Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Prop 8 ruling: nothing 'wrong' with being gay


Recommended Posts

  • Members


"Marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is as much a "legal right" as having the "right" to murder someone. Which, I might add, is allowed today.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.


Not exactly. Marriage in the legal/civil sense of the word brings with it certain protections under the law. Tax and legal status are the most notable. When you do not allow same-sex marriage that falls into discrimination on the basis of gender. Therefore, certain people are not allowed equal protection under the law which is illegal and unconstitutional. It would be the same thing (in a legal sense) as not allowing a white person and a African-American to marry (which a short time ago was also illegal).

Comparing it to a right to murder makes no sense because everyone has a right to life and to not be harmed. Murder causes physical harm to another human being. It has nothing to do with equal protection under the law which is what the judge's decision hinged on. Also, it doesn't matter if the people or a legislature voted on it if it is unconstitutional. If it violates a clear principle like equal protection then it can be struck down by the courts. That's why they were created as part of the system of checks and balances.

Please note that nowhere in here have I made a moral judgement about same-sex marriage. All I have done is pointed out the legality behind it. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for this and everyone has a right to their moral beliefs. You are free to discourage the practice of homosexuality on moral grounds until the cows come home, but the fact remains that if you award legal protections with a certain status and then refuse that status to a certain group of people you are denying equal protection under the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Wow, with the majority being ignored, overruled, and going with what the minority wants, one day all of the murders and outlaws will get together and want their way, and they will get it because kiwimacahau says, "you cannot withhold a legal right from a group of people because some other group, majority of not, feels that it should be withheld."



Judges have to much power, plus they're prejudices, and they use their prejudices in their decision making. Judges should not be able to over rule the majority. When they do this, this nations stops being a government by the people and for the people.

And this in not a Christian nation, if it was, them we would abide by God's way. As a nation, we are mocking God, by legalizing sins against Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, with the majority being ignored, overruled, and going with what the minority wants, one day all of the murders and outlaws will get together and want their way, and they will get it because kiwimacahau says, "you cannot withhold a legal right from a group of people because some other group, majority of not, feels that it should be withheld."



Judges have to much power, plus they're prejudices, and they use their prejudices in their decision making. Judges should not be able to over rule the majority. When they do this, this nations stops being a government by the people and for the people.

And this in not a Christian nation, if it was, them we would abide by God's way. As a nation, we are mocking God, by legalizing sins against Him.


You OBviously havn't figured out yet Jerry that the "majority" is wrong a lot of the time. And, thank the good Lord, we are not democracy. We are a republic. So to the extent that the "majority" is in favor of something which violates the constitutions, then the "majority" just doesn't matter. Their beliefs, desires and needs are absolutely irrelevant. And trust me, you want it that way.

There is no doubt that homosexuality is a sin and it is immoral. However, that does not give us the right to enforce our laws prejudicially against homosexuals. In this country at least, we are all afforded equal protection under the law. What boils through the most in this matter, and the judge's opinion points it out, is that the motive behind denying homosexuals the right to vote is purely emotional. It is totally void of reason and rationality. It shows nothing more than gay marriage opponent's desire to withold a privilege they themsevles hold from homosexuals based purely on religion. Even as a Christian who does not agree with homosexuality, I cannot validly contend that denying gays the right to marry will make them stop being gay. It will also do nothing to the millions of heterosexual marriages in this country as well. In fact, it will have absolutely no affect on life and society as we know it, other than allowing a few more people an additional income tax deduction (and I think we all can agree that that is a good thing). Just as the time when whites and blacks couldn't intermarry has come and gone, so will the time when homosexuals can't marry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is being advocated here is what occured during the time of Judges, every man doing what is right in their own eyes.

Either we have rules and laws which restrict some and reward others based upon the foundation of law, which is always based upon one moral viewpoint or another, or we have what pagans love to say, do what you will.

Pedophiles and polygamists are awaiting the legalization of homosexual "marriage" so they can press the same argument that the law can't give rights to homosexuals and then deny them to their group. By the arguments put forth by some here, we must allow them the same rights.

Also, as our Founders plainly proclaimed, the Constitution and government they established were created for a moral, religious (Christian) people and would not work for any other. We no longer have a land where the people are moral or care about Christian principles. This is why we see such abominations as even the idea of accepting homosexual "marriage".

Scripture is very clear that where anything, government or otherwise, goes against the Word of God, Christians are to stand with the Word of God. The Word of God is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abominible sin even, and the Word of God is clear Christians are to shine the light of the Word upon such sin, exposing the darkness, standing firm against sin.

If a professing Christian supports homosexuality in any manner, whatever their reasons, they are sinning and not abiding in the Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What is being advocated here is what occured during the time of Judges, every man doing what is right in their own eyes.

Either we have rules and laws which restrict some and reward others based upon the foundation of law, which is always based upon one moral viewpoint or another, or we have what pagans love to say, do what you will.

Pedophiles and polygamists are awaiting the legalization of homosexual "marriage" so they can press the same argument that the law can't give rights to homosexuals and then deny them to their group. By the arguments put forth by some here, we must allow them the same rights.

Also, as our Founders plainly proclaimed, the Constitution and government they established were created for a moral, religious (Christian) people and would not work for any other. We no longer have a land where the people are moral or care about Christian principles. This is why we see such abominations as even the idea of accepting homosexual "marriage".

Scripture is very clear that where anything, government or otherwise, goes against the Word of God, Christians are to stand with the Word of God. The Word of God is clear that homosexuality is a sin, an abominible sin even, and the Word of God is clear Christians are to shine the light of the Word upon such sin, exposing the darkness, standing firm against sin.

If a professing Christian supports homosexuality in any manner, whatever their reasons, they are sinning and not abiding in the Word.


Ok then. What do we do with them? There ability to marry has nothing to do with their homosexuality, so what do we do to keep them from being homosexual?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The ruling wrt prop 8 was based on the law of the land, you cannot withhold a legal right from a group of people because some other group, majority of not, feels that it should be withheld.


PrOBlem here: there is no "law of the land" which dictates that same-sex marriage is legal. That is what prop8 was about. It was a referendum for the state of CA.

And that brings up another point: It is a misnomer to believe that, because the country was federally set up as a Republic, there is never to be a referendum vote. Each state has the right to put what referendums up to the citizens of that state. And the 10th amendment was included to keep the federal government out of state business.

Prop8 was a referendum set up for the people of CA. It was not something that was being done on a federal level, but at a state level. And the people of CA were well within their rights to vote the way they chose to vote. (just as they are well within their rights as a state to vote to legalize marijuana, even though I am against that - and people who are against prop8, voted on by the people, will support legalization of marijuana, voted on by the people [when it happens]. That's pretty telling)

A federal referendum would violate the US Constitution, but not a state referendum. The CA Supreme Court declared that the referendum was NOT in violation of the Constitution. So, this federal judge (who is a homosexual, BTW - hmmm...) had absolely no business to throw out the votes of the people. But it's not the first time...

What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

PrOBlem here: there is no "law of the land" which dictates that same-sex marriage is legal. That is what prop8 was about. It was a referendum for the state of CA.

And that brings up another point: It is a misnomer to believe that, because the country was federally set up as a Republic, there is never to be a referendum vote. Each state has the right to put what referendums up to the citizens of that state. And the 10th amendment was included to keep the federal government out of state business.

Prop8 was a referendum set up for the people of CA. It was not something that was being done on a federal level, but at a state level. And the people of CA were well within their rights to vote the way they chose to vote. (just as they are well within their rights as a state to vote to legalize marijuana, even though I am against that - and people who are against prop8, voted on by the people, will support legalization of marijuana, voted on by the people [when it happens]. That's pretty telling)

A federal referendum would violate the US Constitution, but not a state referendum. The CA Supreme Court declared that the referendum was NOT in violation of the Constitution. So, this federal judge (who is a homosexual, BTW - hmmm...) had absolely no business to throw out the votes of the people. But it's not the first time...

What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle.


The 14th Amendment applies the equal protection clause to the states.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The 14th Amendment applies the equal protection clause to the states.

Sorry, but that doesn't truly apply - if it did, I'm sure that the CA Supreme Court would have said so - they are usually a pretty liberal bunch. Equal protection doesn't mean marriage. *shrugs* Application of amendments needs to be done by looking up intent.

Amendments 13-15 were specifically dealing with racism...not at ALL the same thing as same sex marriage, and truly an insult to blacks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh boy, what a thread! I can see the decay of Christians before my eyes. I guess if we want to throw morals as a country out the door to protect rights that is okay. Since we are advocating equal rights, we might as well let older men marry young girls. There is nothing Biblically wrong with it afterall. While we are at it, lets allow euthenasia. I mean they do have a right to die if they want to, don't they? Come on folks, where does the buck stop? Where do you draw the line of freedom versus morals? I actually was waiting for the equal rights argument to come up...I just knew it would!

Edited by amblivion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry, but that doesn't truly apply - if it did, I'm sure that the CA Supreme Court would have said so - they are usually a pretty liberal bunch. Equal protection doesn't mean marriage. *shrugs* Application of amendments needs to be done by looking up intent.


I'm afraid it does. That's why it was the Federal District Court in CA, not the California Supreme Court, that was hearing the case.

Please don't lock the thread (i.e., "take my ball and go home"), I'm still waiting for John to tell us what we are to do with all these homosexuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'm afraid it does. That's why it was the Federal District Court in CA, not the California Supreme Court, that was hearing the case.

Please don't lock the thread (i.e., "take my ball and go home"), I'm still waiting for John to tell us what we are to do with all these homosexuals.

I'm afraid it doesn't - the 13-15th amendments were dealing specifically with racism. Not same-sex marriage, and not the same thing at all.

pt - stop with your smart aleck stuff (talk about emotions). I locked that thread because you were becoming increasingly rude. It looks like you may be continuing that here...knock it off. If you can't discuss without insulting, then take your ball and go home. If you're so intent on what John has to say, you can always pm him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm afraid it doesn't - the 13-15th amendments were dealing specifically with racism. Not same-sex marriage, and not the same thing at all.

pt - stop with your smart aleck stuff (talk about emotions). I locked that thread because you were becoming increasingly rude. It looks like you may be continuing that here...knock it off. If you can't discuss without insulting, then take your ball and go home. If you're so intent on what John has to say, you can always pm him.


I don't have time to give you a primer on constitutional law, but in an effort to help you, I'll at least quote the pertinent part of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As you can plainly see, it doesn't say anything about race or racism. There is no doubt that it was adopted in response to reconstruction era restrictions on the freedoms of blacks, but the Congress, in its wisdom, saw fit to not limit it's application to anyone other than "persons," which includes everyone and not just blacks. If they would have wanted it to only apply to racism or to blacks, then they would have said so. So, as it stands, every single person in this country is afforded equal protection of our laws. That means if we are going to allow one person to do somthing, then we must allow all persons to do the same thing. We can't pick and chose who our laws are going to apply to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...