Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:49 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa Villaseņor
Im sorry but I don't want my children to think that is an acceptable way of life. Marriage is very sacred and should be kept as intended between man and wife.
Good point. Guys like Buzzard keep asking us "how does it hurt you?" Easy to say when you favor such a thing.

However, keeping our children morally upright before God is our top priority. Gay marriage threatens the traditional family structure...so yea, that's why it hurts us personally.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:52 AM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What really sucks also is when you don't agree with all these shenanigans your accused of discriminating others and being a mean person. I love humans all of em gay, straight, bi...So far within the last 2 weeks I have been called a racist, Republican, and snob..LOL.. None of those define me, but I think that our children need to have morals and beliefs instilled in them.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:56 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa Villaseņor
What really sucks also is when you don't agree with all these shenanigans your accused of discriminating others and being a mean person. I love humans all of em gay, straight, bi...So far within the last 2 weeks I have been called a racist, Republican, and snob..LOL.. None of those define me, but I think that our children need to have morals and beliefs instilled in them.
You are doing great then! Keep up the good work.



Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:57 AM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
You are doing great then! Keep up the good work.



Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:12 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

It is refreshing to have someone just lay the truth about how they feel out there and leave it at that. It is great without the same old song and dance of 'your way of thinking sucks' or 'you should agree with me', blah, blah, blah.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:21 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
I already explained how it affects me. Reread my post. It infringes on my right to religion by forcing me to accept via force of law. Since marriage i more then civil union it changes the laws. As a minister I could be sued for refusing to marry gays. It has already happened. Get your head out of the sand.
Exactly what section and article of the CONUS are you saying is violated if gays get married? Seriously, I would like to hear the specific parts and have a chance at a rebuttal, and why you think that. It doesn't infringe on your right to religion, as you still get to practice your religion, and it doesn't force you to accept it. As a minister, you could also be sued for refusing a service to an interracial couple. Do you have a problem with that too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
A business owner would be forced to give insurance and such to gays even tho it violates their principals. This too has already happened in several states
As a business owner you could also be sued if you refused to give insurance to an employee who is a single gay person if you discriminated against that person based on sexual orientation too, so I don't really think that you have a case on this part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
What constitutional rights are they being discriminated against?
"The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution...."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Goodridge.html

Granted, this is from
Quote:
Hillary GOODRIDGE & others vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another.
SJC-08860
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
, but I think that it also will or should hold ground in every other state.

In addition, it violates the provision in the DOI of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The phrase was also used in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[4], which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.
From the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness If you find the wikipedia source to be incorrect, please let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:22 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
It is refreshing to have someone just lay the truth about how they feel out there and leave it at that. It is great without the same old song and dance of 'your way of thinking sucks' or 'you should agree with me', blah, blah, blah.
speak for yourself
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:28 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
Exactly what section and article of the CONUS are you saying is violated if gays get married? Seriously, I would like to hear the specific parts and have a chance at a rebuttal, and why you think that. It doesn't infringe on your right to religion, as you still get to practice your religion, and it doesn't force you to accept it. As a minister, you could also be sued for refusing a service to an interracial couple. Do you have a problem with that too?



As a business owner you could also be sued if you refused to give insurance to an employee who is a single gay person if you discriminated against that person based on sexual orientation too, so I don't really think that you have a case on this part.



"The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Limiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution...."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Goodridge.html

Granted, this is from , but I think that it also will or should hold ground in every other state.

In addition, it violates the provision in the DOI of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.



From the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness If you find the wikipedia source to be incorrect, please let me know.
So exactly what were civil unions NOT providing that gays have decided that they want marriage instead?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:29 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F
Here is a cut and paste from another thread from a year or so ago. This lesbian couple won the case and the church camp sued back and from as far as I have seen their case has been ignored.

By Peter J. Smith

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey - A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their "civil union."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general's office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

Bernstein and Paster demanded "whatever relief is provided by law" including unspecified "compensatory damages for economic loss, humiliation, [and] mental pain."

New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.

"The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869," Scott Hoffman, OGCMA's chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com.

The Pavilion is routinely used for worship ceremonies and gospel concerts, and used to be available for weddings until recently, Hoffman said. "Right now we're waiting for a response from the attorney general's office as what to do next."

On top of that, the form Bernstein and Paster submitted in February would have also agreed to "indemnify and hold harmless" the OGCMA from claims arising from the use of the facility.

Although the OGCMA had 20 days to respond to the charges, Hoffman said his group "requested another 10 days so we would be able to fully and adequately prepare our response."

The group is considering all options, and contacted the Alliance Defense Fund for added legal expertise over its first amendment rights. Hoffman said his church group will attempt mediation with Bernstein and Paster to keep it out of the attorney general's office, but will not compromise.

"We are most definitively a religious organization, our mission statement is to provide a place for spiritual birth, growth and renewal in a Christian seaside setting," said chief administrative officer Scott Hoffman. "We don't think that by the way the rules are written now that churches are required by any stretch of the imagination to adhere to those policies, and we don't think we are either."
Thanks for the information.

In regard to this part
Quote:
New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.
Do you believe that a churches laws should take precedence over the laws of the U.S.A.? I don't. If so, then Sharia Law should be allowed for any and all Muslims who wish it to be enforced when done in their own temples and mosques.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:32 AM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa Villaseņor
Im sorry but I don't want my children to think that is an acceptable way of life. Marriage is very sacred and should be kept as intended between man and wife.
Your children would still be allowed to not think it is an acceptable way of life, it's up to them. What if you child was gay and wanted to be married to his/her partner? How would you tell them that you want to deny them the opportunity to be in a mutually exclusive bond of marriage?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.