# Utah ban on same-sex marriage nullified



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

One day before the first anniversary of the Supreme Courtâs broad ruling protecting already-married same-sex couples, a federal appeals court on Wednesday took that precedent a major step further and struck down a state ban on same-sex marriages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit did so in a case involving a Utah ban.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/utah-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-nullified/

Another win for equality.


----------



## Tex- (May 18, 2014)

And another loss for states rights.


Tex


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

IN too. 

The Supreme court's job, is to do what's right, not what most popular.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Alaska still standing firm with our state constitution...one man one woman.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I could care less who marries. It doesnt affect me and my house and I only have to answer for how I lived my life. But no matter how you look at it, anytime the Supreme Court overrules the constitution of a state and the voice of its people, it is never a good thing. You say its there job to do whats right not popular. What are you gonna say when they say you have no rights to say grow your own food or keep any livestock or have any self defense options because in THEIR OPINION its not right. Thats just what these rulings are. THEIR OPINION. And they trump the states rights and constitution and they trump the voice of the people. You know the ones that are supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Thats too much power for just a handful of people in this country to over rule the voice of the millions in any case.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I could care less who marries. It doesnt affect me and my house and I only have to answer for how I lived my life. But no matter how you look at it, anytime the Supreme Court overrules the constitution of a state and the voice of its people, it is never a good thing. You say its there job to do whats right not popular. What are you gonna say when they say you have no rights to say grow your own food or keep any livestock or have any self defense options because in THEIR OPINION its not right. Thats just what these rulings are. THEIR OPINION. And they trump the states rights and constitution and they trump the voice of the people. You know the ones that are supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Thats too much power for just a handful of people in this country to over rule the voice of the millions in any case.


The voice of the people, in many states, thought keeping black slaves, was the right thing to do. Some still do today.

That doesn't mean that it was right.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I did a lot of research my final year of law school regarding something that dovetailed into gay marriage rights. This was 15 years ago, and through my research I determined that a ban on gay marriage was unconstituional. 

A court's job is to determine whether laws, voted on by the majority or not, are constitutional. It is very uncomfortable to have a court overrule the will of the people, but courts are one of the checks on not just the two other arms of govt but also the people who may vote in an uncostitutional law.

The big problem with this whole gay marriage thing is, though, that some courts don't seem to have an issue with trampling the free speech or religious rights of others. If gays want to get married at city hall or a church that will marry gays, fine. But don't force churches to have gay marriage ceremonies on church property (yes that happened). Don't force wedding vendors to bake cakes for or photograph gay weddings. Don't fire people or take their livelihoods for just stating an honest belief, with no evidence that they have ever otherwise discriminated.

I support gay marriage. How could I not? It's *not* just a piece of paper. I learned that when I got married and witnessed how dh's and my relationship changed and became deeper. But, this battle would best be won by hearts and minds or by time instead of this weird witch hunt that has materialized.

I, personally, know people who were all for gay marriage until the militant side of gay rights started to seek out any who disagree and inflict punishment. Forcing the issue is losing allies, not gaining them.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

My cat's opinion on the matter. He typed it with his behind.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

plowjockey said:


> The voice of the people, in many states, thought keeping black slaves, was the right thing to do. Some still do today.
> 
> That doesn't mean that it was right.


I have interracial family members. They are so hurt by and hate to have their trials compared to those of gay rights. They had to wear their difference on the outside everyday of their life. It was not a matter of who their sexual partner was but by what they looked like. Many gays cant be picked from the crowd and do not suffer a tenth of the persecution the African Americans did. It was not something African Americans could hide or keep private. Do I think anybody should hide who they are? No. Having a gay aunt and cousin I understand. But I also understand that both have been in good relationships with the opposite sex and chose to go the other way. Nor do I think that anyone should have a belief forced on them, their business or their religious rights. Forcing people to accept something that is against their beliefs no matter how you paint it is wrong. And even worse is doing what the miami dolphins did to their player who spoke out against it and they suspended, fined and forced him to go to therapy to address his issue with gays and be reprogrammed to go along. That is just scary. And all he did was tweet one word. Horrible. When Michael Sam was drafted. No name calling or long rants. Just Horrible. And he had to be reprogrammed to accept what is against his beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> the voice of the people, in many states, thought keeping black slaves, was the right thing to do. Some still do today.
> 
> That doesn't mean that it was right.


which states want to keep black slave ...please enlighten me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is against my faith. I will not expend any energy to promote it. Heck remove all tax benefits from marriage and children. Flat tax, allow each person to select who the wish to inherit, who they support as a unit, who they are close enough to see the in a hospital gown.

I really do not care who any one is emotionally involved with or sexually interested in. It is not my business.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Here in Wisconsin there is a dilemma. We currently have laws on the books limiting political contributions. These are being challenged from the right based on the Citizens United decision using the rationale that state law cannot trump the constitution. At the same time they are arguing that our gay marriage ban (recently overturned by a federal court) should stand due to state's rights supremacy. It seems difficult, to me, justifying trumpeting states rights in one case and cavalierly dismissing them in another.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Another gain for individual rights.

Religious beliefs give no one a legal right to discriminate against someone's God-given orientation. As long as consenting adults are involved, you marry whomever you fall in love with, they marry whomever they fall in love with. You are still free to follow a God who discriminates and churches are still free to follow their doctrines. Doesn't make it right, but you are free to believe it does, even if gays are legally allowed the same rights as others.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

SunsetSonata said:


> Another gain for individual rights.
> 
> Religious beliefs give no one a legal right to discriminate against someone's God-given orientation. As long as consenting adults are involved, you marry whomever you fall in love with, they marry whomever they fall in love with. You are still free to follow a God who discriminates and churches are still free to follow their doctrines. Doesn't make it right, but you are free to believe it does, even if gays are legally allowed the same rights as others.


+ + + + + + + +
from opposite sides of the SAME fence. 

On the one hand you mention not discriminating against someone's

God-given orientation, while in the next breath, you talk about being

free to follow a God who discriminates. 

The paradox in your 'reasoning' is simply astounding!

Orientation is a matter of choice, just like who one chooses who they wish to marry.

It's a matter of the will. Not really much different than my choosing NOT 

to rob the local bank today. I might think about it. . . might even want to do it,

but deep, down inside, I choose not to, as I know it's not the right thing to do.

Anything else (and anyone else who believes and argues differently)

simply flies in the face of GOD and what has been set up as normal in nature.

And sin, no matter what form it takes or is allowed to manifest, is not normal.

All creation groans because of it . . .


I know it's not the 'politically correct' answer so many are wanting to hear . .
But the new morality police haven't been able to silence me - at least not yet.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

SunsetSonata said:


> Another gain for individual rights.
> 
> Religious beliefs give no one a legal right to discriminate against someone's God-given orientation. As long as consenting adults are involved, you marry whomever you fall in love with, they marry whomever they fall in love with. You are still free to follow a God who discriminates and churches are still free to follow their doctrines. Doesn't make it right, but you are free to believe it does, even if gays are legally allowed the same rights as others.


Um, if you disagree with God, guess who is wrong. You think you have the moral high ground over God? :shrug:

And btw, your secular humanist progressive beliefs don't give you the right to put limits on the free exercise of my faith. I fully expect to be persecuted for my beliefs in the very near future by those that think like you. Tolerance is a one-way street for liberals and it wouldn't be the first time a believer was jailed/punished for choosing to obey God rather than man (the state).

Of course, you have a perfect right to choose to obey man rather than God. Just be prepared for the consequences from a more powerful entity than the government.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> IN too.
> 
> The Supreme court's job, is to do what's right, not what most popular.


The Supreme Court's job is to do what is legally right, not necessarily what is morally right. But I agree with FeralFemale that it is legally right.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

my3boys said:


> Um, if you disagree with God, guess who is wrong. You think you have the moral high ground over God? :shrug:
> 
> And btw, your secular humanist progressive beliefs don't give you the right to put limits on the free exercise of my faith. I fully expect to be persecuted for my beliefs in the very near future by those that think like you. Tolerance is a one-way street for liberals and it wouldn't be the first time a believer was jailed/punished for choosing to obey God rather than man (the state).
> 
> Of course, you have a perfect right to choose to obey man rather than God. Just be prepared for the consequences from a more powerful entity than the government.


I want to be careful as not to insult your belief. But I do not see how you can be persecuted for your belief that gay marriage is wrong. You are not required to marry one, perform a marriage for one or as far as I can tell even believe in it. 

I happen to support gay marriage but I also support your right not too on a personal level.

I am a non believer in god, never have been but I support your right to believe as you wish as long it does not interfere with others.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Try being a cakemaker.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

keenataz said:


> I want to be careful as not to insult your belief. But I do not see how you can be persecuted for your belief that gay marriage is wrong. You are not required to marry one, perform a marriage for one or as far as I can tell even believe in it.
> 
> I happen to support gay marriage but I also support your right not too on a personal level.
> 
> I am a non believer in god, never have been but I support your right to believe as you wish as long it does not interfere with others.


Ask the believers in this country who are bakers and photographers and refused to provide services to gays because it would violate their beliefs, which extend to how they run their privately-owned businesses.

Ask the people who have dared to express their opinion that marriage is only between a man and a women and have lost their jobs.

Next it will be pastors that refuse to marry gays. 

The time is quickly coming when those of us that dare to defy the state-mandated redefinition of marriage will have to choose between serving and obeying God or the state.

I do appreciate your respectful attitude towards me and my beliefs, though. Some here aren't as understanding.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

I wish that the people that use their beliefs as the reason for their stance against gay marriage would have the intestinal fortitude or whatever to stand up for all the 'marriages' that their specific religion allows. Instead of fighting against (or speaking out against) the one that their 'religion' does not allow, you would think that they (if they are truly being 'believers') would be out fighting for their religiously approved 'marriages'.

Alas, it isn't so. But I guess it is easier to fight against one form of marriage than to admit that their 'religion' allows many, many varieties of marriage. After all, for all the outrage and discussion afforded the 'gay marraige' issue, those same people don't stand up nearly as much for polygamy, or the other ones that are allowed.

Oh, they will knock some o the marriages allowed because they are in the "Old Testament' but will speak loudly about the 10 commandments....go figure that......

Good luck. For me, I would rather stand up for what my religion or beliefs allow and not worry so much about others. To talk about a war on 'religion' yet only speak out against others and don't fight for your own religious definitions...., just doesn't seem to make any sense.......


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> from opposite sides of the SAME fence.
> 
> On the one hand you mention not discriminating against someone's
> ...


Sexual orientation is not a choice.Your opinion is skewed if you believe that.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Then I suppose my opinion is skewed, as is yours for your view.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Whenever someone says that being gay is a choice made...I try to think back when I made the choice that I liked girls (or now, women). Can't honestly say that I can pinpoint it, or that I had much of a choice with the way I was hardwired. So if I can't figure out when I decided and chose that I wanted to be with the female of my specie, I certainly wouldn't think that someone else could pinpoint when they 'chose' to be gay.

But I guess, that means that if you chose (and by the post, perhaps we can deduce that CopperKid *chose* to be 'non-gay') then that means you were thinking about it (both aspects) and made the choice.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> which states want to keep black slave ...please enlighten me.


Sorry, I meant that some people still do, not any individual states (that I know of). 

I should have worded it better.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

my3boys said:


> Ask the believers in this country who are bakers and photographers and refused to provide services to gays because it would violate their beliefs, which extend to how they run their privately-owned businesses.


Hmmm. What would Jesus want?

I don't understand this. It's just baking a cake.

Using the Christian rationale.

How is a U.S. Soldier, a Christian, to fight beside, defend, save, maybe even give up his(her) own life, for any fellow U.S. soldier, who is non-christian?



> âIf a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, âLet us go after other gods,â which you have not known, âand let us serve them,â you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. *But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. *


http://www.openbible.info/topics/worship_of_false_gods

Cafeteria Christianity?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Ask the believers in this country who are bakers and photographers and refused to provide services to gays because it would violate their beliefs,


They would have a shred more credibility if they also refused to serve people who were on their second, third or fourth marriage, or who were cohabiting prior to marriage, which also ought to violate their beliefs. No?

Why are gay couples singled out for special treatment?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Gays would not be singled out just as nobody would be singled out in any place of business unless they tell them. But your right. Christians need to be more diligent is practicing what the preach. But if a person says hey I want a cake for my 5th wedding then you should be able to say sorry I cant unless that persons previous 4 spouses all passed away. Then they are free to marry. But who says this is my fifth wedding to a stranger? Same with gays. Any baker would bake them a cake unless they say its for a gay wedding. Then they should be able to say I cant do that.

And that quote from Deut there is about not being decieved and follow other Gods and not being persuaded to follow that which is sin. Much like people trying to persuade christians that same sex anything is ok. Those are the sinful deceptions God is speaking about. God said in Gen. Man shall leave his family and take his wife and the wife the same. Then when asked about marriage Jesus said. Have you not heard what was written in the beggining. A man shall leave his family and take a wife and the wife the same. And Christ will be the head of man and the man the head of the woman. So God set the rules Jesus confirmed them. People to often go around acting like God and Jesus had two different beliefs and rules. They didnt. What says the father so says the son. What was sin to God is sin to Jesus. As was confirmed by Paul.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

The biggest LGBT mass wedding in history happened today in Toronto. 150 couples who travelled from all around the world for the wedding got married in today's ceremony which was organized to coincide with this year's World Pride celebrations.


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Gays would not be singled out just as nobody would be singled out in any place of business unless they tell them. But your right. Christians need to be more diligent is practicing what the preach. But if a person says hey I want a cake for my 5th wedding then you should be able to say sorry I cant unless that persons previous 4 spouses all passed away. Then they are free to marry. But who says this is my fifth wedding to a stranger? Same with gays. Any baker would bake them a cake unless they say its for a gay wedding. Then they should be able to say I cant do that.


interesting but flawed, couples usually like to plan their wedding together. A couple does not walk in to any place of business with the number of spouse they are on emblazoned on their chest, but if if i walk in to a bakery with my soon to be wife and we ask for a cake. the fact that we are both women is fairly obvious. its a celebration of love, why should i have to hide that. 

if you cant treat people like Jesus would want you too, then maybe you shouldn't be a Christian business person.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mrsgcpete said:


> interesting but flawed, couples usually like to plan their wedding together. A couple does not walk in to any place of business with the number of spouse they are on emblazoned on their chest, but if if i walk in to a bakery with my soon to be wife and we ask for a cake. the fact that we are both women is fairly obvious. its a celebration of love, why should i have to hide that.
> 
> if you cant treat people like Jesus would want you too, then maybe you shouldn't be a Christian business person.


Your right. I feel no one should be treated different. But at the same time the true Jesus of the bible teaches us to love everyone. But he also says do not condone or support sin. Or cast your lot, meaning support for any sin. For if you do its as if you are doing the sin yourself. And no matter how you want to look at it. In the bible its a sin. So if a christian says ok ill just go along with it then your putting your stamp of approval on it. And while it may not be popluar with the world to say no, its right with God. God has said many times dont go along with the world or the majority. For neither are ever found in his favor. Think about it. When he destroyed the world with flood he found only one rightious man. Just one. Noah. And he saved him and his family. So 8 people of the countless millions or even billions were the only ones found to be in Gods favor. Same with Soddom and Gommorah. They were destroyed for the same things we are allowing today and he saved only lot and his family. So of the many only the few were found to have true faith and love for God. The bible says in the last days what is evil will be seen as good and good as evil and that things will be happening at a speed of times, times and times again. Meaning so fast we cant even imagine it. Well every single day their is some new ruling or new major this or that for what the bible considers sin. And its happening quick. And its not just gay marriage but all sorts of sinful things that are being seen as good. Churches are coming in droves to teach thesame things the wold is saying. And the bible said that would happen too. The churches will look the same as the world. So as a true believer you have to be prepared to stand for your faith and God and stand against what the world says is right and face the persecution for it. And who is being attacked from all sides to day? Christians and religious freedoms. Something that was unheard of just 10,15 20 years ago. From the 50's through the 80's over 90% of Americans said they believed in God. Today its around 70% and declining. Now you think of Americas most prosperous years and all the many years of good fortune and growth and blessings. As our belief in God has faded so have those traits and we are getting worse by the day. Sadly few people recognie that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

You know something else? This is a homesteading site with quite a few preppers. Wether for natural disaster, hard times or govt takeover. Whatever your reasoning many here to it. Did you know God was the biggest prepper and even homesteader ever? The bibel is full of warnings of the tribulations and trials to come and he tells us how to prepare for them. He tells us to stock our storehouse's and flee to mountains. He tells us we should not be in the city where it will be much worse and tells us if we are there dont come out of our houses and stay on the rooftops. The bible also tells us about different easy make foods and gives receipes for breads, medicines ect.. God knows whats coming and how hard things are going to get on all levels and he is trying to prepare us. But the fact this was all written 2500 years ago and is confirmed today shoudl show us the word is true. Thats why christians have a tough choice everyday. Go with the world, or God? So we have to show every person love and kindness without treating them as though the continuation of sin is ok. Thats a hard thing to do. So it has nothing to do with hating anyone. We are commanded to love all and I do to the best of my ability. Its a matter of honoring our God and holding to our faith and salvation. Unlike just a few years, that sounds funny and over the top today. But my God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Never changing. So neither should our faith or beliefs as long as they line up with the word. So I will never treat anyone different nor will I march and protest against them. But when faced with the decision or the oppertunity to share the truth I will. For there is a big difference in Judging someone and telling them the truth. Judging means you have condemed them and written them off. Telling them what they are doing is sin, is spreading Gods word. not judging. People confuse the two many times.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

As Christians, it is our duty to speak out against sin. As humans, we all sin and have all fallen short of the glory of GOD. The problem in the eyes of man with speaking out against sin, is someone can always point out our sins, and label us as hypocrites.
Just the nature of being a flesh and blood human, makes us all hypocrites, even those amongst us who are Christians. Only one man ever walked this earth free from sin, yet with his dying breath, he took on the sin of the entire world.
Sin is sin, with denying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being the only unforgivable sin. But just because a sin is forgivable, doesn't mean the sinner will be forgiven. And if the sinner is forgiven, that doesn't mean he still won't be punished for the sin. 
To be forgiven of the sin, you must confess it, and repent of it. And I truely believe that if someone supports the sin, knowing deep down that it is sin, his punishment may be greater than the one commiting the sin itself.
GOD intended man to be with woman. 
I know my belief is quite unpopular with the masses these days, but honestly, I value GOD's opinion of me much higher than I do man's opinion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

With all this sin that jus happening today this country is going to heck in a hand basket so fast it is a dirty shame, what is going on in the eyes of God.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

wwubben said:


> Sexual orientation is not a choice.Your opinion is skewed if you believe that.


+ + + + + + + + 
Take up your 'problem' regarding that matter with HIM.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> With all this sin that jus happening today this country is going to heck in a hand basket so fast it is a dirty shame, what is going on in the eyes of God.


I suppose it could be seen as a means to an end.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Thats the things many Christians dont realize. Things have to get worse as they are and will continue to get even worse for the bible to play out as it says. There is coming a time of such great hardship that the world has never seen or will ever see again. And many Christians think they are just gonna fly away and not face any of it. Wrong! The bible tells us we will be here and see it all. Jesus said AFTER the tribulation of those and the sun refuses her light and the antichrist is revealed only then will he come. God tells the plagues not to harm those of use with his seal. Thats why he spends so much time preparing us for the hard times to come. But that is another deception of the church that everyone gets a get out of tribulaation and trials free card. lol


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Just thinking about what we will be facing, and what is going on in this country, really makes me long for my secluded island off by itself. Obviously it wouldn't be secluded from the wrath of GOD, but it could be secluded from the agrivated wrath of man.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Personally there should be no gov interference in marriage. There is no constitutional reference to marriage, there should be no law regarding it. 
Nor in who we decide to do business with. Period.

Now to my fellow Christians who get dragged into these nanny nanny boo boo threads. 

Please remember what Christ said to the 70 when he sent them out. (Luke 10) It is not our place to stand and argue. Give the Lord's message if it is accepted wonderful. If it is not, shake off the dust and walk away. 

Remember Christ said he did NOT come to bring peace, but a sword that would divide families. That sword is the word of God. (Mat 10)

Take heed of 1 Thess. 4:11 where we are urged to mind our OWN affairs and live quietly, not arguing with outsiders. 

Lastly study Jude, where these things were all predicted to happen and be in prayer for not just our country but for our world. 

Let the children of darkness remain in darkness as that is their choice not ours. Just quit feeding them since it just gives them opportunity to mock our Lord. Those who seriously wish to study the biblical answers can pm any of us who study and we will be happy to share God's word with you.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

MJsLady said:


> Personally there should be no gov interference in marriage. There is no constitutional reference to marriage, there should be no law regarding it.
> Nor in who we decide to do business with. Period.
> 
> Now to my fellow Christians who get dragged into these nanny nanny boo boo threads.
> ...


 Thank you, I suppose that was the slap in the face many, myself imcluded, needed.
Lead by example, not condemnation.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> from opposite sides of the SAME fence.
> 
> On the one hand you mention not discriminating against someone's
> ...


A God. Not a God who discriminates. You are free to believe in one that does. I don't believe anything in which you have written, so your points are moot to me. If there is a God, He will not discriminate. You can choose to marry whatever sex you want, but that doesn't change your orientation whatever it is. You still desire who you desire and love who you love. Same thing for those who married the wrong person. Though, there are those who have never been in love who seem to think it's a matter of choice (not assuming who these people are, just that I know they're out there).


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

SunsetSonata said:


> A God. Not a God who discriminates. You are free to believe in one that does. I don't believe anything in which you have written, so your points are moot to me. If there is a God, He will not discriminate. You can choose to marry whatever sex you want, but that doesn't change your orientation whatever it is. You still desire who you desire and love who you love. Same thing for those who married the wrong person. Though, there are those who have never been in love who seem to think it's a matter of choice (not assuming who these people are, just that I know they're out there).


So by your description of things a man could say love a child because thats what they desire. That wouldnt be very cool huh? No. Its just what you said it is. A sexual desire. And like the man loving and desiring a child which is gross this too was once looked upon as vulger. This does open the door for said man to say hey I love this child and convince the parents to sign off on a marriage for say financial gain or whatever else. That still wouldnt be cool. But when love and desire become the basis for marriage without limitations you open a door to a slippery slope. People often ask when did you know you were straight? I always say that as soon as I could remember seeing mom and dad and thinking to myself ok. Thats how this works and it feels right. Many of the gay people I have met including my cousin come from broken homes and never experienced that love and normality. And the fact also remains that many gay men and women have had relationships with the opposite sex. And let me tell you something from a mans perpsective. If you are not attracted to the person you are with your male part wont so much as wiggle. lol So if they can infact be with and perform with someone of the opposite sex it means they ae attracted to them and could if they so chose to carry on a normal relationship.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> So if they can infact be with and perform with someone of the opposite sex it means they ae attracted to them and could if they so chose to carry on a normal relationship.


I believe that's what's called bi-sexuality. 

The "_normal_" relationship would be whichever kind of relationship it is that provides the most comfort and happiness for the two people involved in that relationship. Their gender doesn't really have anything to do with "_normalcy_".


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

What I'm seeing out of this discussion is that there are some generous people who want a certain group of people to be able to have the right to pursue happiness and there are some other niggardly people who want to deny a certain group of people from having the right to pursue happiness.

The reasons for being generous or being niggardly about other people's happiness are not relevant to the certain group of people who are trying to achieve the right to pursue happiness.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Paumon said:


> What I'm seeing out of this discussion is that there are some generous people who want a certain group of people to be able to have the right to pursue happiness and there are some other niggardly people who want to deny a certain group of people from having the right to pursue happiness.
> 
> The reasons for being generous or being niggardly about other people's happiness are not relevant to the certain group of people who are trying to achieve the right to pursue happiness.


You forgot to mention, when regards to the types of people on each side of this discussion,
There are those who will ultimately be rewarded for upholding their beliefs, and then there are others who will burn in the fiery pits of hell for their beliefs.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

MJsLady said:


> Personally there should be no gov interference in marriage. There is no constitutional reference to marriage, there should be no law regarding it.
> Nor in who we decide to do business with. Period.
> 
> Now to my fellow Christians who get dragged into these nanny nanny boo boo threads.
> ...


Thank you for posting that. These are very wise words indeed. While I don't agree with your choice of words to describe disparate beliefs and the people who hold to them, I do agree with the sentiment. If only more _"children of the light"_ would heed those wise words the world would be a much happier and more peaceful place and all the _"children of the dark"_ could get on with their lives in pursuit of happiness, well being and prosperity.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

my3boys said:


> Ask the believers in this country who are bakers and photographers and refused to provide services to gays because it would violate their beliefs, which extend to how they run their privately-owned businesses.
> 
> Ask the people who have dared to express their opinion that marriage is only between a man and a women and have lost their jobs.
> 
> ...


In the post regarding the baker and gay marriage, I stated that when the gay couple is trying to make a political point, it is wrong. If the couple has no other option, I would hope some compromise could be worked out.

As far as getting fired, as long as it is giving a personal view in a private conversation, should not be fired. If it can be inferred is expresiving corporate view, that could be an issue

As far as forcing pastors, ministers etc to conduct ceremony, totally wrong and the gay community could lose support if they pushed it

Again I am pro gay marriage but they have to use common sense


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> You forgot to mention, when regards to the types of people on each side of this discussion,
> There are those who will ultimately be rewarded for upholding their beliefs, and then there are others who will burn in the fiery pits of hell for their beliefs.


I think the people who are looking to achieve simple happiness for themselves in their relationships probably don't care about what the reward seekers think. All they know is that the reward seekers don't want them to be happy. 

It's really hard to take the reward seeking self-righteous holy book thumpers seriously once they get on a roll about pits of hell. It's only the reward seekers that get all twisted up worrying or having melt-downs about these imaginary rewards or imaginary fiery pits of hell. Honestly - how can any sensible person take that kind of raving seriously? They should just keep their ravings to themselves and let everyone else get on with their lives and pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I have seen no name calling and and bashing of people so far. But using words like Niggardly no matter the words original intent is also a jab and an entire culture of people. And no body here has stated that its their goal to rally and protest to stop anybody from doing anything. Its only been people sating their opinions and belief. Its now starting to show that those who support it like to start the bashing for beliefs and culturers and making fun of those with those beliefs. Again. Its the mindset of the left being the left. Only tollerant if you agree with them. We can ll agree to disagree. My aunt and cousin who are gay are welcome in my home and come over every thanksgiving. I love the dearly. But does that mean I have to agree with how they live? No. And thats just what it is. You dont have to agree with someone to love them or be polite to them. Heck our health food store is run by a gay guy. He is great. We have alot of great talks. Even when I walk in wearing my Jesus hat. HE respects my beliefs and I respect his. It wont change how I treat him. You think just because we are against it from a spiritual standpoint we hate them. Thatis not the case in many people.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Paumon, you are taking it wrong. 
You believe any person should be able to do whatever makes them happy, without outside opinion judging them, right?
Now can I ask, are you speaking of all people? No matter what? Or are you speaking with a split tongue and only feel that is the case on this peticular matter, and not so throughout other aspects of life?

I hope you don't feel yourself a hypocrite and if that is your position, you hold that belief to be true no matter who or what. That way anyone, in your opinion, should be free to be happy, no matter where they find happiness.




Of course, Eric Harris and Dillon Cleabold, both expressed how happy they would be to go down in a blaze of glory by total masacre at Columbine.
Bin Laden was very happy to see as many people die as possible on 911.
Adolf Hitler was beside himself with happiness over the holocaust.
Even to a lighter note, many, many people are happy to sit at home watching tv all day, collecting welfare because they don't want to work.
When I was 7 years old, my mom decided being a wife and mother didn't make her happy, but running away and becoming a lot lizard and crack head did.
Countless people found happiness in a needle, and died from it.
The list goes on and on....


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Dixie Bee Acres, this discussion is about LGBT people having the right to get married to the people that they love and wish to spend the rest of their lives with and be happy. 

There are some people who wish to see those people be happy and there are some people who wish to deny them their happiness. That's all it is.

All the rest of that stuff that you're angsting over is not relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Ok, then I will bow out. I have my opinions, you have yours.
But in my closing, ponder this, if you are right and I am wrong, upon my parting from this earth, it won't matter a bit. But, if I am right and you are wrong, upon your parting from this earth it will matter very greatly.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> Whenever someone says that being gay is a choice made...I try to think back when I made the choice that I liked girls (or now, women). Can't honestly say that I can pinpoint it, or that I had much of a choice with the way I was hardwired. So if I can't figure out when I decided and chose that I wanted to be with the female of my specie, I certainly wouldn't think that someone else could pinpoint when they 'chose' to be gay.
> 
> But I guess, that means that if you chose (and by the post, perhaps we can deduce that CopperKid *chose* to be 'non-gay') then that means you were thinking about it (both aspects) and made the choice.


++++++++++
to put words in my mouth that were never said, or to rationalize from
a flawed point of reckoning; again by attempting to reason APART from 
a point that I had made clear was what God had designed as 'natural'. 
Do I really have to teach you the ABC's of the birds & the bees?!!!

If so, then the basic premise is appendage A goes into slot B.

Before that occurs, there is the natural and normal attraction of the opposite sexes. 
Anything beyond that is deviant behavior and is a choice
of the individuals to partake of such.

You REALLY should have had this talk long ago with your parents, 
but if all you had were the back alleys and the mean streets of the city, 
then I guess it's self-explanatory why you would wish for things that are not normal.:bash:

You can deduce whatever your mind wishes it to, but the reasoning
behind it is already flawed, so the results will be skewed as well. 

Pity . . .


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

copperkid3 said:


> ++++++++++
> to put words in my mouth that were never said, or to rationalize from
> a flawed point of reckoning; again by attempting to reason APART from
> a point that I had made clear was what God had designed as 'natural'.
> ...


Perhaps you could have that talk with the 8-10% of rams that are homosexual?

I personally find that people respond better in a conversation when they're not talked down to, but to each their own.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Ok, then I will bow out. I have my opinions, you have yours.
> But in my closing, ponder this, if you are right and I am wrong, upon my parting from this earth, it won't matter a bit. But, if I am right and you are wrong, upon your parting from this earth it will matter very greatly.


Okay. I will give you something to ponder too. I hope you can follow the convoluted reasoning and don't get lost.

We are both agreed that you have your opinions and I have my opinions. Yes? Yes, we're agreed on that. 

You think my opinion is wrong for you but I think your opinion is right for you. If your religious belief is what makes you happy then I am very happy for you that your are happy. I won't try to control you or try to deny you your happiness in your beliefs. As long as you don't try to control my life with your beliefs and opinions that make you happy then we will both be happy. 

But will you be happy for me in my own happiness even if you don't agree with my beliefs, the way I am happy for you in your beliefs and happiness? I think maybe not, eh? That's okay by me though and I will still be happy for you even though you may be incapable of being happy for me. 

Your opinion is not right for me but it's not wrong for me either because I don't believe in the things that you believe in and therefore it doesn't really effect my life and my happiness. I don't let other people's beliefs control me. The same thing applies to these LGBT folks all over the world who are only trying to achieve happiness in their lives without being controlled and denied by people who don't believe in the same things as them. They should have the right to pursue their happiness.

I don't think you and I will be either right or wrong when we part from this earth. What happens then will not matter to me and I think it should not matter to anyone else. I especially think that you should not let it matter to you about whatever happens to me or other people when we part from this earth. Don't worry, be happy. There will be no right or wrong, no reward or punishment, there will just be a new chapter and a new location in the continuation of the story.

Be happy and try to be happy for everyone else in spite of your differences of opinions and beliefs. In the unlikely event that there is a reward for good behaviour in the afterlife then that generosity of happiness is what the reward will be for and continued happiness is what the reward will be. There certainly won't be any flaming pits of hell for being happy and for having allowed other people to be happy.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Mrs_Lewis said:


> Perhaps you could have that talk with the 8-10% of rams that are homosexual?
> 
> I personally find that people respond better in a conversation when they're not talked down to, but to each their own.


Are you not doing the same comparing them as many people do when talking about homosexual nature, to animals with no real cognitive thought process that act on pure impulse? Being raised around sheep I have never seen a ram not go for a ewe in heat. lol


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

This has been for the most part a polite debate. Which is where we should leave it. The beauty of free will is the right to believe as one chooses. We will al never agree on everything. At least not in our fleshly lives. So lets get back to good ol homesteading and learning to take care of ourselves, animals and gardens in this life. Being happy with whatever makes us happy.


----------



## Mrs_Lewis (May 15, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Are you not doing the same comparing them as many people do when talking about homosexual nature, to animals with no real cognitive thought process that act on pure impulse? Being raised around sheep I have never seen a ram not go for a ewe in heat. lol


http://www.sheep101.info/201/ramrepro.html


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> ++++++++++
> to put words in my mouth that were never said, or to rationalize from
> a flawed point of reckoning; again by attempting to reason APART from
> a point that I had made clear was what God had designed as 'natural'.
> ...


To put human behavior/sexuality, at the the exact same level as animal behavior/sexuality, seems to be more than slightly out of touch with reality, IMO.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

All that says is they don't mate anybody due to low sex drive. They callit homosexual but that's not gay. It's lazy. Lol


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

wwubben said:


> Sexual orientation is not a choice.Your opinion is skewed if you believe that.


Actually I believe x% of people are born Gay and Y% of people are born straight and everyone else falls somewhere in between. Nothing will change the X% and Y% people, its the inbetweeners that its a choice for.

Having said that I'm ok with gay marriage but keep the militants out of it.
If someone doesn't want to supply a cake or take photos because it violates their beliefs, then that should be fine.
And religions should NEVER be forced to violate their beliefs by having to preform a gay marriage.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It seems interesting, that from a bible standpoint, homosexuality is a _deal breaker_, while many others "sins" are accepted (e.g. Christain swingers),tolerated, ignored, or completely ignored.

Sometimes one wonders if Christianity is not being used to mask homophobia, or other feelings.

There seems to be some unusually strong opinions on the subject.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Not to hijack the thread but I must correct something:



Dixie Bee Acres said:


> with denying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being the only unforgivable sin.


Actually denying the Holy Ghost is the unpardonable sin, you can deny the Father and the Son and be forgiven.

Matt 12:31

KJV: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

NLT: "So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven--except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven.

I believe it means if you have a witness of the Father and the Son from the H.G. and then deny it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> Not to hijack the thread but I must correct something:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its the Holy Spirit that tugs at our hearts and gives the still small voice for us to follow. I believe its the first thing to call us when we first come to God. So to reject it means you never have a chance to learn of the Father and Son. Thus you never accept your salvation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ++++++++++
> to put words in my mouth that were never said, or to rationalize from
> a flawed point of reckoning; again by attempting to reason APART from
> a point that I had made clear was what God had designed as 'natural'.
> ...


If you're only going by the basic premise of appendage A and slot B you're missing a lot. Other slots and other appendages can be quite enjoyable in a variety of combinations.


----------



## Tex- (May 18, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Dixie Bee Acres, this discussion is about LGBT people having the right to get married to the people that they love and wish to spend the rest of their lives with and be happy.
> 
> There are some people who wish to see those people be happy and there are some people who wish to deny them their happiness. That's all it is.
> 
> All the rest of that stuff that you're angsting over is not relevant to the discussion.


I actually looked at this discussion as being about state's rights. Gay marriage just happens to be the feel good symptom of the day. What is the main affliction behind this discussion, is the further erosion of state's rights while the overreaching federal government continues to grow and get bigger.

We have several friends who are gay. When it comes to lifestyle choices, we just agree to disagree. We don't let trivial issues get in the way of people and friends caring about each other.

The overseeing of marriage, or the definition thereof, is not one of the issues granted to the federal government, therefore it is left up to the individual states. The people in each state have the right to decide what is legal within their borders. Over the last 40 years, the federal government has been encroaching more and more into state's rights issues that are not their concern.

If a person does not like the laws that are in place in a particular state, they have the right to move to another state that is more to their liking. According to our Constitution, they do not have the right to force their views on the greater populace. Unfortunately, we have a progressive government who is very interested in becoming the sole power and authority in this country and they are using causes such as this to do it. When state's rights are eventually terminated and a memory, rights of the individual will be the next thing to go. Then we will all get to be subjects of the crown.


Tex


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tex- said:


> I actually looked at this discussion as being about state's rights. Gay marriage just happens to be the feel good symptom of the day. What is the main affliction behind this discussion, is the further erosion of state's rights while the overreaching federal government continues to grow and get bigger.
> 
> We have several friends who are gay. When it comes to lifestyle choices, we just agree to disagree. We don't let trivial issues get in the way of people and friends caring about each other.
> 
> ...


State's rights and the laws that derive from them are only valid when those laws are not in conflict with the US Constitution. In this case the rulings overturning the bans generally derive from the equal protection clause. Would you make the same arguments regarding state's rights if the laws passed limited gun ownership?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> State's rights and the laws that derive from them are only valid when those laws are not in conflict with the US Constitution. In this case the rulings overturning the bans generally derive from the equal protection clause. Would you make the same arguments regarding state's rights if the laws passed limited gun ownership?


The constituion does not address gay marriage and the reason being is it was not even thought acceptable or even possible in their day or any day in the future to consider such a union. They do however specificaly target guns as a protected right. And gay people do have the right to marry. Its still there for them just in most states not to the same sex. But as stated there are many states that would welcome new residents. If you dont like your neighborhood you move. If you dont like your job you quite. This is no different. If you want to be in a more acceptable place go find it.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

It's amazing how many people don't support the Constitution.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The constituion does not address gay marriage and the reason being is it was not even thought acceptable or even possible in their day or any day in the future to consider such a union. They do however specificaly target guns as a protected right. And gay people do have the right to marry. Its still there for them just in most states not to the same sex. But as stated there are many states that would welcome new residents. If you dont like your neighborhood you move. If you dont like your job you quite. This is no different. If you want to be in a more acceptable place go find it.


That's good, that _you_ would be happy to pack and move, if someone was denying civil rights, you perceived, to be ones you were entitled to.

Very generous, indeed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> The constituion does not address gay marriage and the reason being is it was not even thought acceptable or even possible in their day or any day in the future to consider such a union. They do however specificaly target guns as a protected right. And gay people do have the right to marry. Its still there for them just in most states not to the same sex. But as stated there are many states that would welcome new residents. If you dont like your neighborhood you move. If you dont like your job you quite. This is no different. If you want to be in a more acceptable place go find it.


Or maybe I'm just stubborn enough to stay and try to make things better right where I'm at. I suppose Washington, Jefferson and a bunch of others we now consider heroes could have just moved on, right? There are many specific things not mentioned by the constitution that are still covered by broader clauses.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Constitution states.

The Ninth says: "The enumeration (list of rights ) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other (rights) retained by the people." *BY THE PEOPLE*! 

Here is what the supreme court says about the 9th. The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution&#8217;s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges&#8217; views against laws duly enacted by the people.

Meaning that judges cant use their opinion to speak against the voice of the people when the constitution doesnt directly adress an issue. So if this does, whichit will, get to the supreme court. This one especially it could be a long day.

The Tenth says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." *TO THE PEOPLE*! The fed govt has no place in marriage.

The Preface says: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." *WE THE PEOPLE ... SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY"! 

Marriage is not left to the states rather, it is left to THE PEOPLE. The States are left the ability to continue, as co-sovereign governmental entities to the federal government, legislation and powers granted in those states the people of those states and to continue in their COMMON LAW heritage. It is in the Common Law that we all assumed as a national heritage by the repeated words "THE PEOPLE", in which marriage are defined. Marriage is strictly proscribed long-established definition under all common laws in the states at the time they adopted the Constitution or at the time they became territories and states. In ALL cases marriage was defined as "man to woman". And since the constituiton does not address marriage in that capacity, its not the federal govt or judges place to overrule the people and powers of the state. Thats the most dangerous thing here is the overstepping of state power and the PEOPLES power.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Constitution states.
> 
> The Ninth says: "The enumeration (list of rights ) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other (rights) retained by the people." *BY THE PEOPLE*!
> 
> ...


The right to privacy was implicitly found by the Court within the fed constitution around 40 years ago. That right to privacy is the same right that gives you many civil liberties personal freedoms that the states, and the people of those states, may not infringe upon. The fed govt has the authority to enforce these rights, in the states even, through the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause.

There is debate about the correctness of the decision, I believe it was Griswold v Connecticut, amongst strict constitutionalists, but that is the state of our constitutional law today. Gay marrigage bans by the states will simply not pass scrutiny under the current line of constitutional interpretation regarding privacy rights. 

I knew this gay marriage thing has been coming for years and there was simply no way around it. Not without a lot of other rights being thrown in the toilet along with gay marriage.

It's here to stay, folks. Though I don't agree with someone's first amendment rights, rights explicitly not implicitly stated in the constitution, being trampled for these implicit rights. I don't remember much about how the Court has found in cases where groups/individuals have competing constitutional rights, though, and haven't got around to refreshing my memory on the topic. 

If you really start thinking about everything and all the consequences to every outcome, it starts to get really complicated, lol. I really don't see why it can't be as simple as *both* sides of the issue just agreeing to live and let live and mind your own business.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

FeralFemale said:


> It's here to stay, folks. Though I don't agree with someone's first amendment rights, rights explicitly not implicitly stated in the constitution, being trampled for these implicit rights. *I don't remember much about how the Court has found in cases where groups/individuals have competing constitutional rights,* though, and haven't got around to refreshing my memory on the topic.


That's when the court has the final say in the matter through _Rule of Law_. America and Canada are both Rule of Law nations and Rule of Law over-rides all constitutions, all heads of state and all the people. When The People and/or Heads of State can't agree on an issue and the issue is not adequately addressed by constitutions or when constitutions are in conflict with other constitutions (federal, state or provincial constitutions) then Rule of Law is resorted to decide on the issue and the courts will create a new law.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I was reading elsewhere last night that the state of Indiana did the same thing last week, knocked down the ban on gay marriage.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5b608c-fd69-11e3-beb6-9c0e896dbcd8_story.html

All the court cases are going the same way.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

painterswife said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5b608c-fd69-11e3-beb6-9c0e896dbcd8_story.html
> 
> All the court cases are going the same way.


Yes, it was inevitable of course.

From that article:



> It&#8217;s possible that in another year, the issue could be back before the U.S. Supreme Court &#8212; with the justices facing a clear-cut choice on whether to rule that gay marriage must be allowed in every state.


I think the above prediction is a foregone conclusion and that it will happen before a year goes by.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I was reading elsewhere last night that the state of Indiana did the same thing last week, knocked down the ban on gay marriage.


And late yesterday, a stay of ruling, or whatever it is called was issued. Meaning for now at least, the ban is back in place.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And even WI has STAYED the Ban YEAH Let those liberal judges stew in their own mess they made of this country for awhile. LOL


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Staying the bans is all part of the legal process. They have so much time to file appeals and move it through the court system. In the end it gets to the supreme court and we know how that ended for California.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Interesting, how a civil rights issue, always turns into a state's right issue.

News Flash!

The Gays are NOT going to go back into the closet, but let's waste time and money, forcing the issue to the Supreme court.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It also boils down every time to "who does same sex marriage harm". They can not prove that it harms anyone. That loses it for them every time.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

painterswife said:


> It also boils down every time to "who does same sex marriage harm". They can not prove that it harms anyone. That loses it for them every time.


Did you follow the testimony of the State's witnesses in the Michigan proceedings?

It was so pathetic is was laughable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> Did you follow the testimony of the State's witnesses in the Michigan proceedings?
> 
> It was so pathetic is was laughable.


No. I did just watch "The case against 8" It was really great. Even better when the activist against same sex marriage had to admit children do better with same sex parents than without two parents. By the end of the case that activist was no longer against same sex marriage.

You will also love this. One of the people they put on the stand a(William Tam) dmitted that the horrible things he believed about same sex marriage were true " *because they were on the internet*".


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

This forum has the most religious members of any that I visit online.

It also has the most hate and bigotry of any. 

Sad.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Tex- said:


> When it comes to lifestyle choices, we just agree to disagree.


It's not a lifestyle choice.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Work horse said:


> This forum has the most religious members of any that I visit online.
> 
> It also has the most hate and bigotry of any.
> 
> Sad.


This has been a rather polite debate and I dont recal seeing anyone say they hate a person. Only that they dont agree with changing the def of marriage and considering same sex marriage the norm. Thats not hating anyone. As far as being a bigot the original definition of bigot was A the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Then they added Gender identification to the list. Now I have seen no comments based on fear, distrust or hatred towards this topic. Only people standing on what their faith says and their hearts say is right about the subject but nothing hateful about the people who live that way. Have you seen anyone say they are screwed up in the head or mentally ill or anything of that nature? No. All you have seen is folks defending the sanctity of marriage and its definition.

I got a question on Gender ID. If I truely believe I am superman and I wear red underwear, a red cape and run around everyday telling people im superman. Does that make me superman? Or how about I say I feel as though I was supposed to be born a black man so I paint myself brown and start going to naacp meetings and a black church. How well will that go over? Saying you feel and believe something to be true does not make it so. I can identify as whatever I want but does that mean it should be accepted as truth? If I did those two things would it be considered ok or would I be considered a few pieces of bread short of a full loaf. And if it isnt considered ok then why would people not look at me a little funny? Its a double standard is what it is and all that PC stuff needs to go. Not everyone deserves a trophy and sometimes a spaid is a spaid.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This has been a rather polite debate and I dont recal seeing anyone say they hate a person. Only that they dont agree with changing the def of marriage and considering same sex marriage the norm. Thats not hating anyone. As far as being a bigot the original definition of bigot was A the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Then they added Gender identification to the list. Now I have seen no comments based on fear, distrust or hatred towards this topic. Only people standing on what their faith says and their hearts say is right about the subject but nothing hateful about the people who live that way. Have you seen anyone say they are screwed up in the head or mentally ill or anything of that nature? No. All you have seen is folks defending the sanctity of marriage and its definition.
> 
> I got a question on Gender ID. If I truely believe I am superman and I wear red underwear, a red cape and run around everyday telling people im superman. Does that make me superman? Or how about I say I feel as though I was supposed to be born a black man so I paint myself brown and start going to naacp meetings and a black church. How well will that go over? Saying you feel and believe something to be true does not make it so. I can identify as whatever I want but does that mean it should be accepted as truth? If I did those two things would it be considered ok or would I be considered a few pieces of bread short of a full loaf. And if it isnt considered ok then why would people not look at me a little funny? Its a double standard is what it is and all that PC stuff needs to go. Not everyone deserves a trophy and sometimes a spaid is a spaid.


I assume you identify yourself as heterosexual. Why should that be accepted as the truth? After all, we only have your word for it. You're correct that sometimes a spade is just a spade. And sometimes a homosexual is just a homosexual.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I assume you identify yourself as heterosexual. Why should that be accepted as the truth? After all, we only have your word for it. You're correct that sometimes a spade is just a spade. And sometimes a homosexual is just a homosexual.


Your right. I am a heterosexual man. So I walk, talk, dress and act like one. Im talking about those who dress, walk and talk the opposite of what they are. In Virginia they just passed a new law allowing any person in highschool who identifies with the opposite sex to dress like, use the same bathroom and showers and play on the same sports team as the sex they identify as do. So now some boy can put on a dress, say they are gay or female and shower with, use the bathroom with and play on the same team as my daughter. Can you not see how dangerous that is or ho wmessed up that is? Where does the nonsense stop?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Work horse said:


> This forum has the most religious members of any that I visit online.
> 
> It also has the most hate and bigotry of any.
> 
> Sad.


My two cents.

I've been here a long time and IMO, these are good people, who's beliefs are based on their own reality, same as everybody else.

The issue of Gays has been very complicated, throughout human history, from a physiological, religious and Governmental standpoint, so just automatically expecting everyone to "get on board", just does not seem realistic. 

Time, (maybe a long time) is going to change this.

I can say personally, that hate and bigotry - on at least some level, is not exclusive to the religious.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your right. I am a heterosexual man. So I walk, talk, dress and act like one. Im talking about those who dress, walk and talk the opposite of what they are. In Virginia they just passed a new law allowing any person in highschool who identifies with the opposite sex to dress like, use the same bathroom and showers and play on the same sports team as the sex they identify as do. So now some boy can put on a dress, say they are gay or female and shower with, use the bathroom with and play on the same team as my daughter. Can you not see how dangerous that is or ho wmessed up that is? Where does the nonsense stop?


But how do you know what "they are". You don't really know how their brain works, how their emotions function, or who they're really sexually attracted to any more than I know these things about you. I don't automatically dismiss the outward manifestations of heterosexuality you project but you are quick to dismiss others outward manifestations in regards to their sexuality as automatically false.

I'm trying to figure out the exact harm to your children you fear from having them interact with those different from themselves. At an early age most should know that different people have different body parts. I can't imagine that it will come as a surprise or harm them in any way to actually see them. I also don't see the harm in having children learn early on that we aren't all wired the same. It seems much healthier, to me, to recognize those differences rather than to force people to suppress or hide them.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This has been a rather polite debate and I dont recal seeing anyone say they hate a person. Only that they dont agree with changing the def of marriage and considering same sex marriage the norm. Thats not hating anyone. As far as being a bigot the original definition of bigot was A the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Then they added Gender identification to the list. Now I have seen no comments based on fear, distrust or hatred towards this topic. Only people standing on what their faith says and their hearts say is right about the subject but nothing hateful about the people who live that way. Have you seen anyone say they are screwed up in the head or mentally ill or anything of that nature? No. All you have seen is folks defending the sanctity of marriage and its definition.


Even if you aren't using the word "hate", I think it's hateful that anyone would want to prevent two people who love each other from getting married and living a normal life. 

It won't ruin your marriage to let others marry. 

If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, you don't have to. 

I'm so glad that gay marriage is starting to be more widely accepted. Even better to see that adoption, IVF babies, etc are also becoming easier for same-sex couples.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Work horse said:


> Even if you aren't using the word "hate", I think it's hateful that anyone would want to prevent two people who love each other from getting married and living a normal life.
> 
> It won't ruin your marriage to let others marry.
> 
> ...


Telling people that they are a hateful bigot because their faith and/or personal beliefs do not agree with yours is not going to get them to change their minds. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> But how do you know what "they are". You don't really know how their brain works, how their emotions function, or who they're really sexually attracted to any more than I know these things about you. I don't automatically dismiss the outward manifestations of heterosexuality you project but you are quick to dismiss others outward manifestations in regards to their sexuality as automatically false.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out the exact harm to your children you fear from having them interact with those different from themselves. At an early age most should know that different people have different body parts. I can't imagine that it will come as a surprise or harm them in any way to actually see them. I also don't see the harm in having children learn early on that we aren't all wired the same. It seems much healthier, to me, to recognize those differences rather than to force people to suppress or hide them.


Here is my reasoning. For the ones I stated above. Where do we draw the line? Answer that? Why shoudl my daughter have to be forced to shower and use the bathroom with boys with a penis because that boy thinks he is a girl? Is that normal or even safe? Second for the reason I have seen with my own eyes and the studies that have been done. If what you say is normal and natural, it would not have to be taught. Despite this debate we do not sit at home and bash anyone or teach our kids to hate anyone. A while ago we went to the shoe store to buy shoes for the kids. Two boys about 18 or 20 were in there and were obviously partners. They were trying on womens shoes and even high heels. My kids and another families kids were so confused. Mine couldnt understand it and I could tell by the looks of the other kids in there they didnt either. Why? Just like a study that was done recently involving kids exsposed to same sex couples and those not exposed. The kids who were not exposed could not understand the behavior, dress and lifestyle of same sex people. It was very confusing to them because it goes against how they are wired naturaly. Even the kids who had been around at least one same sex couple when asked what makes a family, 79% said mom and dad. These things do not come natural to children therefor they must be programmed to accept it. Where as a mom and dad household just fits. And most kids outside of that inviroment have a tendency to develope behavioral and attatchment issues down the road. So I dont teach my kids to hate anybody. I let them decide for themselves what is right and wrong. But Im not going to tell them that smething that feels wrong to them is right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Here is my reasoning. For the ones I stated above. Where do we draw the line? Answer that? Why shoudl my daughter have to be forced to shower and use the bathroom with boys with a penis because that boy thinks he is a girl? Is that normal or even safe? Second for the reason I have seen with my own eyes and the studies that have been done. If what you say is normal and natural, it would not have to be taught. Despite this debate we do not sit at home and bash anyone or teach our kids to hate anyone. A while ago we went to the shoe store to buy shoes for the kids. Two boys about 18 or 20 were in there and were obviously partners. They were trying on womens shoes and even high heels. My kids and another families kids were so confused. Mine couldnt understand it and I could tell by the looks of the other kids in there they didnt either. Why? Just like a study that was done recently involving kids exsposed to same sex couples and those not exposed. The kids who were not exposed could not understand the behavior, dress and lifestyle of same sex people. It was very confusing to them because it goes against how they are wired naturaly. Even the kids who had been around at least one same sex couple when asked what makes a family, 79% said mom and dad. These things do not come natural to children therefor they must be programmed to accept it. Where as a mom and dad household just fits. And most kids outside of that inviroment have a tendency to develope behavioral and attatchment issues down the road. So I dont teach my kids to hate anybody. I let them decide for themselves what is right and wrong. But Im not going to tell them that smething that feels wrong to them is right.


You can draw the line wherever you wish. I might choose to draw it elsewhere. As a society we will continue to revise and refine where that line is drawn. It will make some uncomfortable because it is drawn too far to one side or the other. That is the nature of living in a society that embraces the freedoms ours does.

I don't know the ages of your children or the other children present. My daughter was exposed to people with what might be considered alternative lifestyles from a fairly young age. She likely wouldn't have been confused or uncomfortable in that situation at all. Hopefully you and the other parents used it as a teaching and learning experience. What you taught and what you hoped they learned is entirely up to you. 

I'll trust that the statistics you cited are accurate. They aren't surprising. The vast majority of families most children see are composed of a father, mother and children. I don't know how the question was phrased or what options were given for answers but given that many children might not have ever interacted with a family compose of same sex parents the number identifying a father and mother as the norm might even seem a bit low to me. I'd have to see more details of the study.

I'm glad you don't teach hate. I don't think that most opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some are misinformed, some are fearful, some have legitimate beliefs to the contrary, and yes, some are haters. Whatever the reasons the tides are shifting against them an I think that's a good thing.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Male and female is natural.
Without male and female (dad and mom) procreation cannot happen.
Believe in creation, or evolution, whatever you wish, but that fact remains constant.
Humans were designed, to reproduce, to reproduce requires a male and a female. That is fact, that is natural. Humans were not designed to rely on outside sources to provide unnatural interference or procedure to allow them to reproduce.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> You can draw the line wherever you wish. I might choose to draw it elsewhere. As a society we will continue to revise and refine where that line is drawn. It will make some uncomfortable because it is drawn too far to one side or the other. That is the nature of living in a society that embraces the freedoms ours does.
> 
> I don't know the ages of your children or the other children present. My daughter was exposed to people with what might be considered alternative lifestyles from a fairly young age. She likely wouldn't have been confused or uncomfortable in that situation at all. Hopefully you and the other parents used it as a teaching and learning experience. What you taught and what you hoped they learned is entirely up to you.
> 
> ...


See I can't draw the line where I wish. The govt. Is telling me where that line has to be and I have to be ok with it. That's why this is such a debate. They are forcing my kids to be uncomfortable and in dangerous positions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Male and female is natural.
> Without male and female (dad and mom) procreation cannot happen.
> Believe in creation, or evolution, whatever you wish, but that fact remains constant.
> Humans were designed, to reproduce, to reproduce requires a male and a female. That is fact, that is natural. Humans were not designed to rely on outside sources to provide unnatural interference or procedure to allow them to reproduce.


What does that have to do with marriage. Marriage is not about procreation. It is about either the legalities of a relation ship or your relationship with your God.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> See I can't draw the line where I wish. The govt. Is telling me where that line has to be and I have to be ok with it. That's why this is such a debate. They are forcing my kids to be uncomfortable and in dangerous positions.


Uncomfortable maybe....... which is most likely attributable to conditioning.... dangerous? What possible danger is involved with being exposed to someone elses lifestyle?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> See I can't draw the line where I wish. The govt. Is telling me where that line has to be and I have to be ok with it. That's why this is such a debate. They are forcing my kids to be uncomfortable and in dangerous positions.


You haven't told me what the danger is. Someone with a penis who had no sexual interest in her showering with your daughter? What of the lesbian sharing the same shower or locker room. It's been going on for ages and how would you know? You always have a choice. Don't want your child to be exposed to anyone of the LGBT community. Keep her locked at home.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Male and female is natural.
> Without male and female (dad and mom) procreation cannot happen.
> Believe in creation, or evolution, whatever you wish, but that fact remains constant.
> Humans were designed, to reproduce, to reproduce requires a male and a female. That is fact, that is natural. Humans were not designed to rely on outside sources to provide unnatural interference or procedure to allow them to reproduce.


You are correct, male and female are required for reproduction.

I married for love, not to reproduce.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> You haven't told me what the danger is. Someone with a penis who had no sexual interest in her showering with your daughter? What of the lesbian sharing the same shower or locker room. It's been going on for ages and how would you know? You always have a choice. Don't want your child to be exposed to anyone of the LGBT community. Keep her locked at home.


Because at that age hormones can cause many things to happen. Their natural wiring may kick in or their couriosity and an innocent girl could be hurt. Not to mention the right that my daughter holds to not see a boys sexual parts until marriage. Throughout time there has been men and women and different respectful things for both. Including restrooms and showers. That should not be blured or changed. Thats where morality and class comes in. The vast majority should not be put in a situation uncomfortable to them because of the very few. If you have male parts, you shower with males plain and simple. Especially in a school setting at that age. Anyone who argues otherwise is foolish. As far as lesbians in there. Well unless she is packing an artificial device she wont be raping my daughter.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because at that age hormones can cause many things to happen. Their natural wiring may kick in or their couriosity and an innocent girl could be hurt. Not to mention the right that my daughter holds to not see a boys sexual parts until marriage. Throughout time there has been men and women and different respectful things for both. Including restrooms and showers. That should not be blured or changed. Thats where morality and class comes in. The vast majority should not be put in a situation uncomfortable to them because of the very few. If you have male parts, you shower with males plain and simple. Especially in a school setting at that age. Anyone who argues otherwise is foolish. As far as lesbians in there. Well unless she is packing an artificial device she wont be raping my daughter.


How about, teach your kids to be respectful of others and to not stare?

This is not about morality or class. Life is not easy for transgendered or intersexed people.  

But this doesn't have much to do with preventing gay people from getting married.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Work horse said:


> How about, teach your kids to be respectful of others and to not stare?
> 
> This is not about morality or class. Life is not easy for transgendered or intersexed people.
> 
> But this doesn't have much to do with preventing gay people from getting married.


Sorry but no 13 year old girl should be put in that position not to stare. And how many boys will pretend to be gay just to take advantage of the law? Its a dangerous slope. Next thing you know it will be the same for gay gym teachers to be able to go in the girls dressing room and shower room. Thats just crazy!! And it is a morality issue. Girls or boys trying to have moral guidlines and parenst who set the should not be put in that position. And how about the girls in the boys shower room? You know thats gonna lead to a bunch of misconduct and sexual predators abusing girls who think they are boys. Thing is they arent boys so they cant fight off a boy or group of them. And then the straight gym teacher gets to see a naked girl and maybe even snap a pic or two for child porn. So both are in danger no matter what. Where does it stop????Its crazy to think anything else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Sorry but no 13 year old girl should be put in that position not to stare. And how many boys will pretend to be gay just to take advantage of the law? Its a dangerous slope. Next thing you know it will be the same for gay gym teachers to be able to go in the girls dressing room and shower room. Thats just crazy!! And it is a morality issue. Girls or boys trying to have moral guidlines and parenst who set the should not be put in that position. And how about the girls in the boys shower room? You know thats gonna lead to a bunch of misconduct and sexual predators abusing girls who think they are boys. Thing is they arent boys so they cant fight off a boy or group of them. And then the straight gym teacher gets to see a naked girl and maybe even snap a pic or two for child porn. So both are in danger no matter what. Where does it stop????Its crazy to think anything else.


I am sorry but even though I don't think any child should have to shower or change with anyone else if they don't want to, what does that have to do with gay marriage?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I am sorry but even though I don't think any child should have to shower or change with anyone else if they don't want to, what does that have to do with gay marriage?


It has everyting to do with. When you start changing laws and rights against what is moral and against what the people have voted for, you open the door to an endless list of things that are not good. Its pandoras box. This same topic of gender identity and the 13 states who have the same law as va on the books all falls back to gay rights.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Sorry but no 13 year old girl should be put in that position not to stare. And how many boys will pretend to be gay just to take advantage of the law? Its a dangerous slope. Next thing you know it will be the same for gay gym teachers to be able to go in the girls dressing room and shower room. Thats just crazy!! And it is a morality issue. Girls or boys trying to have moral guidlines and parenst who set the should not be put in that position. And how about the girls in the boys shower room? You know thats gonna lead to a bunch of misconduct and sexual predators abusing girls who think they are boys. Thing is they arent boys so they cant fight off a boy or group of them. And then the straight gym teacher gets to see a naked girl and maybe even snap a pic or two for child porn. So both are in danger no matter what. Where does it stop????Its crazy to think anything else.


And we should do what, with those born intersexed? (Estimated at about 1 in 1500 to 2000 births)


----------



## Tex- (May 18, 2014)

Work horse said:


> And we should do what, with those born intersexed? (Estimated at about 1 in 1500 to 2000 births)


Whatever you want, but it shouldn't be the other 1499 to 1999 that has to conform.


Tex


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

could you provide a source for your rates for intersex.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Sorry but no 13 year old girl should be put in that position not to stare. And how many boys will pretend to be gay just to take advantage of the law? Its a dangerous slope. Next thing you know it will be the same for gay gym teachers to be able to go in the girls dressing room and shower room. Thats just crazy!! And it is a morality issue. Girls or boys trying to have moral guidlines and parenst who set the should not be put in that position. And how about the girls in the boys shower room? You know thats gonna lead to a bunch of misconduct and sexual predators abusing girls who think they are boys. Thing is they arent boys so they cant fight off a boy or group of them. And then the straight gym teacher gets to see a naked girl and maybe even snap a pic or two for child porn. So both are in danger no matter what. Where does it stop????Its crazy to think anything else.


As usual other people seem to "know" much more about what will happen in hypothetical situations than I. I'll not chase this rabbit any further down the hole. I will leave you with this bit of advice. If you're going to spend a lot of time worried about sexual predators and pedophiles you might want to look more closely at the clown at the next birthday party or the coach at the football camp you send your children to. Gacy and Sandusky looked and acted just as you describe yourself. Just call me crazy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> It has everyting to do with. When you start changing laws and rights against what is moral and against what the people have voted for, you open the door to an endless list of things that are not good. Its pandoras box. This same topic of gender identity and the 13 states who have the same law as va on the books all falls back to gay rights.


I'd say that any laws that mandate that people be treated differently based on who they are rather than what they do are immoral.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> could you provide a source for your rates for intersex.


http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

from the site
_"Hereâs what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which wonât show up until later in life."_


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Tex- said:


> Whatever you want, but it shouldn't be the other 1499 to 1999 that has to conform.
> 
> 
> Tex


How compassionate of you. I do hope you never have a child/grandchild in those shoes.


----------



## Tex- (May 18, 2014)

Compassion has little to do with the question you asked. How compassionate is it of you to expect young girls who are having there own image issues, to share facilities at school with someone of the opposite sex? Accomodations can be made, but not at the expense of the wellbeing of other children. There are many children and adults in this country that can't, for one reason or another, do things other people can. It is called a handicap. It really sucks if someone has more than just the usual obstacles in their way, but sometimes that is just life. 

We don't want the schools to lower teaching standards because one child in a school district of 2000 kids has a learning disability. Well, we didn't until Common Core came along, that is. 

A large number of parents these days are very uncomfortable with the different things children can become exposed to, but rather than compromising on a solution, some people are simply demanding that people conform. 




Tex


----------



## Hoosier23 (Jun 29, 2014)

Gettin real tired of this ****


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And it is just that Conform. What the heck does the very few in this country Demand That the rest of the country MUST Conform to what the homosexuals want?
The country was just done without them sticking their ideals ahead of the Constitution and Gods law? AND the Great Majority of the American people?
Why must they always say I am GAY? The very first thing someone does these days is what? Come out and Say "Hey I am Gay". SO WHAT.
The heck with this Grandstanding attitude.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If what you say is normal and natural, it would not have to be taught.


I can assure you that no one had to teach me how to be bi! :buds:

Seems some things just come ... naturally.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I guess from reading up on this intrsex people have at birth sex organs that deveate from recently determined sorry but feet come in different sizes too. I am not buying into this. It seems that this new class Is to bloar the numbers.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> And it is just that Conform. What the heck does the very few in this country Demand That the rest of the country MUST Conform to what the homosexuals want?


You don't have to conform to anything. You are free to carry on with your life. They just want to get married and have the same rights as married couples, have families and otherwise normal lives. They are pretty "normal" people; they are doctors, teachers, lawyers, bank tellers, etc. They just want to marry the person they fell in love with. Why wouldn't anyone want them to have that?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Work horse said:


> You don't have to conform to anything. You are free to carry on with your life. They just want to get married and have the same rights as married couples, have families and otherwise normal lives. They are pretty "normal" people; they are doctors, teachers, lawyers, bank tellers, etc. They just want to marry the person they fell in love with. Why wouldn't anyone want them to have that?


Because its not just marraige. Its the points above as well. Kids being pu in bad situations and forcing parenst to go along with it. And it wont stop there. You are going to see all kinds of crazy stuff popping up. Like men and women marrying kids with parenst permission because the "love" them. Or people being able to marry 20 other spouses ect.. YOu cant give ground to one type of love and not another and those are the battles that are going to come.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because its not just marraige. Its the points above as well. Kids being pu in bad situations and forcing parenst to go along with it. And it wont stop there. You are going to see all kinds of crazy stuff popping up. Like men and women marrying kids with parenst permission because the "love" them. Or people being able to marry 20 other spouses ect.. YOu cant give ground to one type of love and not another and those are the battles that are going to come.


and what business is it of anyone else how many spouses a person has? We need to quit meddlin in other peoples lives.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> and what business is it of anyone else how many spouses a person has? We need to quit meddlin in other peoples lives.


And at the dame time gays have to stop this in your face I am gay, and I am better then you attitude bull feathers stuff..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because its not just marraige. Its the points above as well. Kids being pu in bad situations and forcing parenst to go along with it. And it wont stop there. You are going to see all kinds of crazy stuff popping up. Like men and women marrying kids with parenst permission because the "love" them. Or people being able to marry 20 other spouses ect.. YOu cant give ground to one type of love and not another and those are the battles that are going to come.


There are many states where parents can already give consent to underage marriages, some as low 12 years of age. Historically it wasn't all that uncommon so if we're going to rely on historical precedent to define marriage I'm not sure what your objection is. Multiple marriage doesn't bother me either as long as all parties are consenting adults. There are some issues of inheritance and benefits but those are best worked out among the parties involved. Plural marriage also wasn't that uncommon in the past so maybe were just going back to a more traditional definition of marriage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> And at the dame time gays have to stop this in your face I am gay, and I am better then you attitude bull feathers stuff..


In my 63 years on the planet i have known quite a few gays.... I have yet to encounter a single person who gotten in my face and announced they were gay, much less that they were better than anyone else... those type comments are normally heard from the more "godly" heterosexual side of the world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In my 63 years on the planet i have known quite a few gays.... I have yet to encounter a single person who gotten in my face and announced they were gay, much less that they were better than anyone else... those type comments are normally heard from the more "godly" heterosexual side of the world.


I'm a couple years younger and I the only time I remember anyone telling me they were gay in a casual conversation were a couple of times members of the opposite sex used it to end my pursuit of them. I was unable to confirm the veracity of their claims.


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

If marriage is one male to one female then the "marriage" has been defined. If it includes same sex marriage then opens a new meaning to "marriage" The new meaning would have to include men with several wives, ladies with more than one husband and also multiple married people consisting of perhaps several males and several females...It would also have to include adults marring underage people..Because if they love each other they should not be denied also. . If the meaning changes then you can bet that some at some time, some one will want to marry their pet because the love them


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

wally said:


> If marriage is one male to one female then the "marriage" has been defined. If it includes same sex marriage then opens a new meaning to "marriage" The new meaning would have to include men with several wives, ladies with more than one husband and also multiple married people consisting of perhaps several males and several females...It would also have to include adults marring underage people..Because if they love each other they should not be denied also. . If the meaning changes then you can bet that some at some time, some one will want to marry their pet because the love them


CONSENTING ADULTS. Seriously, why is that such a hard concept??


----------



## wally (Oct 9, 2007)

Work horse said:


> CONSENTING ADULTS. Seriously, why is that such a hard concept??


So if all of the consenting adults agree to the situations I mentioned in my post then you are saying that they should be allowed to do so, correct ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wally said:


> So if all of the consenting adults agree to the situations I mentioned in my post then you are saying that they should be allowed to do so, correct ?


Why not. What business is it of mine if any combination of consenting adults wish to commit to each other. Who does it harm. There are some issues of inheritance and survivor benefits that need to be worked out but they're not insurmountable. For those of you who see marriage as solely a state's rights issue you might wish to remember that polygamy was banned by the Federal government in all States and territories in 1862.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Why not. What business is it of mine if any combination of consenting adults wish to commit to each other. Who does it harm. There are some issues of inheritance and survivor benefits that need to be worked out but they're not insurmountable. For those of you who see marriage as solely a state's rights issue you might wish to remember that polygamy was banned by the Federal government in all States and territories in 1862.


Wait a second....when the gay marriage debate first heated up, one of the arguments against it was that it would open up marriage to all kinds of things, like polygamy, etc, etc.

Those folks were told that their slippery slope argument was false and that they were being ridiculous.

So why all of a sudden is there a push for polygamy, molyamory, etc?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> Wait a second....when the gay marriage debate first heated up, one of the arguments against it was that it would open up marriage to all kinds of things, like polygamy, etc, etc.
> 
> Those folks were told that their slippery slope argument was false and that they were being ridiculous.
> 
> So why all of a sudden is there a push for polygamy, molyamory, etc?


You'd have to tell me who "those folks" are and show me evidence of a "push". I didn't bring it up nor did I advocate for it. I simply asked what would be the harm if these things came to pass. I'm also curious to hear a defense of why the Federal government was justified in interfering with the religous rights of the Mormon Church and usurping state's rights.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

wally said:


> So if all of the consenting adults agree to the situations I mentioned in my post then you are saying that they should be allowed to do so, correct ?


I don't have a problem with the situations you mentioned regarding plural marriage -- it's not my business and does not change my life or marriage in any way. Just because a plural marriage wouldn't work for me (although I'm sure so much more work could get done if I had 2 husbands!) doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. And it doesn't mean I should be able to stop others from doing that. 

I do have a problem when you start dragging children or animals into the argument.


----------



## Shoden (Dec 19, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> Wait a second....when the gay marriage debate first heated up, one of the arguments against it was that it would open up marriage to all kinds of things, like polygamy, etc, etc.
> 
> Those folks were told that their slippery slope argument was false and that they were being ridiculous.
> 
> So why all of a sudden is there a push for polygamy, molyamory, etc?


They were usually told the slippery slope argument was false because the anti-gay marriage people usually included marrying children and animals in that list of things that would be opened up.... your "etc, etc".

Once again, it's about CONSENTING ADULTS. Children and animals can't consent to a contract, which is what marriage is. As long as a marriage contract involves only CONSENTING ADULTS, I don't care about the number or sexes of the marriage partners. You can have a religious hetero monogamous marriage, a religious hetero polygamous marriage, a secular **** monogamous marriage, or a secular bi polyamorous marriage. I don't care, and the government shouldn't care, as long as all partners are CONSENTING ADULTS.

And the polygamy issue brings up what I think is an interesting point, since this thread is about Utah's ban. Mormons were extremely persecuted for their marriage practices, so I find it hypocritical that the LDS church pushed so heavily for California's Prop 8 and that Utah had a same sex marriage ban, which are both restrictions on marriage freedom. If anything, you'd expect given the Mormon church's history, they'd be more respecting of different marriage practices. Plus, we could go into their whole view on free agency and the reasons behind the war in Heaven that resulted in Satan being cast out...


----------

