Fed judge to rule on Calif same-sex "marriage" amendment

[Pandora]

well thats the logic of what you just said...Republicans fight to make sure Gays don't have rights, you say well abortion...since the are not related, one would asume you say this as justification for gays not having rights...If you believe gays should have equal full rights, then why are you trying to attack that idea with unrelated issues?

They where your words...I simply took what is the logical outcome of your argument...you have to be for both or against both.

They are related when you deem homosexuals as Non people just like the left deems babies as non people. That is where they were the same.

I am not a republican but I don't know that republicans are out to take any rights away from homosexuals at least not mainstream republicans, there is always those odd groups like that family church who protests everyone and everything saying god hates you.

I have the exact same rights as a homosexual. I can not marry another woman either!


actually I have less rights, if someone throws a brick through my window the police wont come out, they will tell me to file a report at the police department in the morning, if someone throws a brick through a homosexual persons window they get the police out right then. so actually I have less rights but oh well

 

[Pandora]

You may have a point. Anti polygamy laws could be found to discriminate against particular religions, even be against the First Amendment.

I wonder if that one will make it to the Supreme Court as well? It would certainly be an interesting development.

I hope so, I am really pro polygamy. I have no idea why but it has always bothered me that the government has banned something that some religions deem needed for salvation. I would draw the line if some religion felt human or animal sacrifice was needed for salvation but being married to more than one person does not hurt anyone or anything

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You may have a point. Anti polygamy laws could be found to discriminate against particular religions, even be against the First Amendment.

I wonder if that one will make it to the Supreme Court as well? It would certainly be an interesting development.

actuly Islam forbids it, in many views as it suggest you can only have more then one wife if you can love both 100% equaly...something that is impossible to do..It was there because at the time, the region was very much a tribal grouping and there where often raids on others for needed supplies..thus alot of men where killed...this gave there wives options as there was far more woman then men do to there deaths...without a man in these times a woman was screwed ( in any religion for the most part)

 

[Pandora]

actuly Islam forbids it, in many views as it suggest you can only have more then one wife if you can love both 100% equaly...something that is impossible to do..It was there because at the time, the region was very much a tribal grouping and there where often raids on others for needed supplies..thus alot of men where killed...this gave there wives options as there was far more woman then men do to there deaths...without a man in these times a woman was screwed ( in any religion for the most part)

In Islam you may have up to 4 wives, a muslim friend of mine has 3. Judaism has a self made ban on plural marriages that ended a few years ago, I never checked into if they re instated the ban or not.

It also depends on what sect of islam you are in same goes for judaism and well mormons too. Only the Flds does plural marriage these days in the mormon religion

 

[pocketfullofshells]

They are related when you deem homosexuals as Non people just like the left deems babies as non people. That is where they were the same.

I am not a republican but I don't know that republicans are out to take any rights away from homosexuals at least not mainstream republicans, there is always those odd groups like that family church who protests everyone and everything saying god hates you.

I have the exact same rights as a homosexual. I can not marry another woman either!


actually I have less rights, if someone throws a brick through my window the police wont come out, they will tell me to file a report at the police department in the morning, if someone throws a brick through a homosexual persons window they get the police out right then. so actually I have less rights but oh well

right the mainstream republicans are for gay rights....who are these so called main stream republicans? And yes there is a difference between calling a clump of cells at 1 day later and a 22 year old adult a person ...you may not agree with how its deffined, but there is no debate that the 22 year old is a person with full rights ...well there should not be...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In Islam you may have up to 4 wives, a muslim friend of mine has 3. Judaism has a self made ban on plural marriages that ended a few years ago, I never checked into if they re instated the ban or not.

It also depends on what sect of islam you are in same goes for judaism and well mormons too. Only the Flds does plural marriage these days in the mormon religion

That may be one view of it..but I have not heard of the 4 rule...But I find it hard to belive anyone loves 4 wives 100% equal as state in the Koran ( of course the prophet can, but well its the prophet.

 

[Pandora]

right the mainstream republicans are for gay rights....who are these so called main stream republicans? And yes there is a difference between calling a clump of cells at 1 day later and a 22 year old adult a person ...you may not agree with how its deffined, but there is no debate that the 22 year old is a person with full rights ...well there should not be...

Its not a 1 day old clump of cells that gets aborted aka killed. Its a 2 to 3 month baby with a heart and lungs nervous system and its own DNA.

and right now homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as non homosexuals. I also may not marry a woman.

 

[Pandora]

That may be one view of it..but I have not heard of the 4 rule...But I find it hard to belive anyone loves 4 wives 100% equal as state in the Koran ( of course the prophet can, but well its the prophet.

Its deal justly not love... easy to do!


The shar’i text which permits plural marriage is:

Allaah says in His Holy Book (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/14022

 

[PLC1]

Its deal justly not love... easy to do!


The shar’i text which permits plural marriage is:

Allaah says in His Holy Book (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/14022

so, could prohibition of slavery be a law respecting religion too? There are similar passages in the Bible as well.

When you start looking at religious beliefs and ancient writings, a lot of interesting Constitutional questions come up.

Polygamy? sanctioned both in the Koran and the Bible. Slavery? same. Yet, both are illegal.

Of course, no one has challenged the constitutionality of either law, and perhaps they never will.

 

[Pandora]

so, could prohibition of slavery be a law respecting religion too? There are similar passages in the Bible as well.

When you start looking at religious beliefs and ancient writings, a lot of interesting Constitutional questions come up.

Polygamy? sanctioned both in the Koran and the Bible. Slavery? same. Yet, both are illegal.

Of course, no one has challenged the constitutionality of either law, and perhaps they never will.

I would not agree with slavery. The difference in plural marriage and slavery is one is willing one is not. I also do not agree with forcing children to marry old men or young men for that matter.

Both ok animal sacrifice too but I don't agree with that. I do though agree with killing the animal you eat in a special way. The scapegoat could be a problem. Its needed or was needed in judaism. Currently they beat the hell out of chickens and kill them instead of their scapegoats. They believe its needed for salvation. That makes for a real problem in my belief system. So I guess here I have to admit I am a hypocrite. I cannot help it, I draw the line at hurting and or killing animals because you think it will save you, even if you plan to eat it. But they do not eat the chickens and the animals they kill to eat they do it less painfully than a butcher shop so I am ok with that.

I would not say the banning of plural marriage is against the constitution for islam or judaism, neither require plural marriage, the FLDS does though require it for salvation and heaven, so in the case of the FLDS I would say its wrong to ban it.

 

[dogtowner]

right the mainstream republicans are for gay rights....who are these so called main stream republicans? And yes there is a difference between calling a clump of cells at 1 day later and a 22 year old adult a person ...you may not agree with how its deffined, but there is no debate that the 22 year old is a person with full rights ...well there should not be...

The GOP congress passed civil rights legislation while dems trie to block it. But the flaw in all this decision is that marriage is a privilidge not a right. It's always been subject to societal established bounds and the Cali amendment is exactly that.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its not a 1 day old clump of cells that gets aborted aka killed. Its a 2 to 3 month baby with a heart and lungs nervous system and its own DNA.

and right now homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as non homosexuals. I also may not marry a woman.

yea right , thats the same thing...And interracial marriage banns would be fine to, as long as everyone can't marry out of there race...

also does that mean your ok with abortion day after? maybe 2 days later? 5? 2 weeks? do you get to pick the date?

 

[GenSeneca]

Why is it any of my business who marries whom? Why should I care if you have one wife or ten? Why should I care if you marry a same sex partner? As long as the people involved are all consenting adults and their actions in no way interfere with, or violate, my individual rights, then I don't care what you do, how you do it, or who you do it with... It's none of my business.

Any when I say it's none of my business... I mean it's nobodies business. For the record though.. I do think "marriage" is between a man and a woman. If that's confusing, I also think a ham sandwich is made with bread and ham. However, if you wish to call a cheese omelett a ham sandwich, it's none of my business... Just don't violate my rights or it will become my business.

 

[Pandora]

yea right , thats the same thing...And interracial marriage banns would be fine to, as long as everyone can't marry out of there race...

also does that mean your ok with abortion day after? maybe 2 days later? 5? 2 weeks? do you get to pick the date?

I do not like abortion but I would be willing to compromise on the day after pill and even through the seocnd month. But I would want a stipulation that if the nervous system is formed then it must be done pain free.

I still would not like abortion but its a compromise I think could save many babies lives.

I am not sure how anyone could decide what race any one is. obama is half black but he calls himself african american or black. In the beginning we all came from the same stock so not sure how you could define it at all or why anyone would, at least not these days. We have progressed from slavery and blacks using different drinking fountains.

 

[PLC1]

I would not agree with slavery. The difference in plural marriage and slavery is one is willing one is not. I also do not agree with forcing children to marry old men or young men for that matter.

Both ok animal sacrifice too but I don't agree with that. I do though agree with killing the animal you eat in a special way. The scapegoat could be a problem. Its needed or was needed in judaism. Currently they beat the hell out of chickens and kill them instead of their scapegoats. They believe its needed for salvation. That makes for a real problem in my belief system. So I guess here I have to admit I am a hypocrite. I cannot help it, I draw the line at hurting and or killing animals because you think it will save you, even if you plan to eat it. But they do not eat the chickens and the animals they kill to eat they do it less painfully than a butcher shop so I am ok with that.

I would not say the banning of plural marriage is against the constitution for islam or judaism, neither require plural marriage, the FLDS does though require it for salvation and heaven, so in the case of the FLDS I would say its wrong to ban it.

I don't agree with slavery, or plural marriage, or animal sacrifice either. The point is, though, can you and I impose our values on people who may follow other religions that do value any and all of the above?

The FLDS says plural marriage is needed for salvation. The Old Testament and the Koran both sanction slavery. Animal sacrifice is an important part of some of the old Pagan religions. How can we outlaw such practices without limiting the free practice of religion?

Then, there is the use of peyote. If you're a native American, you are allowed to use it for religious purposes. If not, then you may not be. Isn't that discrimination on the basis of race?

Outlawing homosexual marriage is a different matter. In that case, the law discriminates based on an accident of birth, allowing some to have rights that others don't have.