Prop. 8 Struck Down as Unconstitutional

[TitanTiger 20,538]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

[au2004ece 30]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

It will definitely be the result.

[Shire5k 19]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode.

Semantics. If you think that the traditional nuclear family is important and the best situation for children to be raised in and for society in general (exceptions notwithstanding), then it's an erosion. If you pretty much feel that the traditional nuclear family is no better or no worse than dozens of other possible arrangements, some of which have already been mentioned, then it's just "change."

It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

Like I said, it wasn't a blanket statement that applied to all people who support it. But there is a not-insignificant portion of those pushing for this who have bigger aims in mind.

[au2004ece 30]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

If gay people made good parents, then God and/or evolution would have made it so children could result from gay sex.

[Shire5k 19]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

If gay people made good parents, then God and/or evolution would have made it so children could result from gay sex.

And if the Bible were to be believed, then gay people would all go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah...you know...since it's such an abomination. I just didn't realize that all gay people were child abusing monsters and that all straight people were incapable of such atrocities.

[au2004ece 30]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

If gay people made good parents, then God and/or evolution would have made it so children could result from gay sex.

And if the Bible were to be believed, then gay people would all go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah...you know...since it's such an abomination. I just didn't realize that all gay people were child abusing monsters and that all straight people were incapable of such atrocities.

You specifically ignored the "and/or evolution" part of my statement so that you could distort my statement.

So, since you don't like the part about God: Evolution would have produced a situation where gay sex leads to children, if gay parents was the best way forward for our species. Instead, it has produced 0 situations like that. So, it has to be gathered that gay parents would not yield the best results.

[autigeremt 6,775]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

I think what you think isn't rational. If gays and lesbians wanted to be legally defined as spouses, they wouldn't attack the religous sanctity of marriage. There is an agenda with this.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I just didn't realize that all gay people were child abusing monsters and that all straight people were incapable of such atrocities.

Who here said that?

[Shire5k 19]

I actually think for some, the gay marriage crusade is just a piece of a larger puzzle...a bigger scheme to gradually erode the traditional notion of what constitutes a family in general. I'm not saying that's what it's about for everyone involved in it, but I do think it is just a part of a larger agenda.

I don't think anyone's goal is to erode anything. Change, maybe, but not erode. It's certainly not my goal to make family less important or anything. My goal is just to get fair treatment for a group of people who should have it. People may think that a gay couple with children is wrong, or that gay people make terrible parents...but that's simply not true. Being a good/terrible parent is not about being gay or straight.

If gay people made good parents, then God and/or evolution would have made it so children could result from gay sex.

And if the Bible were to be believed, then gay people would all go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah...you know...since it's such an abomination. I just didn't realize that all gay people were child abusing monsters and that all straight people were incapable of such atrocities.

You specifically ignored the "and/or evolution" part of my statement so that you could distort my statement.

So, since you don't like the part about God: Evolution would have produced a situation where gay sex leads to children, if gay parents was the best way forward for our species. Instead, it has produced 0 situations like that. So, it has to be gathered that gay parents would not yield the best results.

Then why are there gay people at all? If evolution only cared about procreation, then there wouldn't be any. But see, having a child and being a parent are two completely different things. It's ridiculous that you can't type the words that a gay person is just as capable of being a good parent as a straight person.

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

I just didn't realize that all gay people were child abusing monsters and that all straight people were incapable of such atrocities.

Who here said that?

No one. I just run into the attitude of "Gay parents will either abuse their kids or try to turn them gay" a lot. That dog don't hunt. If anyone would be about their kids being their own person, it's a gay couple.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

And I get so tired of people mischaracterizing Biblical teaching on this issue by isolating six verses that specifically mention homosexual conduct and acting like that's all the Bible has to say on the matter. The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting. From repeatedly affirming one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment to one another, to repeatedly condemning actions that depart from it whether it be homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, orgies, bestiality, incest and so on. The message is clear on what constitutes a proper setting for sexual relationships: a marriage of one woman and one man.

And also, there were lots of things Jesus didn't specifically mention. He didn't discuss bestiality or rape specifically either. Don't make arguments from silence.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Then why are there gay people at all? If evolution only cared about procreation, then there wouldn't be any. But see, having a child and being a parent are two completely different things. It's ridiculous that you can't type the words that a gay person is just as capable of being a good parent as a straight person.

Just because gay people exist doesn't mean that nature is supposed to be that way either. Why are there chemical imbalances in people? Some people just have those type genes and chemicals. It doesn't mean it's supposed to be that way or is common.

Why are there 2 different genders? You'd think if people of the same sex reproducing is natural and supposed to be that way then why are there 2 genders? Why aren't we all the same gender or why aren't there 3 different genders?

I'm a Christian too but I'm looking at this from a biological perspective, not a religious perspective of being morally wrong.

[Shire5k 19]

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

And I get so tired of people mischaracterizing Biblical teaching on this issue by isolating six verses that specifically mention homosexual conduct and acting like that's all the Bible has to say on the matter. The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting. From repeatedly affirming one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment to one another, to repeatedly condemning actions that depart from it whether it be homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, orgies, bestiality, incest and so on. The message is clear on what constitutes a proper setting for sexual relationships: a marriage of one woman and one man.

And also, there were lots of things Jesus didn't specifically mention. He didn't discuss bestiality or rape specifically either. Don't make arguments from silence.

Yes, because what was "natural" 2000 years ago is always applicable to today. Heck, in the Bible itself(New Testament), it's said that the Holiness Code in Leviticus (from which stems some of the verses that might regard homosexuality) is out of date. The Bible (to me) is more about love, forgiveness and sacrifice than the moral code (which is open to interpretation) that was written two millennium ago.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

And I get so tired of people mischaracterizing Biblical teaching on this issue by isolating six verses that specifically mention homosexual conduct and acting like that's all the Bible has to say on the matter. The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting. From repeatedly affirming one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment to one another, to repeatedly condemning actions that depart from it whether it be homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, orgies, bestiality, incest and so on. The message is clear on what constitutes a proper setting for sexual relationships: a marriage of one woman and one man.

And also, there were lots of things Jesus didn't specifically mention. He didn't discuss bestiality or rape specifically either. Don't make arguments from silence.

Yes, because what was "natural" 2000 years ago is always applicable to today. Heck, in the Bible itself(New Testament), it's said that the Holiness Code in Leviticus (from which stems some of the verses that might regard homosexuality) is out of date. The Bible (to me) is more about love, forgiveness and sacrifice than the moral code (which is open to interpretation) that was written two millennium ago.

Except that while the vision that Peter had specifically deals with things such as non-kosher foods because Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, the moral law is reaffirmed repeatedly in the New Testament. So where you see that the holiness codes dealing with hand washings and foods and such are abrogated in the New Covenant, the prohibitions on adultery, fornication, homosexuality and so on are reafffirmed as still valid.

The Bible is about love, forgiveness and sacrifice. It's just not ONLY about those things.

[Shire5k 19]

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

And I get so tired of people mischaracterizing Biblical teaching on this issue by isolating six verses that specifically mention homosexual conduct and acting like that's all the Bible has to say on the matter. The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting. From repeatedly affirming one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment to one another, to repeatedly condemning actions that depart from it whether it be homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, orgies, bestiality, incest and so on. The message is clear on what constitutes a proper setting for sexual relationships: a marriage of one woman and one man.

And also, there were lots of things Jesus didn't specifically mention. He didn't discuss bestiality or rape specifically either. Don't make arguments from silence.

Yes, because what was "natural" 2000 years ago is always applicable to today. Heck, in the Bible itself(New Testament), it's said that the Holiness Code in Leviticus (from which stems some of the verses that might regard homosexuality) is out of date. The Bible (to me) is more about love, forgiveness and sacrifice than the moral code (which is open to interpretation) that was written two millennium ago.

Except that while the vision that Peter had specifically deals with things such as non-kosher foods because Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, the moral law is reaffirmed repeatedly in the New Testament. So where you see that the holiness codes dealing with hand washings and foods and such are abrogated in the New Covenant, the prohibitions on adultery, fornication, homosexuality and so on are reafffirmed as still valid.

The Bible is about love, forgiveness and sacrifice. It's just not ONLY about those things.

Well, what about the New Testament verses about divorce? Clearly Christians don't follow that any more.

Anyway, we obviously aren't getting anywhere with this debate and we aren't going to change eachother's minds. I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Well, what about the New Testament verses about divorce? Clearly Christians don't follow that any more.

Doesn't mean divorce is ok anymore than the fact that some Christians have committed adultery make that ok. We have laws against stealing. People still steal. Should we just erase those laws since selfish people break them anyway? Sinners sin. Go figure.

[au2004ece 30]

Then why are there gay people at all? If evolution only cared about procreation, then there wouldn't be any.

Because people have free will and get to choose how to live.

But see, having a child and being a parent are two completely different things. It's ridiculous that you can't type the words that a gay person is just as capable of being a good parent as a straight person.

Two people that are living in a gay household/"marriage" are not as capable of being a good parent as two people living in a heterosexual household/marriage. Men and women both have roles in raising children. The gay household/"marriage" denies this.

As far as the God thing goes....well let's get one thing straight: I am a Christian. I just get tired of arguing about the 6 or so verses (SIX...out of the entire Bible) that people constantly quote as "condemning homosexuality" when they don't even research these verses and what else they could possibly mean. If you look a littler closer, it's far from clear that these verses are even ABOUT homosexuality as it exists today. Oh, and by the way, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at. all. in the Bible.

I didn't say anything about the those verses or even the Bible. I included all beliefs/ideas in my statement that said "God and/or evolution". Almost everybody believes in God OR Evolution OR Both.

[au2004ece 30]

The Bible (to me) is more about love, forgiveness and sacrifice than the moral code (which is open to interpretation) that was written two millennium ago.

The Bible is about love, forgiveness, and sacrifice.

The Bible provides a way to live that will yield the best results. We should seek that way, but we will fail. That's why love and forgiveness are necessary. While forgiveness is available and while we should all forgive and love others that fail, condoning certain actions is not forgiveness and is not love. Condoning the actions promotes more movement away from the way to live that will yield the best results.

[Aufan59 83]

The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting.

And of these teachings, so how do we know what is literal, and what is figurative?

I personally like the parts about women being obedient to their husbands.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting.

And of these teachings, so how do we know what is literal, and what is figurative?

I personally like the parts about women being obedient to their husbands.

Then you must also like the part about men honoring their wives.

[OldNewby 27]

The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting.

And of these teachings, so how do we know what is literal, and what is figurative?

I personally like the parts about women being obedient to their husbands.

Then you must also like the part about men honoring their wives.

+1

[TitanTiger 20,538]

The Bible has a lot to say on human sexuality and that's what this issue is a component of...the overall view on Biblical sexuality and its proper setting.

And of these teachings, so how do we know what is literal, and what is figurative?

I personally like the parts about women being obedient to their husbands.

Then you must also like the part about men honoring their wives.

Yeah, that part about "love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" is a total picnic. Self sacrifice? Dying to self and putting their needs before your own? Taking on the form of a servant? Easy peesy.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Then why are there gay people at all? If evolution only cared about procreation, then there wouldn't be any. But see, having a child and being a parent are two completely different things. It's ridiculous that you can't type the words that a gay person is just as capable of being a good parent as a straight person.

Just because gay people exist doesn't mean that nature is supposed to be that way either. Why are there chemical imbalances in people? Some people just have those type genes and chemicals. It doesn't mean it's supposed to be that way or is common.

Why are there 2 different genders? You'd think if people of the same sex reproducing is natural and supposed to be that way then why are there 2 genders? Why aren't we all the same gender or why aren't there 3 different genders?

I'm a Christian too but I'm looking at this from a biological perspective, not a religious perspective of being morally wrong.

I got this male dog. Sometimes when a male human comes in the yard the dog will hump their leg. Must be one of them chemical imbalances.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Then why are there gay people at all? If evolution only cared about procreation, then there wouldn't be any. But see, having a child and being a parent are two completely different things. It's ridiculous that you can't type the words that a gay person is just as capable of being a good parent as a straight person.

Just because gay people exist doesn't mean that nature is supposed to be that way either. Why are there chemical imbalances in people? Some people just have those type genes and chemicals. It doesn't mean it's supposed to be that way or is common.

Why are there 2 different genders? You'd think if people of the same sex reproducing is natural and supposed to be that way then why are there 2 genders? Why aren't we all the same gender or why aren't there 3 different genders?

I'm a Christian too but I'm looking at this from a biological perspective, not a religious perspective of being morally wrong.

I got this male dog. Sometimes when a male human comes in the yard the dog will hump their leg. Must be one of them chemical imbalances.

Growing up, my neighbor had this male dog, it used to hump the coffee table.

Maybe he could marry it.

[Grumps 3,705]

It seems to me there are 2 separate issues:

1) Same sex marriage.

2) Homosexuals having the same rights as a married couple.

It seems that same sex couples can have the same rights as married people without altering the definition of marriage. Why would that not be a good alternative? Can opposite sex couples have a civil union in Vermont?