| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2009 11:45:10 PM · #76 |
If prop 8 gets overturned it's because it was unconstitutional (ie it was wrong in the eyes of the law). What's not to understand? The bible is not the legal authority but you keep assuming it is. Maybe if hotels put the us constitution in nightstands instead of the bible people might finally realize what document applies in this country..
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 00:10:22.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:03:45 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If prop 8 gets overturned it's because it was unconstitutional (ie it was wrong in the eyes of the law). |
I've never disagreed with that. I'm asking Paul whether it would be constitutional if Prop 8 was upheld.
EDIT to add: The reason I think this is interesting is because I've never hinged my ethical code to the constitution. Paul, most of all on these threads, seems to equate constitutionality with morality. At the very least he confuses the subject because he is always bringing up the interpretation of the constitution as being paramount in the discussion. I'm curious as to what happens when Paul gets disappointed by the interpretation. Does he change his mind on what is constitutional or does he consider the interpretation to be wrong?
I directly asked Shannon this question in the other thread and was met with silence. I would like to know if Paul is willing to answer it.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 01:52:19. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 01:55:11 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
If prop 8 gets overturned it's because it was unconstitutional (ie it was wrong in the eyes of the law). |
I've never disagreed with that. I'm asking Paul whether it would be constitutional if Prop 8 was upheld. |
I've missed the last two pages...indulge my ramble.
The real problem with this is that California is too hung up on props. We need a new pathway in this State. I may be wrong, but we have amended our constitution well over 500 times (?576). This issue is not for the people to decide. The basic tenets of our country protect rights of individuals. This prop was battled as a moral issue, which is fine, to a certain extent, but I see it as legal right whether or not I support it morally (I do BTW). The good people of California should not be asked to vote on a moral issue, we have already agreed to the rights of individuals. Let our gay brethren be married where and by whom they wish. If a certain church disagrees, then don't participate.
With respect to the young woman who does not support gay marriage...I think she is a hypocrite. She should practice what she preaches. I can't get behind folks who pick and choose various aspects of morality and issues as if they were looking at a menu. She put herself in the spotlight, made choices in the past, and does not love her fellow human without prejudice. I have no problem with the beating she has taken. It comes with the territory.
@Jason, I'm bothered by the challenge in the court, although I'm sure I will be pleased with the outcome. I voted against Prop 8, but it bothers me that the voters made a choice, and that a court can throw away our choice, even one that I don't agree with. Again, this should never have been put to the voters. If Prop 8 is upheld, then yes, I would guess that it's constitutional, but not really! I'll be surprised if it's upheld.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:01:40 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
If prop 8 gets overturned it's because it was unconstitutional (ie it was wrong in the eyes of the law). |
I've never disagreed with that. I'm asking Paul whether it would be constitutional if Prop 8 was upheld.
EDIT to add: The reason I think this is interesting is because I've never hinged my ethical code to the constitution. Paul, most of all on these threads, seems to equate constitutionality with morality. At the very least he confuses the subject because he is always bringing up the interpretation of the constitution as being paramount in the discussion. I'm curious as to what happens when Paul gets disappointed by the interpretation. Does he change his mind on what is constitutional or does he consider the interpretation to be wrong?
I directly asked Shannon this question in the other thread and was met with silence. I would like to know if Paul is willing to answer it. |
I'll answer...I accept a decision as constitutional...if it comes from the US Supreme Court. I don't accept the California pathway. In my understated understanding, it's flawed. To that end, when Prop 8 is overturned, I'll consider it as legislative mistake made right. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:04:30 AM · #80 |
polygamy is inherently unequal. Each partner DOES NOT have the same rights. A polygamist man can take more than one wife, but the same cannot be said for a woman taking more than one husband. It cannot be used as an analogy for the rights sought by gay and lesbian people.
I'm shocked and dismayed that you would, with a straight face and apparently in all seriousness, make such a comparison. Its outrageous and really causes me to lose much respect for your point of view.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:13:08 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
grab the "low hanging fruit". You see the tide changing in Florida, Texas, Idaho, Arkansas anytime soon? |
Hey, taken out of context, that's funny!
I think Obama spoke out against gay marriage to garner votes. He's pretty slick, just like every other President. Wait till his second term, he will nuance himself back to where he needs to be to make it right. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 02:13:28 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
If prop 8 gets overturned it's because it was unconstitutional (ie it was wrong in the eyes of the law). |
I've never disagreed with that. I'm asking Paul whether it would be constitutional if Prop 8 was upheld.
EDIT to add: The reason I think this is interesting is because I've never hinged my ethical code to the constitution. Paul, most of all on these threads, seems to equate constitutionality with morality. At the very least he confuses the subject because he is always bringing up the interpretation of the constitution as being paramount in the discussion. I'm curious as to what happens when Paul gets disappointed by the interpretation. Does he change his mind on what is constitutional or does he consider the interpretation to be wrong? |
I can't speak for Paul, but if I was disappointed by an interpretation it wouldn't be because I desired the other outcome. I'd be disappointed if the interpretion didn't make sense constitutionally. Now I'm pro-life. I don't like Roe vs Wade for several reasons but I can't say the interpretation wasn't constitutionally valid. Now if natural pregnancies took place outside of the human body and we still allowed abortions than I'd be disappointed with that on constitutional grounds.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 02:17:38.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 06:35:52 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never hinged my ethical code to the constitution. |
Legal and ethical don't always seem to go hand in hand.....and that's a shame when you talk about human rights and discrimination.
The point is that it's not okay to discriminate against gay marriage because of a belief system when you're imposing beliefs on others that cannot legally or constitutionally be applied.
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution, but the discrimination by the same method is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2009 08:50:03 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by frisca:
polygamy is inherently unequal. Each partner DOES NOT have the same rights. A polygamist man can take more than one wife, but the same cannot be said for a woman taking more than one husband. It cannot be used as an analogy for the rights sought by gay and lesbian people.
I'm shocked and dismayed that you would, with a straight face and apparently in all seriousness, make such a comparison. Its outrageous and really causes me to lose much respect for your point of view. |
Actually, I've read some discussions of some people who were seriously for polygamy. The "modern" version, at least the way they were propagating, wasn't just one husband with multiple wives (as has been the traditional case) , but also one woman with multiple husbands, and even man and wife having multiple spouses.
(eta: yes, I know each of those are not "polygamy" which is defined as one man and multiple women, but in general use, the term polygamy is seemingly being used to cover any and all forms of multiple spouses)
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 09:00:41. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:06:16 AM · #85 |
Polygamy is on the same road as gay marriage. Both will be allowed eventually, and polygamy has *lots* of cultural precedent, so it's funny you would bring that up as an example.
As to bestiality, well, if one puts homosexuals in the same category as dogs and sheep, that speaks a lot to one's beliefs. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:11:30 AM · #86 |
| Of course, if you actually care who won one of those competitions, then you sort of belong in the barn anyway... |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:34:07 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 09:40:04 AM · #88 |
Never mind.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 09:41:42. |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 10:50:01 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
@Jason, I'm bothered by the challenge in the court, although I'm sure I will be pleased with the outcome. I voted against Prop 8, but it bothers me that the voters made a choice, and that a court can throw away our choice, even one that I don't agree with. Again, this should never have been put to the voters. If Prop 8 is upheld, then yes, I would guess that it's constitutional, but not really! I'll be surprised if it's upheld. |
This is the real dilemma for the court. I believe the court would like to strike down Prop 8, but the legal question at hand concerns reforenda and the state constitution. Striking it down would set a very dangerous precedent. The court is in an interesting quandry and I have no idea how it will turn out.
I hear a bunch of doublespeak about polygamy. Don's position was the most consistent. I hope he saw I wasn't the one that brought up bestiality... |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 10:54:50 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
Yes indeed... and just like the blacks they too will seek equal treatment... what is this world coming to? In the good ole days them uppety gays would have got what was coming to them.
I never cease to be amazed by this type of attitude. How can the marriage of two people in love possibly have a negative effect on your lifestyle.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:02:00 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
Yes indeed... and just like the blacks they too will seek equal treatment... what is this world coming to? In the good ole days them uppety gays would have got what was coming to them.
I never cease to be amazed by this type of attitude. How can the marriage of two people in love possibly have a negative effect on your lifestyle.
Ray |
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:08:24 AM · #92 |
| Getting back to the media it might be beneficial to have people chime up on what sources they consider to be the last bastions of good journalism? I tend to get my news from NPR and Google News, but on Google News tend to search out The Washington Post and New York Times. Anybody else have sources they consider to do a good job of removing opinion/analysis from an article unless explicitly stated it is included? |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:11:27 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
... says the heterosexual white American. :-D |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:16:04 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
... says the heterosexual white American. :-D |
CANADIAN ;) |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:17:28 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
... says the heterosexual white American. :-D |
CANADIAN ;) |
I KNEW there was something suspicious about you! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:27:51 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
... says the heterosexual white American. :-D |
CANADIAN ;) |
I KNEW there was something suspicious about you! |
Yeah. Sorry ABOOT that. :-p |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:28:50 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
It's called "Culture of Entitlement". |
... says the heterosexual white American. :-D |
CANADIAN ;) |
I KNEW there was something suspicious about you! |
Yah, I've only said I was canadian a million times before. Sorry for being so secretive! |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:34:08 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Yah, I've only said I was canadian a million times before. Sorry for being so secretive! |
You haven't figured out from these threads I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer? |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:42:06 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
Yes indeed... and just like the blacks they too will seek equal treatment... what is this world coming to? In the good ole days them uppety gays would have got what was coming to them.
I never cease to be amazed by this type of attitude. How can the marriage of two people in love possibly have a negative effect on your lifestyle.
Ray |
My response was to Jeb's point that a church can "make their decisions based on the premise of their religion". I was stating that, given time, once gays have gained the foothold they seek on "marriage", there will be something else they'll go after (or the left leaning liberal camp), and I can foresee them taking on the church and attempt to force the church to conduct gay "marriage" ceremonies, even if the church has made "their decision (not to) based on the premise of their religion". |
|
|
|
05/07/2009 11:51:37 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's okay for any church to make their decisons based on the premise of their religion, that IS guaranteed by the constitution ... |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Just wait. Once gay "marriage" gains a foothold, the next thing they'll go after is forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies of gay couples - or sue the churches if they deny them. We've already seen lawsuits filed against wedding photographers that were not comfortable shooting a gay "marriage". |
Who's going to force a church to do anmything? This is America, and it's about religious freedom AND equality. If a church chooses not to marry a gay couple, so be it. If it's against their belief system, so be it.
I'm sure my church would be opposed to marrying any KKK members, and I'm all for that, but we've had marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
Note: My church performs marriage ceremonies for both gay & straight couples.
What is a "marriage"?
I'm not sure how you equate the discrimination of a photographer who specifically stated that they wouldn't shoot a gay wedding with a church's refusal to go against their beliefs in a marriage celebration. There are distincly different circumstances in place.
Message edited by author 2009-05-07 11:51:58.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 10:48:19 AM EDT.
