The Bible and Homosexuality | Page 19 | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
The Bible and Homosexuality
August 27, 2012
7:36 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
181sp_Permalink sp_Print

"at1with0" wrote: Is greeney now saying same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional?

If so, is that because he hurt my gay friend Disson8er's feelings?

What I am saying is that it will undoubtly be deemed this way is the Supreme Court. Don't forget that the Supreme Court of California that overturned prop 8 was only decided by one vote, so nealry half still did not see it as Unconstitutional. The vote was 4-3 to overturn prop 8 declaring it unconstutional. Like the popular vote being 51%, the court was as close to the middle, so its still not a slam dunk yet. Previous California ruling declared their was no discrimination based on the facts federal discrimination laws protected Gays, plus Civil Unions were allowed, and they were not restricted in any way for their lifestyles.

I no not think prop 8 is unconstutional at all, I agree with the previous rulings, and evidently only one judge has made it that way, or not. I'm saying the court will have this trend in all states. Prop 8 was passed in accordance with our State Constitution, and the supreme court is split down the middle on if that was Constitutional.

August 28, 2012
4:34 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
182sp_Permalink sp_Print

"greeney2" wrote: Previous California ruling declared their was no discrimination based on the facts federal discrimination laws protected Gays, plus Civil Unions were allowed, and they were not restricted in any way for their lifestyles.

Except that not being able to get married is a restriction on their lifestyle.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

August 28, 2012
5:33 pm
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
183sp_Permalink sp_Print

It's all about the anal.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

August 28, 2012
5:49 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
184sp_Permalink sp_Print

"DIss0n80r" wrote: It's all about the anal.

A lot of laws back then were developed out of a sense of uncleanliness, yes.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

August 28, 2012
8:22 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
185sp_Permalink sp_Print

"at1with0" wrote: [quote="greeney2"]Previous California ruling declared their was no discrimination based on the facts federal discrimination laws protected Gays, plus Civil Unions were allowed, and they were not restricted in any way for their lifestyles.

Except that not being able to get married is a restriction on their lifestyle.

Many laws put a restriction on your lifestyle but they do not mean its a Constitutional breach. Previous rulings on the gay marriage discrimination resulted in the Court ruling they were not discriminated against. The reasons were given which still half of the Court agrees with now. I happen to agree with the previous ruling and think they shold stand. Like I said 1 judges inturpetation has changed it.

August 28, 2012
8:47 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
186sp_Permalink sp_Print

"greeney2" wrote: Many laws put a restriction on your lifestyle but they do not mean its a Constitutional breach. Previous rulings on the gay marriage discrimination resulted in the Court ruling they were not discriminated against. The reasons were given which still half of the Court agrees with now. I happen to agree with the previous ruling and think they shold stand. Like I said 1 judges inturpetation has changed it.

Of course, but disallowing one group from getting married based on their sexual preference is discrimination.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

August 28, 2012
10:02 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
187sp_Permalink sp_Print

Please explain why the previous ruling did not see it that way, and further explain if it were that simple why the current ruling is only separted by one vote in the middle? Previously at least 4-3 voted there was no discrimination. The current law 3-4 votes still contend there is no discrimination. These are not homophobic fools, they are Supreme Court Justices who are very well versed in the laws, and both Federal and State Constitutions.

If the issue was absolutly discrimination, it is obvious all 7 would have voted that way. They all have valid ideas of how the law should be inturpeted. Like the popular vote was just slighly over the 50% line, so have the justices been split right down the middle.

August 28, 2012
11:30 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
188sp_Permalink sp_Print

Are you suggesting that rulings are somehow more "valid" when the decision is unanimous?
There's no question that the letter of the law (the constitution) would not form a basis upon which a ban on gay marriage would be justified, especially given the sentiments in the declaration of independence which states that we are ALL entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There IS a question about whether the spirit of the law would in fact form a basis upon which a ban on gay marriage would be justified.

Get nine constitution experts in a room and ask them about the letter of the law and you will have 9-0 views on what the letter of the law says. Get nine constitution experts in a room and ask them about the spirit of the law and you will probably get 5-4 views on what the spirit of the law is. The spirit of the law is oftentimes unclear.

I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, come up with something that would say why a ban fits with the letter and the spirit of the constitution. In other words, there isn't anything in the letter of the law that would support a ban and a ban is also against the spirit of the law.

I dunno, maybe you'll be the first. :mrgreen:

"it is easy to grow crazy"

August 29, 2012
12:52 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10275
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
189sp_Permalink sp_Print

Activists or those with an agenda try to spin the spirit of the law, the Justices determain the actual letter of the law. It gets mixed by liberal and conservative stances on it, and why this is equally divided both by popular vote and by the Justices. This is why you hear so much discussion when new judges are apointed as to if they will be Conservative or very liberal in their inturpittions.

August 29, 2012
1:40 pm
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
190sp_Permalink sp_Print

Need more documents extolling freedom from gay marriage.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
43 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10275

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24648

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8959

Posts: 124097

Newest Members:

ifuwyg, Noctus, PRE-KNOWLEDGE 9/11- AMERICAFIRSTBILL.COM, Deezie, wtpooh, Spud Murphy, Sassy971

Administrators: John Greenewald: 632, blackvault: 1776