Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[j1akey]

estesbob:

The big deal is the state sanctioning of a grevious sin puts souls at risk. What you got was a slap in the faces of 7 million California who have twice said they did not want the definition of marriage changed to embrace homosexual behavior. There will be hell to pay come this November. You reap what you sow

7 Million people was about 52% of the vote out of a total. Not exactly a huge win. Either way putting it up for a vote was a ploy for law makers to dodge the issue in the first place. Ending segregation in the south wasn’t popular either but it happened and civilization did not come crashing down like people said it would

 

[xixxvmcm85]

That’s all that I’m saying excommunication was too strong of a word.

No matter how strong you might find it to be, that’s nonetheless what it is. We excommunicate ourselves from the Church any and every time we commit a mortal sin. We subsequently re-commune ourselves with the Church every time we repentantly confess our sins and are absolved in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

7 Million people was about 52% of the vote out of a total. Not exactly a huge win. Either way putting it up for a vote was a ploy for law makers to dodge the issue in the first place. Ending segregation in the south wasn’t popular either but it happened.

Racism is not the same as expanding marriage. With segregation, your dealing with equal treatment as human beings. With homosexuality, you want to create a new right. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex…as I do!

 

[Adam1986]

There is no evidence whatsoever to back this up. However it is evident that that in states where homosexual marriage has been forced upon the populace only a miniscule number of homosexuals avail himself of their newfound “right”

It seems as if your second part was nothing but a cheap shot at homosexuals since it does not counter anything I said.

Again you’re making a statement with no basis in fact
All I know is from what I have seen. But when I made that statement I did not in any way shape or form say it was fact.

 

[nguirado]

I don’t know if anybody’s pointed this out, but homosexuals can marry somebody of the opposite sex already. They have the exact same rights.

 

[j1akey]

eagle_eye222001:

Racism is not the same as expanding marriage. With segregation, your dealing with equal treatment as human beings. With homosexuality, you want to create a new right. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex…as I do!

And you’re dealing with equal treatment as a human being here also. This doesn’t impose on the church because they’re married legally as far as the state goes. If the church doesn’t want to recognize it then don’t.

It’s easy to say “marry someone of the opposite sex” if you’re a straight person. A homosexual doesn’t have that option unless they just want to lie to themselves their whole life. How would you like to lie to yourself for the rest of your life? I’m sure it would be no problem right? There are alot of rights that are extended to people who are married that same sex couples don’t get. This just brings it up to equal footing. If it takes “more rights” as you say to give people the same rights that you enjoy every day then so be it.

 

[j1akey]

nguirado:

I don’t know if anybody’s pointed this out, but homosexuals can marry somebody of the opposite sex already. They have the exact same rights.

yes they have it’s as moronic now as it was the last 50 times someone said it.

 

[Adam1986]

The big deal is that I will not sit idly by, and let someone else force their moral beliefs on me. That is what you and others are doing.

Directed to quoted claim.

Your claims are baseless. They apply to homosexual “marriage” as well.

More then half of the marriages in the country end in divorce.

Oh, so we should all become homosexuals (because your **assuming **conclusion is that homosexual marriages will NOT end in divorce at near the rate) and end the human race since their will be no new generation? That doesn’t make any sense.

How amny times have you heard the word “golddigger” etc.?

Almost never. In fact I can make the same argument for a homosexual couple. No reason it is limited to heterosexual marriages.
**
How many times are their battles over pre-nups?**

Again, this could be turned right back at a homosexual couple.
**
How often are children used as leverage in things?**

Ah, so homosexual couples will never adopt kids? Please! There is a push for homosexuals to adopt kids…and if there is a divorce…I see a leverage battle.

How often do people get married to fast when they are really only basing their marriage on their physical attraction rather then real love?

Serious? I say the same argument against homosexual couples.

*The bottom line is that you offer NO proof or evidence to support your claims…and even all your claims can be turned right back at a homosexual couple…which invalidates your whole argument.

There may be a 50% divorce rate…but homosexual marriages surely are NOT the cure!*

Who is saying same sex marriages are the cure? Not me? PLEASE DO NOT INSINUATE THAT I AM TRYING TO “CONVERT” YOU. If you are not, then I apologize.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

It seems as if your second part was nothing but a cheap shot at homosexuals since it does not counter anything I said.

Your point is invalidated since you haven’t brought forth evidence for such claims. estesbob pointed that out.

All I know is from what I have seen. But when I made that statement I did not in any way shape or form say it was fact.

Personal experience means nothing in terms of objective debating and you intended it as a fact by in that it was a claim which we have rightly pointed out that you don’t have any evidence or citations to back such a claim.

 

[Corki]

7 Million people was about 52% of the vote out of a total. Not exactly a huge win. Either way putting it up for a vote was a ploy for law makers to dodge the issue in the first place. Ending segregation in the south wasn’t popular either but it happened and civilization did not come crashing down like people said it would

52% is a pretty big win in a presidential election that had a higher liberal voter turnout than any in a generation. It was also a big win since the ballot language was slanted to give a negative connotation to the proposition giving the advantage to the “no” side. (“Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry” implying that the right already existed in the constitution)

Putting it up for a vote was not a dodge. The courts in California directed it to be done that way. The earlier proposition was passed but struck down as unconstitutional. The only course of action was a constitutional ammendment. This was an attempt to face the issue head on, not a dodge.

 

[Stylites]

I don’t know if anybody’s pointed this out, but homosexuals can marry somebody of the opposite sex already. They have the exact same rights.

Exactly. There is no discrimination at all; there are only two sexes, not four or six or eight.

 

[Adam1986]

I don’t know if anybody’s pointed this out, but homosexuals can marry somebody of the opposite sex already. They have the exact same rights.

Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a choice and that I choose to be sexually attracted to men? If you are; you should know that even the Church recognizes that homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Who is saying same sex marriages are the cure? Not me? PLEASE DO NOT INSINUATE THAT I AM TRYING TO “CONVERT” YOU. If you are not, then I apologize.

You are saying same sex marriages are the cure by the fact of the arguments you listed.

You basically said “look at all these problems of heterosexual marriages” and then you used those claims to advance gay marriage. In effect, you are arguing for homosexual marriages as the cure or at least as the more desired relationship since gay marriage supposedly doesn’t have issues like heterosexual marriage which is a load of garbage as I have just pointed out.

 

[Suudy]

What I shouldn’t be recognized as a person? That’s what it seems when you say ‘recognize you’. If you meant something else; please tell me. Otherwise it seems as if you don’t even value me as a person. And the one thing that I can say for certain is that God does recognize me as a person. He made me and he loves me. That I know.

Peter Kreeft makes a great point in his talk on homosexuality (see here). He observed that homosexuals are the only group that identify, and take pride in, themselves by what they do, rather than who they are. Alcoholics don’t boast of their alcoholism. Thieves don’t brag of their thievery. And if they do, we think them disordered. But homosexuals take pride in their act, and ask (demand?) that we too celebrate it. What other group identifies and celebrates their actions over their nature?

Further, he recognizes the difference between tolerance and acceptance. The homosexual lobby is seeking not tolerance, but acceptance. To wit:

There is a distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance has a prejudicial term to it: we don’t tolerate good things, we tolerate bad things for the sake of good things. Catholics believe that homosexuals are good things and that homosexual acts are bad things. So they accept homosexual persons and they don’t accept homosexual acts. They tolerate homosexual acts but they don’t tolerate homosexual persons – they love them.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t know if anybody’s pointed this out, but homosexuals can marry somebody of the opposite sex already. They have the exact same rights.

Yes, it has been said. But that doesn’t mean that its a good point.

After all, it could be said that everyone has a right to be Muslim, even if you are Christian. But would that justify denying Christians equal rights (as happens in some countries) ?

Of course, in the US, the Constitution forbids such discrimination The court ruling today claims that forbidding gays from marrying each other is also an unconstitutional abridgment of equal rights.

 

[Adam1986]

Your point is invalidated since you haven’t brought forth evidence for such claims. estesbob pointed that out.

Personal experience means nothing in terms of objective debating and you intended it as a fact by in that it was a claim which we have rightly pointed out that you don’t have any evidence or citations to back such a claim.

Excuse me, but when did I say it was fact? I never did. Please do not put words in my mouth and tell me what I meant. When I never said fact. I guess now unless we say it’s my opinion; it should be taken as fact.

For instance if someone says “Blueberries are the the best fruit out there.” or “The Who are the bet band ever” I should automatically take what they are saying as 100% fact. I shouldn’t even entertain the thought that they might be saying their opinion with out saying “This is my opinion” in front of it?

 

[mike0219116]

The big deal is the state sanctioning of a grevious sin puts souls at risk. What you got was a slap in the faces of 7 million California who have twice said they did not want the definition of marriage changed to embrace homosexual behavior. There will be hell to pay come this November. You reap what you sow

Doesn’t the state sanctioning of divorce put souls at risk as well? I’m assuming that it doesn’t since I never hear any outcry from the bishops or laity about reforming that aspect of our marriage law.

Also, is anybody going to exhibit some anger at George W. Bush for appointing this particular judge? I thought only Democrats appointed activist judges?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Peter Kreeft makes a great point in his talk on homosexuality (see here). He observed that homosexuals are the only group that identify, and take pride in, themselves by what they do, rather than who they are. Alcoholics don’t boast of their alcoholism. Thieves don’t brag of their thievery. And if they do, we think them disordered. But homosexuals take pride in their act, and ask (demand?) that we too celebrate it. What other group identifies and celebrates their actions over their nature?

Further, he recognizes the difference between tolerance and acceptance. The homosexual lobby is seeking not tolerance, but acceptance. To wit:

I’m pretty sure us Catholics (as well as many other groups of religious people) identify ourselves in what we do. Same thing with members of the NRA… and the Democratic Party… and…

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Doesn’t the state sanctioning of divorce put souls at risk as well? I’m assuming that it doesn’t since I never hear any outcry from the bishops or laity about reforming that aspect of our marriage law.

Also, is anybody going to exhibit some anger at George W. Bush for appointing this particular judge? I thought only Democrats appointed activist judges?

This is actually a very good point, and is one of the main reasons why I truly to believe that the sanctity of marriage cannot be saved unless we strip secular governments from the ability to recognize marriage of any kind.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Yes, it has been said. But that doesn’t mean that its a good point.

After all, it could be said that everyone has a right to be Muslim, even if you are Christian. But would that justify denying Christians equal rights (as happens in some countries) ? Of course, in the US, the Constitution forbids such discrimination

The court ruling today claims that forbidding gays from marrying each other is also an unconstitutional abridgment of equal rights.

Do I have a right to kill you? No, I do not. So not all rights are good.

In the same way, we argue that the right to a homosexual marriage is NOT good.