Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by DrChuck

 

Mere facts are one think, as in academic teams.

Debate is a higher order of mentality.

Your unsettlement is evidence that debate is much more valuable than mere memorization: it is what you know, it is all about how you use it.

LOL, ok...whatever.

What I meant to say was...if gay marriage is legalized wouldn't the churches be forced by law to conduct gay marriages? Because if they don't, it would be considered discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Do you understand now?


Now YOU tell me what part of this hypothetical statement is not hypothetical to your fellow soldiers.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by DrChuck

 

I agree, but I am sure there are plenty of priest, ministers, rabbis, judges, etc that wouldn't object.

A same sex couple would just need to find one.

Who is to judge?

If everyone just concentrated on their own dirty laundry and leave everyone elses alone, (live and let live) this would be a nicer planet to live on.

Treat others exactly as you wish to be treated.

Now, with major earthquakes, oil gushers, nuclear melt downs, volcanoes erupting, sink holes, war, war and more war..................who is marrying and going to bed with who is the least of our problems.

Yes there are religious institutions and figures that would conduct a religious gay marriage. But for a judge to refuse it would be unethical.

Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee

 

I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.

Thank you.

I support you in presenting another side from a gay person - - - and showing that gays are NOT a GROUP THINK.

There are actually many gays who expressed fear that pushing this would take away progress that had already been made - - especially since the 2 prominent lawyers are not gay themselves.

But - - as others before me in this thread have explained - - much better then I can - - - it is about Legal Proceedings - - and not about being gay.

Originally posted by j3tlif3
Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*

You have every right to condemn it, be disgusted by it and protest it. But in the end, how does it really affect you?

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


That was quite a random, off-topic comment.

Thank you to everyone for your insight - intelligent - and fact based contributions.

And especially for keeping this thread respectful.

I shall return ASAP.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

 

It is a social contract. Unlike a normal contract where the terms are carefully spelled out, a social contract has terms that would not normally be used and conditions associated with it that is not only implied, but also has to follow certain terms. Think about it, people who are rich marry to increase their wealth, and most of the time have a prenuptial agreement, that outlines who gets what if the marriage were to break apart. In a divorce, it is the court and lawyers that decides who gets what and how the assets of the marriage is to be split apart.
It is partially like a partnership, where people come together for a common goal, the articles of partnership, (The contract) states who is responsible for such, but unlike a business, there are parts of the social contract that is not spelt out but expressly understood by both persons, as to what is and is not acceptable while they are married together, such as fedelity. It is never stated that you don't cheat on your partner, but it is understood that you don't.

The reality, however, is that marriage is also a legal contract between consenting adults just as much as it is a social contract. Your post spelled it out perfectly. You even acknowledge and explained how legal contracts are carefully spelled out, which marriages and prenumptual agreements are as well. Marriage, just like other contractual obligations, are typically settled in court. That means if a person says that only certain people can enter legal contracts such as marriage, then that is an instance of circumventing rights, which would be unconstitutional.

Do you agree with that?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by adifferentbreed

I know, I know....the next thing you know Gentiles will be able to marry Jews, and Black Men will be able to marry White Women - !! What next ?

All of which are 'special rights' that should be taken away from them !!

Immediately, I say !!

And how dare that hypcrite Cheney defend his own Lesbian daughter's 'marriage' to anotther biological female and now with children too - with all of his ' It seems to me that 'Equality for All' means 'Equality for All' crapola !!!!!!

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
The reality, however, is that marriage is also a legal contract between consenting adults just as much as it is a social contract. Your post spelled it out perfectly. You even acknowledge and explained how legal contracts are carefully spelled out, which marriages and prenumptual agreements are as well. Marriage, just like other contractual obligations, are typically settled in court. That means if a person says that only certain people can enter legal contracts such as marriage, then that is an instance of circumventing rights, which would be unconstitutional.

Do you agree with that?

No, as marriage is not a legal contract, it is a SOCIAL CONTRACT, that acts like a legal contract, with spoken, unspoken and written aspects to it. There is a big difference in the definitions and aspects of the terms used.

reply to post by leo123


And a str8, church-going judge wouldn't have a conflict of interest? Give me a break. This is the one of the great civil rights issues of the early 21st century. Homophobia is equal to racism, except homophobia transcends race.
This is not a special right. If marriage is strictly a religious ritual, then why does it need a governmant-issued licence? It's a legal contract. It takes a judge to break that contract, not a pastor. The concept of denying anyone in the gay community anything because of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional at it's very essence. Last time I checked, this is a secular nation, with a secular government, and for good reason. I don't need religious fanatics of any kind to make my choices ( or restrict those choices ) for me.

www.hrc.org...

reply to post by Garfee


Awesome. You, my friend, ROCK. Well said. Ditto, etc, etc, etc......

reply to post by Annee
To the contrary, what we think, feel and who we allow to associate with us and our family is and will remain an individual's right, even if you shove the rest of this in our faces. All are welcome to take their stand, what will come when this civilization breaks down and the means of suppression snap, is another matter.

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by DrChuck

 

Mere facts are one think, as in academic teams.

Debate is a higher order of mentality.

Your unsettlement is evidence that debate is much more valuable than mere memorization: it is what you know, it is all about how you use it.

LOL, ok...whatever.

What I meant to say was...if gay marriage is legalized wouldn't the churches be forced by law to conduct gay marriages? Because if they don't, it would be considered discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Do you understand now?


Now YOU tell me what part of this hypothetical statement is not hypothetical to your fellow soldiers.

edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

Under what agency or law would religious organizations be forced to anything?

Originally posted by j3tlif3
Its always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What is this world coming too? *rolls eyes*

In your small world view perhaps. Forget not "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - IE, who is human that is fit to judge?

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

That was quite a random, off-topic comment.

Care to quote and expand on that assertion?

reply to post by MajorKarma


I suppose mixed-race couples are "shoving it in your face" when they go to the grocery store, or walk down the street. In that scenario, "exposing" yourself and your loved ones to contact and interaction with Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans is affecting your "individual right" to discriminate as you see fit. LGBT people have always been here, and WE are here to stay. Sorry, not going anywhere, not shutting up, sticking up for our civil rights.

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Annee

 

To the contrary, what we think, feel and who we allow to associate with us and our family is and will remain an individual's right, even if you shove the rest of this in our faces. All are welcome to take their stand, what will come when this civilization breaks down and the means of suppression snap, is another matter.

Who is shoving WHAT in your face? You are free to associate with whomever you choose. How is denying the same right to marriage that you and I have, shoving anything in your face?

Originally posted by moonzoo7
reply to post by MajorKarma

 

I suppose mixed-race couples are "shoving it down your throat" when they go to the grocery store, or walk down the street.

Ya know what - - most gays you wouldn't even recognize if they stood behind you in line in the grocery store.

Yes - - there is a small percentage of gays that are more flamboyant - - but there is a small percentage of every group that are "in your face" (so to speak).

I could say someone wearing a very large cross is "shoving it down my throat".

These issues are really with yourself - - not with people just being themselves.

EDIT: Sorry - - I think this should have been addressed to another poster or in a different way. I tried to correct it by changing some words and wording