue?

Expense being defined as when you frame the debate as anyone who dare question the morality of ANY alternative lifestyle as intolerant or homophobic.

Some would argue that when you confer rights to a group based upon sexual preference that conversely restrict the rights of others.

The case law supporting your argument is weak to date, so as most progressives you focus in on something that is unrelated to the primary point of the post.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, you just have little if any public support or case law to support your position.

 

[Ms Tree]

Expense being defined as when you frame the debate as anyone who dare question the morality of ANY alternative lifestyle as intolerant or homophobic.

Some would argue that when you confer rights to a group based upon sexual preference that conversely restrict the rights of others.

The case law supporting your argument is weak to date, so as most progressives you focus in on something that is unrelated to the primary point of the post.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, you just have little if any public support or case law to support your position.

Whether one agrees with the law or not is of little consequence. Denying people of their equal rights pursuant to the COTUS is what is ignorant and homophobic.

Not sure why it is considered weak. There have been very few cases brought before the courts. The 14th is quite clear. Perhaps you should read it as well. You claim to be a supporter of it.

Rights are not being conferred based on sexual preference (as much as you would like to believe it). Equal rights are being sought by US citizens based on the 14th amendment.

As I said, the public does not need to support the law. The law needs to be supported by the COTUS.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Whether one agrees with the law or not is of little consequence. Denying people of their equal rights pursuant to the COTUS is what is ignorant and homophobic.

OK, and who made an admitted atheist as yourself the moral arbiter for the United States? Consider that oral sex is illegal in 26 states. You don't here me screaming "Make the Lewinski Legal" now do you?

Not sure why it is considered weak. There have been very few cases brought before the courts. The 14th is quite clear. Perhaps you should read it as well. You claim to be a supporter of it.

Well other than the fact that you have no current existing case law to support the argument what else is there except opinion. I tend to share your opinion on most of this, however it is only that.

Rights are not being conferred based on sexual preference (as much as you would like to believe it). Equal rights are being sought by US citizens based on the 14th amendment.

I eagerly await citations of case law to support your argument. Pssst, they're aren't any. Sexual preference is currently an extension of the right conferred by the founding fathers and any subsequent case law.

As I said, the public does not need to support the law. The law needs to be supported by the COTUS.

Unless the SCOTUS rules in a way that a Constitutional amendment is required in which case the homo promo agenda is done as in stick a fork in it.

What I have always and continue to resent is that folks like you insist I acknowledge the Homo Promo agenda in a positive manner. If I don't I'm labeled as "intolerant" proving that most progressives have no clue as to either the concept or definition of tolerance.

 

[Ms Tree]

OK, and who made an admitted atheist as yourself the moral arbiter for the United States? Consider that oral sex is illegal in 26 states. You don't here me screaming "Make the Lewinski Legal" now do you?

Well other than the fact that you have no current existing case law to support the argument what else is there except opinion. I tend to share your opinion on most of this, however it is only that.

I eagerly await citations of case law to support your argument. Pssst, they're aren't any. Sexual preference is currently an extension of the right conferred by the founding fathers and any subsequent case law.


Unless the SCOTUS rules in a way that a Constitutional amendment is required in which case the homo promo agenda is done as in stick a fork in it.

What I have always and continue to resent is that folks like you insist I acknowledge the Homo Promo agenda in a positive manner. If I don't I'm labeled as "intolerant" proving that most progressives have no clue as to either the concept or definition of tolerance.

And you call your self a libertarian? That's a government law that infringes upon your rights. So do you believe in individual rights or not? This is notl ie being kind of pregnant.

I already said there is very little case law. The sodomy laws would be one example. And should someone try and enforce the oral sex laws, they would be an example as well.

Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage will never pass. You can hope all you want but that will not make it happen.

OH horse crap. I have never insisted you or any one else do anything of the sort. To imply that is disingenuous at best. None of my gay friends give a rats ass what you think of their life. What they do insist upon is that they have the same rights as you. Your lack of acceptance is not what makes you intolerant. Your willingness to deny them equal rights is what makes you intolerant.

This is a very simple question that requires no further explanation. Are you in favor of equal rights for everyone or not? I am not asking if you like them or if you want to have play date with someone who is gay. Do you think they should have equal rights or not? How freaking hard is this for a fine upstanding libertarian as your self?

 

[SparrowHawk]

I'm in favor of Individual Freedom and Liberty.

Equally I am in favor of the rule of law and not of men. If and until the courts rule on the matter of gay marriage I shall hold that for me personally gay marriage is not a big deal.

What is a big deal is the non stop homo promo agenda. Suppose that the SCOTUS rules in such a way as to require an amendment ending the ban of gay marriage, then what? It's over Johnny.

The simple fact is that anyone who disagrees with a progressive is labeled as intolerant and worse. The more annoyed progressives are at me serves as proof that I'm on the right track

 

[Ms Tree]

I'm in favor of Individual Freedom and Liberty.

The rest was just irrelevant BS IMO.

Edit:

The rest actually sounded like the ramblings of a person who is trying every conceivable way to object to equal rights while trying to justify their claim to be a libertarian.

It does not seem consistent for a libertarian to argue that some rights are more equal than others or that some people are more deserving of equal rights than others.

You are either in favor of the right for gays to marry or you are not. What you think peoples agenda is, how they are arguing for that right or what ever other excuse you want to come up with has nothing to do with anything. You either support equal rights or you don't.

You can keep saying it but you know it is not true. You are not intolerant for disagreeing. You are intolerant for not supporting equal rights. I do not agree with the KKK but I support their equal rights.

The question for you seems to be are you going to walk the walk of equal rights or just pay it lip service?

Equal rights. Yes or No?

 

[delldude]

The rest was just irrelevant BS IMO.

Edit:

The rest actually sounded like the ramblings of a person who is trying every conceivable way to object to equal rights while trying to justify their claim to be a libertarian.

It does not seem consistent for a libertarian to argue that some rights are more equal than others or that some people are more deserving of equal rights than others.

You are either in favor of the right for gays to marry or you are not. What you think peoples agenda is, how they are arguing for that right or what ever other excuse you want to come up with has nothing to do with anything. You either support equal rights or you don't.

You can keep saying it but you know it is not true. You are not intolerant for disagreeing. You are intolerant for not supporting equal rights. I do not agree with the KKK but I support their equal rights.

The question for you seems to be are you going to walk the walk of equal rights or just pay it lip service?

Equal rights. Yes or No?

Not under Gods law,which helped found the nations Declaration of Independence and its Constitution.

You are one funny dude with your precious pretzel logic of life. You have no belief in God who is referred to as the Creator which you have no time for, how can you espouse the Constitution so profoundly when it was inspired by rights given from the Creator?

And you call others hypocrites......LOL

 

[Ms Tree]

Not under Gods law,which helped found the nations Declaration of Independence and its Constitution.

You are one funny dude with your precious pretzel logic of life. You have no belief in God who is referred to as the Creator which you have no time for, how can you espouse the Constitution so profoundly when it was inspired by rights given from the Creator?

And you call others hypocrites......LOL

A good number of the founders were not theists. It also seems very clear to me that they took great pains to make sure that the COTUS was written with out so much as a mention of any god. They made sure there was a separation between religion and state. You are right in one respect. The DoI is one thing but when the framers got down to brass tacks, all mention of gods and creators was left out for a reason.

 

[SparrowHawk]

A good number of the founders were not theists. It also seems very clear to me that they took great pains to make sure that the COTUS was written with out so much as a mention of any god. They made sure there was a separation between religion and state. You are right in one respect. The DoI is one thing but when the framers got down to brass tacks, all mention of gods and creators was left out for a reason.

Really?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"


You can't separate one document from the other.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."

From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:

From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...

The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...

Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...

Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:

Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.

The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.

 

[Ms Tree]

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." - Benjamin Franklin

A lot of the framers were Freemasons or Deists. They did not believe in religion per se, especially what we call religion today.

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785 - Madison

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - Madison

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches - Madison

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - Adams


The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - Adams

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." - Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. - Paine




"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" - Adams

 

[SparrowHawk]

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. "

Thomas Jefferson

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." - Benjamin Franklin

A lot of the framers were Freemasons or Deists. They did not believe in religion per se, especially what we call religion today.

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785 - Madison

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - Madison

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches - Madison

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - Adams


The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." - Adams

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst." - Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. - Paine




"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?" - Adams

Thanks for proving my point in a great many ways. Religion is not the enemy of freedom & liberty. However many a church can and does restrict freedom & liberty due to the failings of man.

Additionally many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, believing in a God Head but not ascribing to any particular dogma. This was one of the primary reasons for the word creator to end up in the DoI. The founding fathers so feared having a government recognized church like the Church of England that they did everything they could to ensure that no one church would ever be able to dictate to the citizens.

Note that in all of the quotes that NO ONE denies the existence of God, apparently they shared many of the same frustrations with organized religion that I and millions of others do.

 

[Ms Tree]

de·ism
–noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

Very different than the belief in god.