World Events
Topic: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by CA Supreme Court

#	Author	Message
41	utahjosh Thu 5/15/2008 3:21p	Where, then, do the laws of the land come from?
42	utahjosh Thu 5/15/2008 3:23p	And by asking that please do not assume that I believe that religion SHOULD be where all laws of the land come from.
43	Kar2oonMan Thu 5/15/2008 3:32p	>>The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution.<< The "fact" is, it's discrimination, pure and simple. >>tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that's been honored over so many thousands of years.<< Yes, and it wasn't long ago that pretty much this very argument was used in terms of interracial marriage. Heard it all before. It will never change my mind. >>is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.<< Uh huh. This, too, brings to mind things that were said in relation to interracial marriage. It would "confuse" children if they had parents of two different races. And now we have the product of an interracial marriage running for president, and another who is the top golfer in the world and so on. These tired arguments simply doesn't wash. >>They speak much more eloquently on my belief system's view on the matter.<< Discrimination, no matter how eloquently stated, is discrimination.
44	utahjosh Thu 5/15/2008 3:36p	It may "bring to mind" discrimination like that of interracial marriages, but to me it is not the same at all. I've heard all of your talking points before, too. It will never change my mind.
45	WilliamK99 Thu 5/15/2008 3:42p	It may "bring to mind" discrimination like that of interracial marriages, but to me it is not the same at all.<< How is it not the same? Anytime we treat any group of individuals differently we discriminate against them...
46	SingleParkPassholder Thu 5/15/2008 3:46p	"It may "bring to mind" discrimination like that of interracial marriages, but to me it is not the same at all." Of course it is. A person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. The court today said a ban discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. "I've heard all of your talking points before, too. It will never change my mind." Here is where your church does you no favors at all. These are not "talking points". This is the law of the land. That your church sees it differently is their right, but that belief should have no bearing or effect beyond the four walls of the church. Which leads to your other question. While the laws had to start somewhere, our forefathers made sure there was a separation of church and state. Some argue this, but they always lose the argument. Always. The Constitution is predicated, sometimes naively to be sure, that people leave their church at the door when enacting laws and maintaining the Constitution. Gay marriage arguably will be the biggest test of that so far in our country's history, but if we're truly going to respect the rights of all citizens, and not just the ones we approve of, then gays should be allowed to marry.
47	Kar2oonMan Thu 5/15/2008 3:49p	>>I've heard all of your talking points before, too. It will never change my mind.<< Then I guess you didn't really mean it when you said: "I haven't read this entire thing, but I plan to do so and evaluate my own feelings and see if I agree." If you can't see the obvious parallels between the arguments against interracial marriage that were made a few decades ago and the arguments against gay marriage today, then you won't ever be convinced. But just because you are not convinced, it doesn't mean it isn't discrimination.
48	Dabob2 Thu 5/15/2008 3:50p	<But I also love and honor the institution of marriage and family.> So do I. <I would prefer that the word Marriage continues to mean Man and Wife.> I would prefer it be made available to all citizens, not just most. <2 gay people can't be married. It's impossible.> It is not. I live it every day. <But I will be kind and I will be fair to their rights.> Well, no. Apparently, you will not. You're free to believe whatever you like as a Mormon. My church believes in gay marriage (and I was married in our church), yours does not. Fine. But those beliefs should have no bearing on civil law.
49	ecdc Thu 5/15/2008 4:12p	>>Where, then, do the laws of the land come from?<< You mean laws like the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act? The Edmunds Act? The Edmunds-Tucker Act? Those laws came from men in Congress dedicated to preserving the sanctity of marriage by outlawing polygamy and jailing LDS leaders like Lorenzo Snow and George Q. Cannon. Rather than be arrested, LDS leader John Taylor went into hiding. On the 4th of July, Taylor ordered the flag flown at half-mast in Salt Lake City to protest anti-polygamy laws. So much for Mormon respect for the law of the land. Josh, it's easy to use your beliefs to prop up the law when it's not your ox being gored. But you, of all people, ought to know what happens when people find a practice morally reprehensible (like polygamy) and then impose their will on others by passing laws.
50	X-san Thu 5/15/2008 4:31p	***Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we've been discussing, Himself described what marriage is - between a man and a woman*** I've just got to say, if I were god I would be so absolutely pissed off at all these religions blowhards telling everyone exactly what I did or did not thing about things, what exactly I found to be "abhorrent", and who I thought were good and bad people. They'd be the ones sitting in the pits for a few thousand millenia. :p

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-370	371-380	381-390	391-400
	401-410	411-420	421-430	431-440	441-450
	451-460	461-470	471-480	481-490	491-500
	501-510	511-520	521-530	531-540	541-550
	551-560	561-570	571-580	581-590	591-600
	601-610	611-620

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney's 2008 Thea awards, Disney's Imax and 3D announcements, Bolt walkarounds and the crew's favorite Animal Kingdom attractions plus reader mail, Brent's Corner, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the Crew and 50 words or less on the new Bond.

What's on
The Latest
Group RCI and Disney Vacation Club Members to Receive Benefit of New Multi-Year Relationship
NetDragon and Disney to Launch First MMORPG 'Disney Fantasy Online'
Disneyland Thanksgiving Day Parade pictures
New Disneyland Resort Video and Audio podcasts available
Video of dogs visiting Santa Paws at WDW's Downtown Disney
Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea Schedule for Fiscal Year 2009
TCM Presents: The Family Classics With All-New Original Special and Nostalgic Holiday Festival
Kids go free to Disney on Broadway
Innoventions Dream Home featured on MSN.com
Disney Store Responds to Inaccurate Information in Widely Circulating Email

Click here for The Latest