-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To my conservative friends in the USA against LGBT rights
- Thread starter EyeofOdin
- Start date
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
OK......... by all means enjoy this brilliant bit of legislation.
But there's a lot more for our countries to do towards equality for all.
Big list of 'things to do'................
That's a fact.
*
You mean leftist liberals like Putin won, and rightist conservatives like Cameron lost?
Thank God, now the homosexuals can rest in peace, because it is all in the hands of five honorable liberals who only have their good interests in mind. So all can not bother to think their own mind, anymore. They have the power, and they will always do the right thing with such power. Today... and for all days to come.
Thank God, now the homosexuals can rest in peace, because it is all in the hands of five honorable liberals who only have their good interests in mind. So all can not bother to think their own mind, anymore. They have the power, and they will always do the right thing with such power. Today... and for all days to come.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Actually, your point is half good, seeing as Putin is anti homosexual and Cameron pro-equality, but let's face it, this was simply a vote for freedom, equality and humanity..... who cares the politics of those who supported such a good piece of legislation? In the UK we have a really good policy, that some issues can be voted freely, in 'open vote', and not coerced by the party whips.
Those who want to chuck political brickbats about just now, rather than savouring a really good break-through in the humanities .... are losing sight of the real success here.
Oh dear..... you too.
You really need to see the bigger picture here. Homosexuals should not be resting in peace. Like all other egalitarians they need to be looking for more legislation to further equality in their countries. I can think of a decent sized list of 'things to do'.
So you didn't like the outcome!
Look........ when your politics gain a little ground, receive this in grace, and when your politics lose a whole load of ground, just receive this in humility..... eh?
What you're thinking with your own mind should not interfere with any other couples, in love, who wish to marry.
Fair enough?
Thanks Oldbadger for setting me straight. I didn't realize I am the enemy of homosexuals all these years. Conservatives like me have been after homosexuals for the last many decades, while great liberals such as Hillary Clinton (the defacto Democratic Party nominee) has been the stalwart advocate for gay marriage all these same decades.
And the point is, we shouldn''t have to think for ourselves and decide as a people via the democratic process to evolve laws. Instead, we have to have five unelected bureaucrats have all the power to decide for us, we do not need nor should not think for ourselves - especially with the evil America which hates homosexuals, why trust democracy? Just see how it has denied homosexuals freedom and peace and dignity. In one way, we are so evil, it is better that America is destroyed, perhaps those who want to destroy America should win, like ISIS. Then homosexuals whom I have persecuted for so many years now will find peace.
Ultimately, it is better not to bother to change the hearts and minds of Americans - that is hopeless. Better to have five unelected "liberals" decide what the law is going to be. Better five, than five million, rule the way. Now with such power, they will always be there... not for their power. But for those who have no power.
Well, that would be a lot of people. With no power. Now. Instead five have the power. Not the rest of us. Because we are dangerous. And dangerous to these five. And for the better. Because these five, with such power, will always be there for you. And the next five. For homosexuals. Honest. Boy scouts honor. Now. And for all the days to come.
And the point is, we shouldn''t have to think for ourselves and decide as a people via the democratic process to evolve laws. Instead, we have to have five unelected bureaucrats have all the power to decide for us, we do not need nor should not think for ourselves - especially with the evil America which hates homosexuals, why trust democracy? Just see how it has denied homosexuals freedom and peace and dignity. In one way, we are so evil, it is better that America is destroyed, perhaps those who want to destroy America should win, like ISIS. Then homosexuals whom I have persecuted for so many years now will find peace.
Ultimately, it is better not to bother to change the hearts and minds of Americans - that is hopeless. Better to have five unelected "liberals" decide what the law is going to be. Better five, than five million, rule the way. Now with such power, they will always be there... not for their power. But for those who have no power.
Well, that would be a lot of people. With no power. Now. Instead five have the power. Not the rest of us. Because we are dangerous. And dangerous to these five. And for the better. Because these five, with such power, will always be there for you. And the next five. For homosexuals. Honest. Boy scouts honor. Now. And for all the days to come.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
They were only interpreting laws made from the democratic process...But apparently the democratic process is not good enough for you. Apparently, the government should be able to do whatever it wants...rights who needs those? Freedom? Nah. This anti American rant of yours is somewhat troubling. According to your philosophy a bunch of people can gather and outlaw religion. Are you siding with Stalin now? What is this oppressive land you wish for.
Life, liberty, and property....the country I live in cannot simply take these away or deny them regardless of the numbers who are convinced or not. To take these away the government and any group of people need to give due process. This process must pass a scrutiny test. The states or people who seek to deny homosexuals the right to marry fail this test. You have no good reasons. None. Your reasoning consists of "God said it's a no-no" and "yucky." Well God doesn't belong in u.s. politics and "buuuut, I really don't waaaaant it; ungh, no faairr" is not a good reason. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to deny the right. Game over.
I understand that you feel this was legislation from the bench, but you must be able to articulate why. And you haven't even done that. But let's break it down for fun:
The people wanting marriage are sincere. They have good families. They provide healthy environments for their families. They are monogamous. They provide no harm to the public. They endanger no one. They are not a nuisance. They do not infringe upon another's rights. These are the facts. You want the states to decide...well there is merit to that. But there are no reasons on which any state could sufficiently reason otherwise. NONE!
So, the only reason to want the states to be given the choice would be to allow for the states to violate the constitution and drag the process through expensive, lengthy court battles, before reaching the same conclusion.
If there was a reason on which a state could legitimately deny this right the court would have ruled otherwise. That my friend is a check, designed by the founders of democracy. And I am pleased to see this check work.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I am a conservative from Alabama. I do not like gays. I do not agree with their lifestyle. I see it is an abomination. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
However, I am glad that SCOTUS made the ruling. Religion can't dictate the law and vice versa. Everyone here should be free to legally marry as an adult, and have the same rights and benefits, regardless of sexual orientation. That is the spirit of the law and the US Constitution.
Churches can simply deny to marry a gay couple. They can go to the courthouse and make it legal. Government can't dictate to a church what it can or can't do.
However, I am glad that SCOTUS made the ruling. Religion can't dictate the law and vice versa. Everyone here should be free to legally marry as an adult, and have the same rights and benefits, regardless of sexual orientation. That is the spirit of the law and the US Constitution.
Churches can simply deny to marry a gay couple. They can go to the courthouse and make it legal. Government can't dictate to a church what it can or can't do.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
You rascal, you!
Interesting it is that Dick Cheney was pro-gay marriage long before 'progressives' like Bill, Hillary, & Barry Obama.
The latter only ditched their "marriage is a sacred bond between a man & a woman" when it became politically useful.
Who knows what they really believe.
I trust Cheney more.
Plus, he shot a lawyer in the face.
You had to get a frubal for your candor, clarity, & constitutional perspective.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's refreshing to see people understand that you can dislike something without insisting that it be disallowed for everyone else.
Some say Greece gave birth to democracy. Now Greece, because of mistakes made along the way, is voting at the ATM machine. Is the vote confidence, or no confidence?
Democracy is older, in my humble opinion, than radical Islam for example. But it is under assault often. There are huge problems as is the state of human affairs, but I will take a Republic (indirect democracy through elected represetatives) or a (true) Democracy of direct voting (on all matters of state, though I prefer a Republic and I prefer many States and strong localized governance over central because it affords more diversity in the experiment from which some of the most incredible answers, even genius, arise to "save the day", and also some incredible but isolated failures from which we can learn hard lessons and develop "best practices" before they hurt everyone "on the same day").
It is not difficult to win the day to forward the type of laws you support, such as the right to gay marriage, in an environment such as a diversified Republic and republican form of government, even if your populations are a small minority you can, if you have the headstrong will, to gather your numbers in one place (let us say San Francisco) and then win the vote. I am not saying it is easy, either, and yes it can be slow. Yet just the presence of a "new face" unafraid in the open starts to let others see you, too, that you are just like them, as well, and then hearts and minds begin to change. Actually in a direct democracy, which can engage change more quickly, often the real change in hearts and minds can sometimes backfire when applied across the entire canvas carte blanche, reactionary repsonse gains a foothold and the worm turns the other way just as fast.
The fastest of all in enacting change, is a dictator. But then, a dictator is just a human, not a people really at all. The dictator can only be one person, not one hundred million. Those who say the dictator can, they are liars.
Hitler was elected. There are problems. But then when a Hitler becomes the one who decides, no matter how their power was given to them or acquiesced, while democracy can be slow and difficult, it is much more difficult to take back that power you allowed the "pontiffs" to have once they get it. Their interests always become theirs, not yours, and the power that gave you a cherry pie today may give you arsenic tomorow.
Those who could not wait for fifty million, or five million, gave power to five by simply "going along to get along". I might be wrong, but I think they will rue the day.
If five unelected is the means, then why not better yet only one? Just think how fast the "law" will take hold. No need to pass a constitutional amendment giving some one group or status a national right if it was left out. Or if left out, why just have some local community, if they rally the muster, take the day and have the law where THEY live? You just force it everywhere because the pontiff said that is the law, the unelected pontiff writes the law.
So if Michigan has enough Muslims to pass a law that allows a man to marry five women, what they think should be doesn't matter anymore. Even if it was a bad idea, it is not allowed to fail there and we all learn. Or perhaps work.
Now everywhere, the unelected pontiff has the power acquiesced to them out of laziness, or stolen by them, can just "say what it is going to be".
You may like it today.
I will watch now. I think, some do not understand whatnis likely going to unfold. The very power you kissed the lips of today, will soon have perhaps a new face.
The same power. A new face.
I think this wasn't the way to do it. Something you never really imagined is probably coming. Democracy can be very mean, too. It doesn't always forgo power of the process kindly. Especially if money or taxes are part of the bigger scene.
And be careful how you stereotype others. I was thinking of mentioning what Revoltingest mentioned last night. Then this morning was thinking of typing sumething up to mention it, but seeing he beat me to the chase.
But many of you are wrong about conservatives. And for that matter liberals. I will tell you there are many "liberals" who will put homosexuals in cages if they don't acquiesce to their liberalship power. And there are many conservatives who have supported gay marriage for decades. Probably the most propagandized as a target of hate by the undemocratic left has been Dick Cheney. The evil Dick. Who I know for a fact has supported gay marriage for decades.
Don't assume someone like me as the "problem". And there are many conservatives, who if this thing has the reverse reaction you didn't expect, will have to go into a battlefield to save perhaps even your life. We will watch, but be careful. The story isn't over yet, and you may need all the friends you can get even if you don't like us or ever ask for it. And don't mock, too much. Figure out how to get it done ALL OVER AGAIN in a better way. This way may not work out.
There is no utopia. No final solution. No final answer. Nothing is perfect. Careful.
Democracy is older, in my humble opinion, than radical Islam for example. But it is under assault often. There are huge problems as is the state of human affairs, but I will take a Republic (indirect democracy through elected represetatives) or a (true) Democracy of direct voting (on all matters of state, though I prefer a Republic and I prefer many States and strong localized governance over central because it affords more diversity in the experiment from which some of the most incredible answers, even genius, arise to "save the day", and also some incredible but isolated failures from which we can learn hard lessons and develop "best practices" before they hurt everyone "on the same day").
It is not difficult to win the day to forward the type of laws you support, such as the right to gay marriage, in an environment such as a diversified Republic and republican form of government, even if your populations are a small minority you can, if you have the headstrong will, to gather your numbers in one place (let us say San Francisco) and then win the vote. I am not saying it is easy, either, and yes it can be slow. Yet just the presence of a "new face" unafraid in the open starts to let others see you, too, that you are just like them, as well, and then hearts and minds begin to change. Actually in a direct democracy, which can engage change more quickly, often the real change in hearts and minds can sometimes backfire when applied across the entire canvas carte blanche, reactionary repsonse gains a foothold and the worm turns the other way just as fast.
The fastest of all in enacting change, is a dictator. But then, a dictator is just a human, not a people really at all. The dictator can only be one person, not one hundred million. Those who say the dictator can, they are liars.
Hitler was elected. There are problems. But then when a Hitler becomes the one who decides, no matter how their power was given to them or acquiesced, while democracy can be slow and difficult, it is much more difficult to take back that power you allowed the "pontiffs" to have once they get it. Their interests always become theirs, not yours, and the power that gave you a cherry pie today may give you arsenic tomorow.
Those who could not wait for fifty million, or five million, gave power to five by simply "going along to get along". I might be wrong, but I think they will rue the day.
If five unelected is the means, then why not better yet only one? Just think how fast the "law" will take hold. No need to pass a constitutional amendment giving some one group or status a national right if it was left out. Or if left out, why just have some local community, if they rally the muster, take the day and have the law where THEY live? You just force it everywhere because the pontiff said that is the law, the unelected pontiff writes the law.
So if Michigan has enough Muslims to pass a law that allows a man to marry five women, what they think should be doesn't matter anymore. Even if it was a bad idea, it is not allowed to fail there and we all learn. Or perhaps work.
Now everywhere, the unelected pontiff has the power acquiesced to them out of laziness, or stolen by them, can just "say what it is going to be".
You may like it today.
I will watch now. I think, some do not understand whatnis likely going to unfold. The very power you kissed the lips of today, will soon have perhaps a new face.
The same power. A new face.
I think this wasn't the way to do it. Something you never really imagined is probably coming. Democracy can be very mean, too. It doesn't always forgo power of the process kindly. Especially if money or taxes are part of the bigger scene.
And be careful how you stereotype others. I was thinking of mentioning what Revoltingest mentioned last night. Then this morning was thinking of typing sumething up to mention it, but seeing he beat me to the chase.
But many of you are wrong about conservatives. And for that matter liberals. I will tell you there are many "liberals" who will put homosexuals in cages if they don't acquiesce to their liberalship power. And there are many conservatives who have supported gay marriage for decades. Probably the most propagandized as a target of hate by the undemocratic left has been Dick Cheney. The evil Dick. Who I know for a fact has supported gay marriage for decades.
Don't assume someone like me as the "problem". And there are many conservatives, who if this thing has the reverse reaction you didn't expect, will have to go into a battlefield to save perhaps even your life. We will watch, but be careful. The story isn't over yet, and you may need all the friends you can get even if you don't like us or ever ask for it. And don't mock, too much. Figure out how to get it done ALL OVER AGAIN in a better way. This way may not work out.
There is no utopia. No final solution. No final answer. Nothing is perfect. Careful.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
That's an awful lot of words just to say "the system must be broken because I didn't get the outcome I wanted."
dust1n
Zindīq
That's strange, I've never heard you speak so adamantly against Article III of the US Constitution before;
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects...
I don't remember a similar reaction from you regarding the Citizens United case, but I'm sure you feel the exact same way about it.
Out of curiosity:
Would you refuse the help of a gay firefighter, EMT, doctor or police officer if your life was in danger? What would you do if you later found out that firefighter, EMT, doctor or police officer was gay?
How you identify a gay person anyway?
What is the gay lifestyle?
Sure you can have your opinion, but is it based on anything other than hearsay and stereotypes?
Wirey
Fartist
leibowde84
Veteran Member
They decide if a law is unconstitutional. The separation of powers demands this, as it would be ludicrous to expect states to rule their own legislation as unconstitutional.
Wirey
Fartist
bwahahahahaha
Two firemen are having anal sex in a smoke filled room, when the Chief walks in.
"What the heck is going on?" yells the Chief.
The guy at the back says "This man is suffering from smoke inhalation."
The Chief says "You're supposed to use mouth-to-mouth for that!"
The guy at the front says "How do you think this got started?"