California High Court Rules Against Gay Marriage, Except Those Already Done

[Goat Whisperer]

Without morals there would be no laws, because without morals there is no right or wrong. When morals and ethical standards are not met the population tends to push for things to become law as a knee jerk reaction. It's just the natural way things work. What has happened in California is a great example of that. The majority of people, myself included find same sex marriage wrong.

There is a separation of church and state, but I think you can also find that this has to do with more than just religion.

I don't think morals should have to do with laws. I think that as long as all parties involved in an action are consenting and no one is being effective in a life threatening or physically/emotionally dangerous way, the government has no reason to get involved.

Who the fuck is to tell me what is wrong and what is right unless if I am effecting someone else anyways?

 

[robdawg1]

Without morals there would be no laws, because without morals there is no right or wrong. When morals and ethical standards are not met the population tends to push for things to become law as a knee jerk reaction. It's just the natural way things work. What has happened in California is a great example of that. The majority of people, myself included find same sex marriage wrong.

There is a separation of church and state, but I think you can also find that this has to do with more than just religion.

And morals and religion are not mutually exclusive!! They don't always go hand in hand.

Morally persecuting people who dont believe as you do is wrong, some religions call for it including christianity!!

morally damning everyone who desnt belive what you believe to purgatory to "pay for sins" tey werent aware they were comtting is wrong, religion advocates this as well.....

this list goes on,

Morals dont mean religion, and morally the wrong thing is refusing people equal rights...
morally allowing 2 people to make their own decision and allowing them to recieve equal privelidges as everyone else is the right thing to do!!

 

[Dana]

what a retarded ruling

 

[Goat Whisperer]

what a retarded ruling

:homo:


Ironic really...

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Bri, I'm not religious either. I'm just a stickler for tradition.

I think this country is moving away from the majority rules stance to something more along the lines of "let's bend over backwards to keep the minority from feeling like they are being treated unfairly and in the process destroy our country." And I don't just mean with the marriage thing. People get butt hurt way too easy now, and it frustrates me.

I will say that, despite my disagreeing with gay marriage, they are doing the right thing by valuing the marriages that took place while it was legal. It would be unfair to take that away.

 

[Tim]

I don't agree with gay marriage. Marriage to me is a religious thing, and should be between a man and a woman. I've got nothing against civil unions, which give them the same rights, don't they? (Seriously asking, not being smart.) If you want to have a private ceremony, by all means, go ahead, but weddings and marriages are sacred and based in religion.

But it's not... Try going to a church and getting a marriage license. You CAN'T. Try going to a church and getting a divorce, you CAN'T. That's because MARRIAGE is a state sanctioned contract.

 

[Lord Stanley]

Morals dont mean religion, and morally the wrong thing is refusing people equal rights...
morally allowing 2 people to make their own decision and allowing them to recieve equal privelidges as everyone else is the right thing to do!!

well said

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Bri, I'm not religious either. I'm just a stickler for tradition.

I think this country is moving away from the majority rules stance to something more along the lines of "let's bend over backwards to keep the minority from feeling like they are being treated unfairly and in the process destroy our country." And I don't just mean with the marriage thing. People get butt hurt way too easy now, and it frustrates me.

I think we let the majority rule to much myself. We should be worried about freedom and equality, rather then what most of us want.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

But it's not... Try going to a church and getting a marriage license. You CAN'T. Try going to a church and getting a divorce, you CAN'T. That's because MARRIAGE is a state sanctioned contract.

Good post :clap

 

[robdawg1]

if we always let majority rule african americans would have no rights in this country women wouldnt be able to vote and children would be in sweatshops in detroit and chicago and atlanta etc....
majority isnt always right!!!

 

[HottyToddyChick]

That's what the country is founded on though.

 

[robdawg1]

The country also has a checks and balances system so when the majority is wrong they can over come it!

 

[HottyToddyChick]

I'm not saying right or wrong one way or the other. (Aside from them being right for not stripping marriages away from those who got them legally)

I just disagree with it.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

That's what the country is founded on though.

Letting the majority rule and say screw you to the rest?

Our country was founded on freedom. Therefore we should first strive for freedom and equality for all, followed by what the majority wants, not the other way around.

And it doesn't matter anyways because things can CHANGE what our founders believed is not necessarily the best.

 

[Tim]

... Like it or not, this country is founded on Christian morals. I imagine if you 3 had things your way we would remove all references to God from our currency, pledge of allegiance, and among other things.

There are a few things I need to point out to you.

1. This country was not founded on Christian morals
2. "In God we trust" was not added to our currency until congress passed legislation on January 18th, 1837 after pressure from religious groups. If it was the intention of our founding fathers, don't you think they would have added it from the beginning?
3. God was never mentioned in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. From 1892 to 1954 the words "Under God" were not part of the pledge of allegiance. So for the first 62 years God was never mentioned, those words have only been in the pledge for the last 55 years...

So if you want to keep things like they always were, then take "Under God" back out of the pledge and remove "In God we trust" off of all the US currency. Go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned America, where church and state were separate.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

There are a few things I need to point out to you.

1. This country was not founded on Christian morals
2. "In God we trust" was not added to our currency until congress passed legislation on January 18th, 1837 after pressure from religious groups. If it was the intention of our founding fathers, don't you think they would have added it from the beginning?
3. God was never mentioned in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. From 1892 to 1954 the words "Under God" were not part of the pledge of allegiance. So for the first 62 years God was never mentioned, those words have only been in the pledge for the last 55 years...

So if you want to keep things like they always were, then take "Under God" back out of the pledge and remove "In God we trust" off of all the US currency. Go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned America, where church and state were separate.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[KpAtch3s]

I have leave for class, but I'll be back later and respond to everyone.

 

[robdawg1]

There are a few things I need to point out to you.

1. This country was not founded on Christian morals
2. "In God we trust" was not added to our currency until congress passed legislation on January 18th, 1837 after pressure from religious groups. If it was the intention of our founding fathers, don't you think they would have added it from the beginning?
3. God was never mentioned in the pledge of allegiance until 1954. From 1892 to 1954 the words "Under God" were not part of the pledge of allegiance. So for the first 62 years God was never mentioned, those words have only been in the pledge for the last 55 years...

So if you want to keep things like they always were, then take "Under God" back out of the pledge and remove "In God we trust" off of all the US currency. Go back to the way our founding fathers envisioned America, where church and state were separate.

:spank::spank::spank:

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Letting the majority rule and say screw you to the rest?

Our country was founded on freedom. Therefore we should first strive for freedom and equality for all, followed by what the majority wants, not the other way around.

And it doesn't matter anyways because things can CHANGE what our founders believed is not necessarily the best.

You can't make everyone happy. What some people want will always contradict what someone else wants. And, playing devil's advocate, what you said could be turned into "let the minority rule and say screw you to the majority"

There's no way to be fair to everyone.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

You can't make everyone happy. What some people want will always contradict what someone else wants. And, playing devil's advocate, what you said could be turned into "let the minority rule and say screw you to the majority"

There's no way to be fair to everyone.

It can be equal. We can give everyone the same rights. It's not making everyone happy. It making everyone the same in the eyes of the law.