Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Do I need to define statist?

Within the law, something that is legal, such as civil marriage, is defined by the laws that deal with it, which are put in place by the "state". Personal marriage is defined by individuals entering into marriage. There are two types of marriage, personal and civil. Civil marriage is what is in contention here, because personal marriage is defined by the individuals, not society. Society can have a say in how civil marriage is defined, but it must be consistent with the laws of that society.

WCH · May 21, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
Yes, organized religion often does outlast governments. But it doesn't last forever. Ex: Zues

What does that tell you?

Who or what are Zues?

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
What does that tell you?

Who or what are Zues?

Nothing really except that religions are a bit more flexible than governments in most places since they have very little power over the people (that isn't given to them voluntarily by individuals) unless they are actually controlling the government.

And, although I'm pretty sure you already know this, I'm pretty sure that was a typo, and it is meant to be "Zeus". Not too hard to figure out really.

WCH · May 21, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
Your "holy bible" was written by men. Not God. And yes, it has changed. No longer do people follow everything in the bible. If they did then we'd still have slavery and we wouldn't have separation of church and state. But that aside take a look at the old testament, then take a look at the new, then again take a look at the newest edition of the bible. It's changed, lots.

Inspired by God

The NT is an affermation of the old.

I've had the same Bible forever.

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Inspired by God

The NT is an affermation of the old.

I've had the same Bible forever.

It is your opinion, your interpretation that it is "inspired by God". You cannot prove that.

And I have two different Bibles. I know of several different versions, not even counting the fact that it has been translated into many different languages, including the fact that it was not originally written in English. Even Thomas Jefferson made his own Bible, which removed any references to supernatural events/miracles.

WorldWatcher · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Inspired by God

The NT is an affermation of the old.

I've had the same Bible forever.

You've been alive forever?

>>>>

WCH · May 21, 2014

Grand Mal said:
Yes, I am, and those 'monikers' have their own meanings.
You don't have much respect for proper use of English, do you. But that's kind of a conservative thing too, isn't it. Anything that isn't conservative is liberal, and anything you like about liberalism is conservative. I see it as another example of the cult of ignorance that prevails in much of your society.
Look at it this way, when anyone says they hope the people in a communist or socialist country would get more freedom, do they say they hope the regime becomes more conservative? Or do they hope it becomes more liberal? When the USSR fell apart, it was because the old-guard conservative communists had passed on and a more liberal leadership style emerged.

Just wondering if Liberal meant something different in Canada.

In this country Liberals desire big government.

WCH · May 21, 2014

roguenuke said:
Within the law, something that is legal, such as civil marriage, is defined by the laws that deal with it, which are put in place by the "state". Personal marriage is defined by individuals entering into marriage. There are two types of marriage, personal and civil. Civil marriage is what is in contention here, because personal marriage is defined by the individuals, not society. Society can have a say in how civil marriage is defined, but it must be consistent with the laws of that society.

It's the STATE who's demanding SSM be made legal over the will of the people. Statism (they actually have their grubby fingers in all marriage)

As it is only. a small protion of society have any say at all. ( the point of my discontent)

WCH · May 21, 2014

roguenuke said:
Nothing really except that religions are a bit more flexible than governments in most places since they have very little power over the people (that isn't given to them voluntarily by individuals) unless they are actually controlling the government.

And, although I'm pretty sure you already know this, I'm pretty sure that was a typo, and it is meant to be "Zeus". Not too hard to figure out really.

Religions of the world have a great bit of affect on people within their membership. (some of you don't understand religion at all)

Didn't know Zeus was a religion.

WCH · May 21, 2014

roguenuke said:
It is your opinion, your interpretation that it is "inspired by God". You cannot prove that.

And I have two different Bibles. I know of several different versions, not even counting the fact that it has been translated into many different languages, including the fact that it was not originally written in English. Even Thomas Jefferson made his own Bible, which removed any references to supernatural events/miracles.

You can't prove otherwise!

I've study several but, the KJV is my favorite. We often reference the study Bible as well.

WCH · May 21, 2014

WorldWatcher said:
You've been alive forever?

>>>>

I pray that I will.

Lursa · May 21, 2014

Fenton said:
No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.

If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.

No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.

Separate but equal is unConstitutional.

Not to mention that 'marriage' means exactly the same thing to many gay couples as it does to straight ones....meaning it has a special traditional value to them as well.

Of course, not all straight couples look at it that way either.

Is there a good reason....any you can give...why gays should not be able to 'marry' under that term?

Lursa · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
It does screw you on tax day.

My point is by his decision, his and other Gay couples will benefit if they choose to do so. He even admits in his ruling the he's going against the wishes of the majority in 'his' state and makes out like it's a hard decision.

I say he's biased.

THe wishes of the majority are tyranny against the minority if it's a civil rights issue. WHich this is. *Equal protection clause*

Lursa · May 21, 2014

Sababa said:
Can you explain what is sacred about meeting a woman at Centrifuge in the MGM and 4 hours later marrying her in a drivetru chapel by and Elvis impersonator. Until you start looking to make that illegal you are not exactly going to win the sacred institution argument.

Exactly...there are no moral, reproductive, or other criteria that are required for straight people to marry, except age or mental competance.

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
It's the STATE who's demanding SSM be made legal over the will of the people. Statism (they actually have their grubby fingers in all marriage)

As it is only. a small protion of society have any say at all. ( the point of my discontent)

No. It is the people who are demanding that same sex marriage be made legal. The state has no power to change laws that are not challenged by the people.

Your discontent comes from the fact that you wish to keep laws that restrict marriage based on sex/gender in place merely because you don't think they "fit". Too bad.

Lursa · May 21, 2014

Fenton said:
Lol...

Then push to force the Federal Government to recognize legal civil unions instead of attacking a sacred istitution.

Is that a joke? What is sacred about divorce, adultery, domestic abuse?

Not only that, such (straight) people are free to marry again and again.

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Religions of the world have a great bit of affect on people within their membership. (some of you don't understand religion at all)

Didn't know Zeus was a religion.

They can have a great deal of affect, if those religions are in charge or if the people allow those religions to have a say in their lives.

I understand religion a great deal. From your posts, it seems a whole lot more than you do.

Zeus is a god that comes from another religion. Zeus is part of another religion, a religion that has so few current believers, that it is considered "dead" by most people.

Lursa · May 21, 2014

roguenuke said:
No. We are winning the push to allow same sex couples to marry. Why would I want more government institutions when there is no legitimate reason the one available now, marriage, won't work for same sex couples the same way it does for me and other opposite sex couples?

.

More bureaucracy! Hmm, doesnt sound very 'conservative' to me. Fiscally foolish for sure, to maintain 2 systems.

roguenuke · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
You can't prove otherwise!

I've study several but, the KJV is my favorite. We often reference the study Bible as well.

It is your place to prove an assertion, as in the assertion "the Bible is inspired by God". It is not my place to prove that it isn't.

Lursa · May 21, 2014

Fenton said:
No, the traditional and fundamental definition of a marriage is centered around a Family unit that includes a Mother and Father and Children.

Two Gay men deprive a child of a Mother,two Gay women deprive a child of a Father.

Sorry, but there is a Good reason Gay Marriage hasn't been Socially acceptable for much of Recorded human history and then some.

Your Opinions are meaningless.

Oh and 30 activist Judges disagree with me. So what ?

You're rights aren't being denied if its currently ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same Sex.

You dont like the Law ? Tough cookies.

We chose to not have kids....no one prevented our marrying....we deprived imaginary kids of parents!

Also there are plenty of families that do not have a mommy or a daddy.

The word marriage has nothing to do with reproduction and families. That's why there are thousands of families headed by gay couples now. THey reproduce naturally, they adopt, use surrogacy, IV, whatever. In case you havent noticed, they want families very badly because they often have to work HARDER to have them.

Gay unions do not mean fewer families....please provide some data that shows that. And giving them use of the word marriage will not change that...they will continue to couple up and have families. What 'marriage' does provide is added protection for the children of those unions.

Reproduction is one of the strongest instincts we have....and there's no evidence that gay people have any less....they will have families whether or not they are allowed to use the word 'marriage.'

Lursa · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
It's the STATE who's demanding SSM be made legal over the will of the people. Statism (they actually have their grubby fingers in all marriage)

As it is only. a small protion of society have any say at all. ( the point of my discontent)

The state has to prove that it's not in the best interests of the state to prevent SSM....what harm can they show that SSM causes?

Lursa · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Bottom line is marriage is a solemn promise before God between one man and one woman so, nothing was denied. And nothing was 'allowed'. It's not for the state to have a say in the matter

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Two men or two women can not be "one flesh" no matter how politically correct you or anyone else thinks it can be.

A man and a woman cannot be 'one flesh' either. C'mon.

Or explain that one for me.

Lursa · May 21, 2014

Fenton said:
You can see the kind of damage that the destruction of the Family unit can cause.

Look at any inner city area in America.

Not in trailer parks?

Yeah, I'm starting to see where all this is coming from.

Deuce · May 21, 2014

WCH said:
Oh yes great slave to the alter of huge government. May it bestow on you your every fantasy.

Immediately goes for ad hominem. Typical. Pathetic.

Fenton · May 21, 2014

roguenuke said:
Barely passed, 6 years ago, with a lot of misinformation being put out. Then overturned.

Find an "objective poll" that says differently about Texas and the view of same sex marriage now (as in not 2005 when Texas voted to put that ban in place). A lot has changed in the past decade, particularly the last few years, when it comes to same sex marriage.

That poll is just as valid as any that you could find.

It DID pass and how could anyone mischaracterized the core issue of Prop 8 ?

What misinformation could have possibly forced people to either change their mind or not understand what the primary issue was ?

Thats ridiculous.

People knew exactly what they were voting for.

And your not going to convince me that a vast majority of Americans have changed their opinions on Gay marriage in just 5 years.

Especially after they've learned what type of people are pushing for the legalization of Gay marriage.

Bullies, that hypocritically claim their rights are being violated while they seek out and attack those who disagree with their agenda.

If anything the activist have turned people who were on the fence on the issue against their agenda.

" If you disagree with us we'll do our best to publicly humiliate you, force you out of your proffesion and we wont stop until we're satisfied. "

So spare me this hyperbolic rehtoric that someone's rights are being violated.

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Believer

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Outer space potato man

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency