Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
10:26 PM
* note in the middle of the report how casually the reporter slips in that many nations "long ago" did away with any criminal penalties on such behavior.
**if the arguments that are being made in court across America right now are upheld to redefine marriage to include ANY "love" relationship out there... then Constitutionally they will be unable to draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't...
Leftist/transgender/ghey/bi "activists" have been attacking churches here in CA. It's getting ugly here and the CA legislature is making a big push to neutralize the will of the people.
If they overturn this.. again, we're going to see some serious anger from those on the right, and justifiably so.
With the election of TheOne, this country is now split in two and I don't see any way to repair it. |
|
Who is that sorry couple who fears their marriage will be taken away? How sad. They must not have a very good marriage to begin with.
And what does incest have to do with anything? Marriage should be between 2 consenting adults. Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not. This is a red herring that has ZILCH to do with same-sex marriage. Same goes for polygamy, marrying your dog, a child, or any other of the paranoid fantasies you folks come up with.
Not even an argument worth debating. Worry about your own marriage and everything will be just fine.
|
|
|
KEEP PROP 8!NEVER EVER GIVE IN TO THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA! |
|
Or completely ignorant...
You say "Marriage should be between 2 consenting adults" which is exactly the argument being made by the couple above. And evidently now in most European countries (except the horrible, horrid, evil country where that couple lives) incest IS legal.
Watch the report and see what their lawyer says.
ALL of his arguments are the EXACT same arguments that the homosexuals in California are now arguing. |
|
Once you take the tack that the courts, rather the people, can define marriage as a matter of "civil rights," they simply cannot deny polygamists.
Polygmany has Biblical and historical prescedents for millennia. Muslims immigrate to the US with their polygamist wives. Others in the US believe in polygamy as a religious principle.
The courts can no longer draw a line. Any and all consenting adults can enter into a marriage--including polygamist lesbians. And the teachers will have to teach it an an equivalent alternative.
Just as Gavin Newsome shouted gleefully: "Like it or not, the doors are wide open now!!"
Either the people decide the definition of marriage in a society or the judges do. But once the judges do, on the basis of equal rights, they can deny no one. |
|
...go crazy with you mention polygamy as a possibility. They want THEIR sexual preferences to be destigmatized, but not others'.
I say, Wow, hypocrisy and bigotry. They want same-sex marriage to be legal--but then...tick-tock-the game's-locked. |
|
If the courts decides 'not to discriminate' and offer the poor excuse that 'this relationship is not harmful to society' then the door is wide open for child molestation. Currently, parents who molest children are put in jail, if the society decides to make marriage based on 'consent' then the logical progression will be changing the 'age of consent'. Meaning if both people are okay with it then it's okay. Imagine all the sick pervs who will molest their kids and say 'it's mutual'. We must fight to define marriage as 'one man and one woman'. the others who feel left out, should just get over it. Sorry, but not all relationships are created equal and there are too many slippery slops to consider if we redefine marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
You must not be too swift. A chruch gets is tax exempt status from the internal revene code. Why don't you go read it. Then while you are at it read the constitution and what it says about free speech. There is a great legal movement now where churches are actually fighting back and challenging the IRS about freedon of speech issues. I would LOVE to see churches kick some butt over this probably as much as you would like to see all churches abolished. |
|
|
Churches are tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. |
|
"If they overturn this.. again, we're going to see some serious anger from those on the right, and justifiably so. "
How could they overturn this within California without passing an amendment to the California State Constitution overturning it? The California Supreme Court must abide by the Constitution. It is above judicial review. |
|
Grandma has spent the past two days reading up on Tax Exemption codes -- Karen, unlike most of my fellow Townhaller-ers, I like to educate myself -- and I am more convinced than ever that the Mormon's have probably overstepped the law on this one.
I am quite sure, however, that there will be no criminal investigation -- too much bad press. |
|
There is a slippery slope we're on, but it's not one that ends in mass acceptance of bestiality or incest. It's one that ends in THEOCRACY.
Proof? Well, look at Kevin's previous post about divorce. This is where they want the country headed, and way too far to the right for most people, hence the Christian Right's downward spiral towards irrelevance.
If we can ban gay marriage simply because your scripture tells you it's wrong, then there is NO REASON why we can't ban divorce, or keep couples who had children before getting married from ever tying the knot. It's a dangerous path for a country to be on, and hopefully now we can SQUASH these efforts to undermine freedom. |
|
You said:
If we can ban gay marriage simply because your scripture tells you it's wrong, then there is NO REASON why we can't ban divorce, or keep couples who had children before getting married from ever tying the knot. It's a dangerous path for a country to be on, and hopefully now we can SQUASH these efforts to undermine freedom.
How ridiculous to even attempt to equate banning gay marriage, which is essentially sodomy and is despicable, filthy, and disgusting and goes against everything right, decent and good with banning divorce which people have every right to do if they can't get along and don't love each other, and keeping couples who had children before getting married from tying the knot.
Ignorance thrives among you Liberal, Satan- controlled fools! |
|
Ignorance thrives indeed! I hate to break it to you, Laura, but banning gay marriage does not ban sodomy. You have been quite mislead if you believe that gay marriage is "essentially sodomy." That's like saying that straight marriage is "essentially coitus" ...There is quite a bit more to it than that.
You couldn't have missed the point of my post any more if you tried. Let me put it this way: You think that sodomy "goes against everything right, decent, and good." Well, guess what? SOME people feel the EXACT same way about divorce! And if we can ban one thing simply because you find it distasteful, then by the same rationale we can ban divorce, or pretty much anything. You can cite logical reasons why people should be able to get divorced until you're blue in the face, but if someone else says it's against their religion, then apparently we must change the law.
I know, you can't fight city hall, and if a solid majority of people in any given state are against it, I have nothing against the ban in principle, although I think prop. 8 supporters are probably uninformed like you, Laura, and think that they were voting against sodomy. In many polls, a majority of Americans have supported the idea of pulling our troops out of Iraq, and yet our elected representatives claim to have a better understanding of the situation and the logistics of pulling out, so people do not get what they want. We live in a republic! |
|
|