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

[Suudy]

Just a few generations ago the thought of having a plantation without slaves was “never even thought of!!!”

What is your point?

Really? It wasn’t? You mean there was no abolitionists until a few generations ago?

Are you sure about that?

 

[Dale_M]

Please show where the Constitution lists sexual preference as a protected class. I’ve asked several times, but no one has given me the info.

Are are kidding? Do you really think that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is constitutional?

 

[scipio337]

Agreed. However, the issue that was theoretically considered by the court was whether same-sex marriage** in the aggregate **would be beneficial to society.

1. In the micro, could an individual same-sex couple have a positive impact on society? Sure.
2. Could same-sex marriages as a group have a positive impact on society if looked at in a vaccum? I would say this is, at best, neutral. Same-sex marriages would have neither a positive nor negative impact on society, if viewed alone.
3. Could same-sex marriages have a negative impact on society if looked at organically with the rest of the existing elements of society? I say, emphatically, “yes”. The fact that so many people are willing to consider eliminating civil marriage altogether is a symptom of a serious negative impact on society. The fact that redefining the definition of marriage would over ride existing liberties Americans enjoy such as free association, free speech and freedom of religious expression is a serious negative impact on society.

Well said!

 

[Brooklyn]

Just a few generations ago the thought of having a plantation without slaves was “never even thought of!!!”

What is your point?

Slavery was an evil institution, and there were many, many people who opposed it, including the Catholic Church. In fact, to own slaves was to be automatically excommunicated from the Church. How in the world can you compare that to homosexual marriage? Yes, there were many, many people who would have thought of plantations without slaves.

My point is that liberals today think they are the most enlightened people to ever have inhabited the planet, and that thousands of years of human history mean nothing to them. They believe everyone before them, who would have never even conceived of same sex marriage, were unenlightened morons, and that only they, modern day liberals know what is best for the world.

And they are destroying everything that is good and right.

 

[Corki]

Just a few generations ago the thought of having a plantation without slaves was “never even thought of!!!”

What is your point?

That’s historically inaccurate as many plantations were staffed by bondsmen and freed slaves. While slavery was considered an important element to the economy of the South, it was very much “thought of” to run things in other ways. Slavery was just one option among many.

The point is, if I may speak for Brooklyn, is that morals have been decaying at a rapid rate. So far, the results have been dismal. The Church spoke out against contraception and “no-fault” divorce, both of which were almost uniformly considered as immoral choices a few generations ago. She has been proved propheticly correct.

When considering societal change based on moral prevarications, the modern world does not have a good track record of making good choices.

 

[Brooklyn]

Are are kidding? Do you really think that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is constitutional?

Dale_M - you keep ignoring me, but I’m going to keep answering you.

Again, the thought of accepting homosexual behaviour before recent times was never even entertained in people’s minds. Remember what Oscar Wilde said about homosexuality - the love that dares not speak its name. And remember that he went to jail for it? That was how all societies looked at homosexual behaviour back then. It did not have to be addressed in the constitution because it wasn’t an issue. Liberals, with their “enlightened” thought have made it an issue, unthinkable to any generation before us.

 

[Dale_M]

The body of legal writings from the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written make it very clear what they meant by “marriage” when it came to the law.

Really? What do you base that claim on?

Same-sex “marriage” is a requirement of public incentive for conduct, and thus the onus rests fully upon those demanding such privileges to exhibit how such unions provide the same public benefit sought after by promoting real marriages

It is an interesting assertion. Has heterosexual marriage been asked to meet that standard? Can you think of any other laws which were obligated to justify themselves?

 

[Brooklyn]

Really? What do you base that claim on?

It is an interesting assertion. Has heterosexual marriage been asked to meet that standard? Can you think of any other laws which were obligated to justify themselves?

Other people are falling into your trap, but I won’t. Before recent times, there was only “heterosexual” marriage. Only it was called “marriage.” The thought of marriage as between anyone but a man and a woman was unthinkable. People would have thought that having to define and defend “heterosexual marriage” was an unthinkable as having to define what a human person is. It was self evident. Marriage was a union between a man and woman - period! It is only modern liberals who have thought to reinvent the wheel, trying to make it square or a triangle, and still call it a wheel.

And guess what - trying to make a square wheel will destroy the wheel. If a wheel isn’t round, it’s not a wheel. And if marriage is not between a man and a woman, it ain’t marriage!

 

[Dale_M]

You might be surprised to learn that prior to our generation, the thought of marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman was never even thought of!!! I remember the line in “Some Like It Hot”. Tony Curtis says “Why would a man want to marry a man?” It was hilarious back then. Now people would be offended by it.

150 years ago, the idea that a black person could be as intelligent and as educated as a white person was also met with skepticism and laughter

 

[Dale_M]

Dale_M - you keep ignoring me, but I’m going to keep answering you.

I am not sure what you mean. This thread is fast moving, and if I have failed to respond to your comments, I apologize.

Again, the thought of accepting homosexual behaviour before recent times was never even entertained in people’s minds. Remember what Oscar Wilde said about homosexuality - the love that dares not speak its name.

I suppose… but does fear of persecution make victim less understandable, less sympathetic, less justified in their claims?

 

[Brooklyn]

150 years ago, the idea that a black person could be as intelligent and as educated as a white person was also met with skepticism and laughter

Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. You are comparing the evils of racism, which is and has always been condemned by Christians, as the same thing as condemning illicit sex. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. But I guess that doesn’t mean anything to you. Modern liberalism is so much more enlightened than that old Bible and that 2000 year old church.

Try again.

 

[estesbob]

150 years ago, the idea that a black person could be as intelligent and as educated as a white person was also met with skepticism and laughter

And equating the African-American experience with the manner in which one engages in sex is specious.

 

[Dale_M]

Other people are falling into your trap, but I won’t. Before recent times, there was only “heterosexual” marriage. Only it was called “marriage.”

Until the past 150 or 200 years, marriage was a rarity. It was mainly among the wealthy, to ensure inheritance. Most couples lived in “common law” marriage, or simply shacked up.

 

[Brooklyn]

I am not sure what you mean. This thread is fast moving, and if I have failed to respond to your comments, I apologize.

I suppose… but does fear of persecution make victim less understandable, less sympathetic, less justified in their claims?

Again, your confusing posts. What is it that we are suppose to understand, what is it we are suppose to be sympathetic about? What claims are not being justified? Homosexuality is a mortal sin. The church does not condemn someone who has homosexual attraction. But she does and always will condemn homosexual activity.

What are you saying?

 

[Brooklyn]

Until the past 150 or 200 years, marriage was a rarity. It was mainly among the wealthy, to ensure inheritance. Most couples lived in “common law” marriage, or simply shacked up.

That is the most made up fact I have read yet. You literally pulled that out of the air. In fact “shacking up” was roundly condemned by society, and those who lived together without benefit of marriage were ostracized. You know that is true. Puh-leeze.

 

[edwest2]

You can argue the religious aspect of it all you want — which no court is going to consider at all relevant —*but same sex “marriage” is most likely going to be the law of the land sooner or later. My suggestion is to keep your moral opposition but get on board with the fact it will occur and be involved in the process so you will have some (name removed by moderator)ut rather than none.

“be involved in the process”? Would you mind explaining that? Twice, voters in California turned down gay marriage. Now, the will of the people has been overturned. There is no “fact” here except wishful thinking. Sure, all that’s needed are a handful of judges to say it’s OK, but that does not make it right.

LGBT people want marriage. Period. I understand they are not interested in anyone interfering with that.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Dale_M]

Again, your confusing posts. What is it that we are suppose to understand, what is it we are suppose to be sympathetic about?

I guess I am puzzled by your repeated statements that you don’t understand my posts. You mention Oscar Wilde and “the love that dare not speak its name.” Obviously, if homosexuals are afraid to come out as gay, then they are suffering under an oppressive social system, and deserve sympathy.

 

[Dale_M]

That is the most made up fact I have read yet. You literally pulled that out of the air. In fact “shacking up” was roundly condemned by society, and those who lived together without benefit of marriage were ostracized. You know that is true. Puh-leeze.

I would suggest you have little understanding of the history of Western Civilization. ( I can’t speak for non-Western cultures.)

 

[crazzeto]

That is the most made up fact I have read yet. You literally pulled that out of the air. In fact “shacking up” was roundly condemned by society, and those who lived together without benefit of marriage were ostracized. You know that is true. Puh-leeze.

I find you can tell the legitimacy of an argument by the number of made up facts frequently used to bolster it. With regard to homosexual marriage, I see argumentation founded upon mistruths all over the place.

 

[edwest2]

150 years ago, the idea that a black person could be as intelligent and as educated as a white person was also met with skepticism and laughter

Non-sequiter. As a black woman wrote: “I know people who used to be gay, but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

Having sex is a personal choice.

God bless,
Ed