Court: California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

[GVC]

In case you missed it, craig:

2 and 3 are being done. They have already tried to force the army chaplains to perform gay marriages.

Gay leaders have said on many occasions that forcing complete acceptance is exactly what they want. I don't have the links, but they have already pressured churches to perform ceremonies and I did see a gay leader state that they want to force Mormon temples to also.

Just what I have seen and read.

2. No one, to my knowledge, has "forced" army chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Back in September, the Pentagon made the decision to "permit" military Chaplains to perform same-sex marriages if such marriages are legal in the states they are being performed AND if those ceremonies are in line with the chaplains personal and religious beliefs. In other words, chaplains are no longer forced not to perform same-sex marriages, but can choose not to if they disagree with them.

3. Is not happening. Will not happen. Can you provide a single example of a church being forced by the governemnt to perform a religious ceremony against their will?

And, none of these false concerns address your initial contention that same-sex marriages destroy nations. meh.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This reminds me of the marijuana thread. Most people are in favor for progress and reform, but there are a couple of religiously motivated moral police who want to halt social progress.

Thanks for your token appearance.

Most people... nice. I love it when people say that.
I have found in my experience when people claim "most people" agree with... that it is untrue.
You could possibly state it, most people who care to post on the subject on this site, in this thread... or something like that.

Go ahead and call whatever you want to "progress and reform" but sugarcoating something doesn't change what it is.
If a couple of people are religiously motivated moral police, what sort of motivated police are you? Oh yea, progress and reform as you see it.
Social progress. Here we go again throwing around words that make your side of an argument seem right and the other side dirty.

Obviously I define social progress, progress and reform, and bla bla bla differently.
Maybe I see some of these issues as a regression of moral and social progress, and as people selling their morals for selfishness but in the cloak of some grandiose name.

Selfishness is the core issue here, and everywhere else. All other issues are ancillary issues.

 

[PearlWatson]

Will not happen.

Is this some kind of Canuckian prophecy from on high?

 

[GVC]

Selfishness is the core issue here, and everywhere else. All other issues are ancillary issues.

I agree.

If only the the puritans would let others live as they see fit, so long as they aren't hurting anyone, instead of selfishly demanding everyone conform to their standards without providing any justification or support for these demands/standards.

 

[GVC]

Is this some kind of Canuckian prophecy from on high?

Depends on your definition of "on high".

 

[Hantlers]

You mad bro?

Ew.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Thanks for your token appearance.

Most people... nice. I love it when people say that.
I have found in my experience when people claim "most people" agree with... that it is untrue.
You could possibly state it, most people who care to post on the subject on this site, in this thread... or something like that.

Go ahead and call whatever you want to "progress and reform" but sugarcoating something doesn't change what it is.
If a couple of people are religiously motivated moral police, what sort of motivated police are you? Oh yea, progress and reform as you see it.
Social progress. Here we go again throwing around words that make your side of an argument seem right and the other side dirty.

Obviously I define social progress, progress and reform, and bla bla bla differently.
Maybe I see some of these issues as a regression of moral and social progress, and as people selling their morals for selfishness but in the cloak of some grandiose name.

Selfishness is the core issue here, and everywhere else. All other issues are ancillary issues.

I was specifically talking about the people on the board discussions. I wasn't speaking for society as a whole.

 

[Deleted member 848]

How about a group hug everyone!

Some people are gay;


































and thats okay.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I agree.

If only the the puritans would let others live as they see fit, so long as they aren't hurting anyone, instead of selfishly demanding everyone conform to their standards without providing any justification or support for these demands/standards.

I agree also.

If only the non-puritans would quit complaining when they are called out for selfishly doing things they claim don't hurt anyone , instead of selfishly demanding everyone conform to their standards by catering to their every whim and giving ground on a one way morality street while not listening to any support for the "puritan" view because it doesn't fit into their definition of a good reason.

 

[craig2112]

I agree.

If only the the puritans would let others live as they see fit, so long as they aren't hurting anyone, instead of selfishly demanding everyone conform to their standards without providing any justification or support for these demands/standards.

That makes a lot of sense. So I should just bow down to this "Social Progress" even though I oppose it.

It's ok for gays to force everyone to accept their crap, but if anyone says "No" then suddenly these puritans are forcing gays to accept their beliefs.

So long as it is not hurting anyone. Guess what: it is, and that is why it is opposed so much.

 

[GVC]

I agree also.

If only the non-puritans would quit complaining when they are called out for selfishly doing things they claim don't hurt anyone , instead of selfishly demanding everyone conform to their standards by catering to their every whim and giving ground on a one way morality street while not listening to any support for the "puritan" view because it doesn't fit into their definition of a good reason.

If there's a good reason, with evidence of some kind to back it up, at least a rational discussion can take place. As you know from the marijuana discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss the existing evidence. Unfortunately, too many people can't get past the reason "because".

And, craig, sorry for my short-lived insulting post. It was inappropriate. I deleted it because I realized it was inappropriate. I can't promise it won't happen again, but I'll try not to resort to insult (unless you choose to spew hateful lies about me).

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That makes a lot of sense. So I should just bow down to this "Social Progress" even though I oppose it.

It's ok for gays to force everyone to accept their crap, but if anyone says "No" then suddenly these puritans are forcing gays to accept their beliefs.

So long as it is not hurting anyone. Guess what: it is, and that is why it is opposed so much.

What are you doing to fight the "Social Progress"? Right now it looks like it is in an upswing and you will just be a bitter old dude surrounded by a nation of married dirt hole diggers.