Pop 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel!

[Disgustipated]

This is a non-issue, and I really wish religious fanatics would stop being fools for one second and let people live their lives, without judging them. After all, that's what Christians are supposed to do, right? Not judge?

Oh that's right I forgot such rules are thrown out the window all the time because Christians are some of the most judgmental people known to man.

Athiests are just as judgmental (as this post shows)

Moderator Action: Slinging mud back is trolling too.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I am no religious expert, but I do believe the bible has something against homosexuality. Therein lies the problem. You can't just rewrite the bible. This is why religion needs to be separated from the institution of marriage.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Athiests are just as judgmental (as this post shows)

I am no religious expert, but I do believe the bible has something against homosexuality. Therein lies the problem. You can't just rewrite the bible. This is why religion needs to be separated from the institution of marriage.

The funny thing in the same section it also warns against eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers and for some reason I dont see people following that very closely.

 

[Murky]

The Sodom and Gomorrah story from the Bible demonizes homosexuality doesn't it? It promotes the idea that if individual people do what is pleasurable for them, the Wrath of God will kill everyone. If you are a fanatical, Bible thumping believer then you probably don't like the thought the LGBTs having too much freedom.

 

[mech654]

Athiests are just as judgmental (as this post shows)

I am no religious expert, but I do believe the bible has something against homosexuality. Therein lies the problem. You can't just rewrite the bible. This is why religion needs to be separated from the institution of marriage.

Yes you can rewrite it, it have been done before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The Sodom and Gomorrah story from the Bible demonizes homosexuality doesn't it? It promotes the idea that if individual people do what is pleasurable for them, the Wrath of God will kill everyone. If you are a fanatical, Bible thumping believer then you probably don't like the thought the LGBTs having too much freedom.

Apparently God viewed homosexuality as worse than rape:

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

Which really doesn't give me a strong belief that God's a morally good entity.

 

[_random_]

The funny thing in the same section it also warns against eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers and for some reason I dont see people following that very closely.

There are statements against homosexuality elsewhere in the Bible. Leviticus gets the most attention because it uses the word "abomination," which sounds all fancy and intimidating and what not.

Apparently God viewed homosexuality as worse than rape:



Which really doesn't give me a strong belief that God's a morally good entity.

I don't think that what they were planning for the angels was necessarily consensual either. Lot was still a dick though.

 

[mrt144]

Might want to hedge your best if it goes to SCOTUS just because of the 9th circuit's track record. Most overturned court in America.

also the largest circuit court with most cases. So of course that is to be expected. The fact that they aren't the most reversed, merely the most reversed AND vacated is the more apt statement.

 

[CaptainF]

Athiests are just as judgmental (as this post shows)

Why is it judgmental of me to point out that other people are judgmental?

I am no religious expert, but I do believe the bible has something against homosexuality. Therein lies the problem.

Yes, the fact that religion (at least the Western kind) generally bases itself off of violence, intolerance and fear is a problem.

You can't just rewrite the bible. This is why religion needs to be separated from the institution of marriage.

Marriage (and religion) should both be separate from government.

 

[Evie]

You can't really rewrite the bible (though there's this Luther guy who changed the content a bit), but you can reinterpret it.

An example is the rape vs gay sex interpretation given above the Soddom/Gomorrah story. It rely on a modern conception of the place of women in sexual relationship. The text never outright state that it is the male/male aspect of the sex that is the problem (and a lot of people have theorized that it's more "Oh, hey, strangers! Let's rape them!" aspect). Thus, interpretation.

Another bit of interpretation is added in this very thread when this is turned into a "God think rape is better than gay sex". Which rely on three bit of interpretation: 1. It was the homosexuality that was bad, 2. The bit with the girls was rape (questionable by the standards of the time, though not by modern standards), and 3. The bit with the guys would not have been rape (very questionable interpretation by both ancient and modern standards).

 

[uppi]

Or you could take the Bible at face value and conclude that the sin of Sodom was not (primarily) related to sex:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

So if you want to avoid God's wrath you should help the poor instead of banning gay marriage.

 

[Cutlass]

How is this unconstitutional?

You cannot deny some Americans the rights other Americans have for no better reason than that you don't like them. That's what the Constitution says.

 

[Elephantium]

You cannot deny some Americans the rights other Americans have for no better reason than that you don't like them. That's what the Constitution says.

What right is being denied? Marriage is a union between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. It has no more to do with unequal rights than giving pap smears to women but not men does.

Want to expand legal rights for gay partners? Fine, but don't call it marriage. Find a new word instead of torturing an existing one into an improper meaning.

 

[Cutlass]

What right is being denied? Marriage is a union between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. It has no more to do with unequal rights than giving pap smears to women but not men does.

Want to expand legal rights for gay partners? Fine, but don't call it marriage. Find a new word instead of torturing an existing one into an improper meaning.

That definition exists for no purpose and in no place except discrimination. If you are defining marriage like that, then you are doing so for no purpose other than to discriminate against people. This is no different than saying a black person cannot marry a white one.

 

[kramerfan86]

What right is being denied? Marriage is a union between a husband and a wife, a man and a woman. It has no more to do with unequal rights than giving pap smears to women but not men does.

Want to expand legal rights for gay partners? Fine, but don't call it marriage. Find a new word instead of torturing an existing one into an improper meaning.

Separate but equal has been demonstrated in the past to be a rather poor concept to follow.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Hopefully one day everyone, regardless of race, sexuality or religion can marry who they want in America.

Two of those are done.

I'm glad for this. I don't support gay marriage, but I don't think we should intervene in it.

Although I do feel sad for its proponents. Some of my fellow Catholics feel like they are letting the gay community down by letting it marry, and thus they have failed to prevent it.

It's always important to see two sides of a story.

 

[useless]

They feel like they're letting LGBTers down by allowing them to marry the partners they love...?

 

[JohnRM]

How is this unconstitutional?

Well, there is this little blurb.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If your argument against gay marriage isn't religious, then...well...you probably don't have an argument at all, and either support gay marriage or just don't care.


But, if that's not enough, then there is this little pesky thing.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

This particular amendment simply states that the rights of the people do not end with those listed in the constitution.


If that's not enough

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Yes, the constitution says, "Power...to the people."

 

[Save_Ferris]

They feel like they're letting LGBTers down by allowing them to marry the partners they love...?

They feel like they are letting them sin. It's complicated.

 

[useless]

Sure, but it's still discriminating against an entire group of people, who may or may not hold similar beliefs, who shouldn't find that they're restricted to things that they should be entitled too, just because of how certain religions/certain religious groups feel.

 

[Cutlass]

They feel like they are letting them sin. It's complicated.

First, that's just not an acceptable reason to deny people equal rights. Second, it's not what they are saying (most of the public spokesmen on the subject at any rate), so they know it's not a legitimate legal reasoning.