Prop 8, the highly controversial California proposition which will ban same-sex marriage, was passed by voters months ago. Today, lawsuits have failed to overturn it as the California Supreme Court has upheld the proposition.
Yes it can, it could mean for religion, or against it. People can say what it doesn't mean, and not say what it does. Or vise versa.
It means either way it isn't meant to be done. No matter what the situation if a religious viewpoint is the only real argument anybody has, like with homosexual marriage. It is unconstitutional to deny that right.
It means either way it isn't meant to be done. No matter what the situation if a religious viewpoint is the only real argument anybody has, like with homosexual marriage. It is unconstitutional to deny that right.
Technically it is constitutional now... But that's beside the point. If they wanted to over turn it, they would need another vote to do so. Or it would be 'unconstitutional'. And I don't really have a big religious view on it seeing as everyone proved me wrong on all fronts, all I know is that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. 'Domestic Union' is a better option but not marriage. The constitution is a really bad place for that though. I'm against gay marriage and all but the constitution is not where a social issue belongs. Therefore I'm against prop 8 but I'm with prop8 at the same time.
I don't think I misinterpreted anything - you missed my point. I'll explain:
No, I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth. I was not proposing laws against premarital sex, or shrimp...(i have no clue why you brought up shrimp). I was simply stating Christian belief on the topic of homosexuality. I'm tired of people making Christians out to be some close minded monsters that want to destroy everyone who disagree with their beliefs.
The reason why I brought up shrimp is because it comes from passages in leviticus that deal with homosexuality being a sin:
Leviticus 18:22
'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 11:9-12
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
I mean, it's not *just* a hate on shrimp, but a lot of other animals too. Abomination is a pretty strong word.
Monsters? No - I never said that. Close minded? Yes. My point is, if you're going to have legislation passed that abhors the union of homosexuals, why stop there? The bible has plenty of other things we're all supposed to be *not* doing.
I am not arguing for, nor against homosexuality, I was stating the beliefs about Christians on the topic of homosexuality
Well then so what? What should christian belief have to do with legislation?
@TSL3:
Don't forget that can be taken many different ways to suit the needs of the speaker.
That's more of a deflection then an argument. First amendment does get interpreted in a lot of different ways, but usually moreso with regards to the freedom of speech part. The bit about religion is strikingly clear.
Now my opinion. What the people decided is final. If a small group of people don't like it, they shouldn't have sway over a vote. I would say the same thing if it didn't pass. The minority of votes shouldn't have sway over the majority of votes.
So you're saying the rights of the minority should be oppressed by a majority? What if a vote was put to the people of the U.S.A. to get rid of anyone of muslim/islamic descent, for security purposes? Lets say it passed, because people are nervous about terrorist attacks, and a majority votes for it. Does it make it right?
You also ignored my argument with regards to the declaration of independance & the pursuit of happiness.
So you're saying the rights of the minority should be oppressed by a majority?
OF VOTES. I don't care if their black, white, gay, straight, green, blue whatever. The minority of votes should not hold sway over the majority of votes. If the majority of votes want one thing, the minority should not be off saying this or that. Happens every single time people don't get their way. Individuals don't matter, only the overall vote.
What if a vote was put to the people of the U.S.A. to get rid of anyone of muslim/islamic descent, for security purposes? Lets say it passed, because people are nervous about terrorist attacks, and a majority votes for it. Does it make it right?
No it does not make it right. But what the vote is, the vote stays. Just because the majority of votes are for it, does not make it right. Besides, that's going beyond not liking them, that's ethnic cleansing.
You also ignored my argument with regards to the declaration of independance & the pursuit of happiness.
Maybe it infringes on other peoples views of happiness. Don't forget peoples views of happiness may be true happiness, or not liking people makes them happy.
You also ignored my argument for a better alternative.
No it does not make it right. But what the vote is, the vote stays. Just because the majority of votes are for it, does not make it right. Besides, that's going beyond not liking them, that's ethnic cleansing.
Which would be perfectly legal because of proposition 8.
The bottom line is, that it is unconstitutional.
14th amendment:
''no state shall...deny to any person within iits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws''
Californian state constitution, Articl 1 Section 7:
''A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws''
Remind me how is proposition 8 constitutional again?
Remind me how is proposition 8 constitutional again?
basically it isn't but the lawmakers are interpreting the law the way they see fit, for example:
14th amendment: "no state shall...deny to any person, unless they're gay, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Californian state constitution, Articl 1 Section 7: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, unless they're gay then it's perfectly fine"
One of the things I greatly admire about the American political system is the separation of powers. The judificary branch has clearly failed in this instance.
OF VOTES. I don't care if their black, white, gay, straight, green, blue whatever. The minority of votes should not hold sway over the majority of votes. If the majority of votes want one thing, the minority should not be off saying this or that. Happens every single time people don't get their way. Individuals don't matter, only the overall vote.
Yet we still ended up with Bush in office back in 2000....
Majority rules really is a crude system. It may make more than half the people happy, but ignoring the minority completely isn't the solution. Everyone should be represented by our government, not just the ones who happen to outnumber everyone else. Denying some people their rights just because others are homophobic or religious is pretty much against what America stands for. Plenty of people have pointed out how its contradictory to the constitution, but its not just going against that. America's advertised as one of the freest countries in the world, yet here we go, taking away someones attempt for freedom
Maybe it infringes on other peoples views of happiness. Don't forget peoples views of happiness may be true happiness, or not liking people makes them happy.
Its a small infringement. Someones going to get much more happiness out of finally marrying someone they love rather than someone who's going to be satisfied that they can't. I don't even think happiness is really what that would be. More like satisfaction, righteousness, both of which I think are misplaced if that's what they get out of denying other people happiness. Shouldn't we try and make people happy for a positive reason, instead of worrying about making people happy for a negative one like being happy other people aren't?
One of the things I greatly admire about the American political system is the separation of powers. The judificary branch has clearly failed in this instance.
The personification of the quote "evil succeeds when good men do nothing"
I was happy when I heard this on the news, I hope it stays that way and other states do the same that have already legalized same sex marriage
Why? What is it about homosexual marriage that directly effects you? Everybody keeps ignoring this question but what, in a legal sense, does homosexuals being able to marry do to effect you?
Maybe it infringes on other peoples views of happiness. Don't forget peoples views of happiness may be true happiness, or not liking people makes them happy.
Let me fetch my dunce cap...
But before I start handing it out to anybody, do you see where the problem lies? That not liking somebody may make somebody happy but this may infringe upon somebody else's happiness?
