yeah darn activist judges said the voters had to abide by their constitution. Oh, I did read that current polls say the voters of Cali are likely going to change their own mind this next time around and agree with those activist judges. Cursed fickle voters just don't understand God's plan for civil government.
yeah darn activist judges said the voters had to abide by their constitution.
By a 4-3 vote, judges judged ... this issue was not covered in the constitution ... the judges even admitted this was a change ... "activist judges" also claim to have reason for their judgment .. they are opinions.
Oh, I did read that current polls say the voters of Cali are likely going to change their own mind this next time around and agree with those activist judges. Cursed fickle voters just don't understand God's plan for civil government.
Then the voters will decide for California ... though you don't offer a source. Generally the voters understand a good bit. I see no need to cast those that vote against as bigots. But there has been a lot of that here ...
Then the voters will decide for California ... though you don't offer a source. Generally the voters understand a good bit. I see no need to cast those that vote against as bigots. But there has been a lot of that here ...
Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion. I seem to see no reason to lambast 4 judges for what they , as is their job, interpret as the legality of a law written by laymen. It was a ballot question about which I seem to recall there was confusion as to its wording and legality when it was presented to the voters. Did not the republican governor say at the time that he felt interpretation of the initiative needed to be determined by the courts, so he would support it until they decided its legality?
In any event, like is often the case with ballot initiatives, there were many who questioned its actual legal implementation well before election day.
Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion.
OK, I'll GO 4 That. :) But PLEASE explain, HOW does a "casual setting discussion" relate to SEX & JUDGES? Maybe I'm missing something here, but don't these issues relate to something more important, than just casual sex?
I thought we were all here go make judgements about homosexuals?? After all, who could be more qualified than former cult addicts?? :blink:
Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion. I seem to see no reason to lambast 4 judges for what they , as is their job, interpret as the legality of a law written by laymen.
No you don't ... though I gave quotes, a source, and the source quoted research ... and that was still lambasted as insufficient for our little discussion ...
But I was curious of the source. Yes, the judges gave their opinion ... as they are supposed to. Now the vote will come up again. But a constitutional ballot initiative may actually make things more strict than they are now, if it does pass.
Is it any wonder that it takes 9 (count them NINE) Supreme Court Judges to make a decision?
It's up to them to interpret a law and judge whether or not it passes Constitutional standards, yet it all seems oh so easy for armchair legal experts with little or no knowlege of Constitutional law to judge their judgments.
I wouldn't want their job. Their perks - yes :), but not their job.
I don't have to agree or disagree with them to respect what they do.
Thank you Rhino for actually reading that link from the AAP, a group that has children's health and well being and by default the families they are growing up in as their main "agenda."
"...My sense of morality..." Did that come from your television too? I'm assuming that, judging from the crap I see on the little TV I do watch.
Nope! The TV isn't on much in our house either. There isn't much of interest or quality on and we definitely don't think it is best for our kids. They watch virtually zero TV or movies. My sense of morality comes from my personal experience, my education (both formal and on my own), my Christian upbringing, and my reason.
"You ignorant, unwashed masses have no idea of what's good for you. I, however, do. I will decide what is best for you and how you should live; I am the judge, I know what's best."
Sounds like what this initiative and the voters were trying to do, just replace "ignorant, unwashed masses" with your own personal homosexual pejorative.
As for who's to blame if you're gay and in the closet or if you face descrimination, hate speech, violence, et cetera?
i was wondering when "hate speech" was gonna be brought up...
"hate speech" legislation is one of those things that supports the idea of "forced acceptance"...
certain speech has been made a crime...
thereby, effectively silencing any criticism or opposition...
if that's not forced acceptance, i don't know what is...
homosexuals do not want "equal rights", they want special rights based upon their sexual behavior...
they are most vocal about demanding that their "lifestyle" be accepted...
and there definitely is a GLTB agenda that promotes their lifestyle...
It amazes me that the thought of two people of the same sex kissing enrages some people more than the murder of a lesbian or gay person. Still sure that this is a moral question?
"enrages" is not the right word...
it does not enrage me; it makes me nauseous to see such a display...
and yes, it is a "moral" question... it's a question of what is right and wrong...
although i know that in this age of "relativism", right and wrong has been pretty much thrown out the window...
i believe the bible...
i'm not forcing anyone else to believe the bible...
but as long as we still have free speech, i am gonna speak my mind...
the bible says that homosexual behavior is wrong...
and that's what i believe...
i've noticed that shellfish (as an abomination) has been brought up a few times...
and so i would just like to clarify a couple things...
shellfish falls under the category of a dietary law...
(personally, i think that these are still good rules to follow for health reasons)
but Christ is the end of the law for righteousness...
and HE has fulfilled the law, being made our final sacrifice for sin...
so we no longer need to follow dietary laws to be made righteous before God...
these laws were a shadow of the things to come...
when the bible refers to shellfish as an "abomination", the word used is "sheqets"...
(see leviticus 11 for a list of dietary "abominations" i.e. sheqets)
"sheqets" carries the meaning of impure in the sense of contaminated, polluted...
a very appropriate description of the "meat" of the restricted animals and the reason for not eating such...
the section of leviticus that references "homosexuality" (chapter 18) is a totally different scenario...
lev. 18 is talking about sexual practices...
(the list includes incest, adultery, and bestiality)
and the word for "abomination" in this chapter is "towebah"...
"towebah" carries the meaning of impure in an ethical sense (confusion, sexual perversion, violation of nature/divine order)
these are two very different abominations... and are distingished as such in the hebrew...
ok, since two have asked, I read it in the Rocky Mountain News, as an AP release. I am sure if you WERE to care, you could have found it yourself. I'll make it easy for you, from America's Election HQ at Fox:
Bumpere- THIS is the casual discussion setting, the forum.
Oh! I must have gotten lost? I was wondering which room I was in... where's the bar anyway? Btw., I'm not in a "Gay" bar am I? And what's all the talk about shellfish and SEX?? I thought Oysters & Sex were a good combination?
I'm not too sure about all this "casual discussion setting"? This seems like a pretty hardcore joint. How come nobody asks my opinion in these polls anyway?
<H1 class=blog_title>Latino quote of the day</H1><H3 class=blog_tease>"Silence gives consent. If we don't speak, they win. On the battlefield they put our fingers behind the trigger, but when we come home we don't have the same rights as the rest of America. I'm speaking for all of us now. I'm standing on two strong legs, and I will be heard."
— San Antonio retired Marine Staff Sgt.in an interview with The Advocate magazine in July of last year. He is testifying before the House Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel today against the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. he was the first man wounded in Iraq, losing his right leg and earning a Purple Heart.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Bumpy
The sun is setting in Bretagne ce soir. Possibly, you can debate the "gay" frais with Cafe' au lait, until "death do you part"?
But until sexual reproduction supersedes the political debate, close Pandora's Box and put the "Fudge Packers" back in the bloody CLOSET!
The Lord will have his Day...Tomorrow!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
yeah darn activist judges said the voters had to abide by their constitution. Oh, I did read that current polls say the voters of Cali are likely going to change their own mind this next time around and agree with those activist judges. Cursed fickle voters just don't understand God's plan for civil government.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
By a 4-3 vote, judges judged ... this issue was not covered in the constitution ... the judges even admitted this was a change ... "activist judges" also claim to have reason for their judgment .. they are opinions.
Then the voters will decide for California ... though you don't offer a source. Generally the voters understand a good bit. I see no need to cast those that vote against as bigots. But there has been a lot of that here ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Rhino, as a Cal gad, I knows...it's a long way to Tiparary from Illinois! Even on da net! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Nor do I have to provide a source for a statement about what I read, in a casual setting discussion. I seem to see no reason to lambast 4 judges for what they , as is their job, interpret as the legality of a law written by laymen. It was a ballot question about which I seem to recall there was confusion as to its wording and legality when it was presented to the voters. Did not the republican governor say at the time that he felt interpretation of the initiative needed to be determined by the courts, so he would support it until they decided its legality?
In any event, like is often the case with ballot initiatives, there were many who questioned its actual legal implementation well before election day.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
OK, I'll GO 4 That. :) But PLEASE explain, HOW does a "casual setting discussion" relate to SEX & JUDGES? Maybe I'm missing something here, but don't these issues relate to something more important, than just casual sex?
I thought we were all here go make judgements about homosexuals?? After all, who could be more qualified than former cult addicts?? :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
No you don't ... though I gave quotes, a source, and the source quoted research ... and that was still lambasted as insufficient for our little discussion ...
But I was curious of the source. Yes, the judges gave their opinion ... as they are supposed to. Now the vote will come up again. But a constitutional ballot initiative may actually make things more strict than they are now, if it does pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Is it any wonder that it takes 9 (count them NINE) Supreme Court Judges to make a decision?
It's up to them to interpret a law and judge whether or not it passes Constitutional standards, yet it all seems oh so easy for armchair legal experts with little or no knowlege of Constitutional law to judge their judgments.
I wouldn't want their job. Their perks - yes :), but not their job.
I don't have to agree or disagree with them to respect what they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Thank you Rhino for actually reading that link from the AAP, a group that has children's health and well being and by default the families they are growing up in as their main "agenda."
Nope! The TV isn't on much in our house either. There isn't much of interest or quality on and we definitely don't think it is best for our kids. They watch virtually zero TV or movies. My sense of morality comes from my personal experience, my education (both formal and on my own), my Christian upbringing, and my reason.Sounds like what this initiative and the voters were trying to do, just replace "ignorant, unwashed masses" with your own personal homosexual pejorative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
"hate speech" legislation is one of those things that supports the idea of "forced acceptance"...
certain speech has been made a crime...
thereby, effectively silencing any criticism or opposition...
if that's not forced acceptance, i don't know what is...
homosexuals do not want "equal rights", they want special rights based upon their sexual behavior...
they are most vocal about demanding that their "lifestyle" be accepted...
and there definitely is a GLTB agenda that promotes their lifestyle...
"enrages" is not the right word...it does not enrage me; it makes me nauseous to see such a display...
and yes, it is a "moral" question... it's a question of what is right and wrong...
although i know that in this age of "relativism", right and wrong has been pretty much thrown out the window...
i believe the bible...
i'm not forcing anyone else to believe the bible...
but as long as we still have free speech, i am gonna speak my mind...
the bible says that homosexual behavior is wrong...
and that's what i believe...
i've noticed that shellfish (as an abomination) has been brought up a few times...
and so i would just like to clarify a couple things...
shellfish falls under the category of a dietary law...
(personally, i think that these are still good rules to follow for health reasons)
but Christ is the end of the law for righteousness...
and HE has fulfilled the law, being made our final sacrifice for sin...
so we no longer need to follow dietary laws to be made righteous before God...
these laws were a shadow of the things to come...
when the bible refers to shellfish as an "abomination", the word used is "sheqets"...
(see leviticus 11 for a list of dietary "abominations" i.e. sheqets)
"sheqets" carries the meaning of impure in the sense of contaminated, polluted...
a very appropriate description of the "meat" of the restricted animals and the reason for not eating such...
the section of leviticus that references "homosexuality" (chapter 18) is a totally different scenario...
lev. 18 is talking about sexual practices...
(the list includes incest, adultery, and bestiality)
and the word for "abomination" in this chapter is "towebah"...
"towebah" carries the meaning of impure in an ethical sense (confusion, sexual perversion, violation of nature/divine order)
these are two very different abominations... and are distingished as such in the hebrew...
just wanted to clear that up...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
ok, since two have asked, I read it in the Rocky Mountain News, as an AP release. I am sure if you WERE to care, you could have found it yourself. I'll make it easy for you, from America's Election HQ at Fox:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/ca...marriage-is-ok/
Bumpere- THIS is the casual discussion setting, the forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Oh! I must have gotten lost? I was wondering which room I was in... where's the bar anyway? Btw., I'm not in a "Gay" bar am I? And what's all the talk about shellfish and SEX?? I thought Oysters & Sex were a good combination?
I'm not too sure about all this "casual discussion setting"? This seems like a pretty hardcore joint. How come nobody asks my opinion in these polls anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
<H1 class=blog_title>Latino quote of the day</H1><H3 class=blog_tease>"Silence gives consent. If we don't speak, they win. On the battlefield they put our fingers behind the trigger, but when we come home we don't have the same rights as the rest of America. I'm speaking for all of us now. I'm standing on two strong legs, and I will be heard."
— San Antonio retired Marine Staff Sgt.in an interview with The Advocate magazine in July of last year. He is testifying before the House Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel today against the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. he was the first man wounded in Iraq, losing his right leg and earning a Purple Heart.
</H3>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
OKC, thanks for the article. He is a very brave man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.