Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 4 - The Horse Forum

 127Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:15 PM
Trained
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: southern Arizona
Posts: 8,841
• Horses: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlideStop View Post
...I highly doubt Jesus would be out there trying to oppress groups of people. He was a healer, a teacher and a roll model for good character...

“Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you utter frauds! For you pay your tithe on mint and aniseed and cummin, and neglect the things which carry far more weight in the Law—justice, mercy and good faith. These are the things you should have observed—without neglecting the others. You call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel.

“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, while the inside is full of greed and self-indulgence. Can’t you see, Pharisee? First wash the inside of a cup, and then you can clean the outside.

“Alas for you, you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees! You are like white-washed tombs, which look fine on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all kinds of rottenness. For you appear like good men on the outside—but inside you are a mass of pretence and wickedness.


“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees!"
- Matthew 25

Sounds kind of oppressive to me! Or at a minimum, kind of rude!

However, since this thread is about the LAW, I'd defy anyone to show me where the oral arguments today discussed Jesus, or hell, or a requirement to believe in Christianity.

As a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, where does it give homosexuals a GUARANTEED right to marriage, or discuss marriage at all? It seems to me, it is most likely covered in the 10th Amendment:
"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."

"There goes Earl!"
bsms is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:20 PM Thread Starter
Trained
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,101
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?

Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.
Just like the bible, you can't take that saying literally. Obviously it has to be within reason, so no murderers can't murder and people can't molest children. That's saying entitles you to life of doing what makes you happy. You want to be a farmer, farm. Want a big house, buy a big house. Want 15 kids, have 15 kids. Plus you need to understand the PERIOD this was coming from. If you were born a poor farmer you would most likely stay a poor farmer. If you were born a wealth business man you would stay a wealth business man. That saying or "right" was created to tell the people of broke and struggling America they your not stuck being a poor person, if you have a dream of being a wealth man go for it! Pretty much what this country was founded on, people leaving oppression seeking a better life.
Posted via Mobile Device
SlideStop is offline  
post #33 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:24 PM
Trained
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: southern Arizona
Posts: 8,841
• Horses: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaileyJo View Post
You're comparing apples to oranges with pedophiles and bank robbers. Why don't we just exploit children and innocent people because gays are having an adult relationship between two consenting people? Doesn't make sense.
Why not 3 people? Or four?

Given that homosexuality was illegal until the 60s, in what meaningful sense does the US Constitution require states to allow homosexuals to marry? As Scalia put it:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -* as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -
*
JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then -*

MR. OLSON: Because the case that's before you -*

JUSTICE SCALIA: -- if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/12-144a.pdf

As a matter of law, when did we as a society make a decision that homosexuality is good and must be encouraged? When did we, as a society, make a collective decision to allow homosexual marriage?

A number of states HAVE done so, and have done so legally. Others have not. But when did the US Constitution change? And who changed it? And how?

If a majority of people decide they want homosexuals to be able to marry, then change the law - as a number of states have done. I will accept majority rule. What I don't accept is that the Constitution changes every time Justice Kennedy farts...

"There goes Earl!"
bsms is offline  
post #34 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:25 PM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Surry, Va
Posts: 4,712
• Horses: 0
I think the constitutional arguments are stemming from the 14th's equal protection clause.
However ruling its a states issue is a pretty good dodge the question political reponse. One that I would default to on most matters. But as pointed out, right and wrong doesnt really matter to this court. All about politics.
Joe4d is offline  
post #35 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:34 PM
Weanling
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 609
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
“Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you utter frauds! For you pay your tithe on mint and aniseed and cummin, and neglect the things which carry far more weight in the Law—justice, mercy and good faith. These are the things you should have observed—without neglecting the others. You call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel.
“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, while the inside is full of greed and self-indulgence. Can’t you see, Pharisee? First wash the inside of a cup, and then you can clean the outside.

“Alas for you, you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees! You are like white-washed tombs, which look fine on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all kinds of rottenness. For you appear like good men on the outside—but inside you are a mass of pretence and wickedness.

“What miserable frauds you are, you scribes and Pharisees!" - Matthew 25

Sounds kind of oppressive to me! Or at a minimum, kind of rude!
Matthew wrote in a crude fashion. That was his style. Jesus was actually written in four different perceptions by four very different people. If you want the kinder, more gentlier Jesus, read John.


Anyway, this passage is saying how the Pharisees put on a display on the outside thinking they are perfect while in fact, inside they are imperfect. They condemn those around them when what they should be doing is turning their attention to themselves and not look at themselves being above everyone else. This is how I translate this verse.


This very same passage also says to me as heterosexuals who claim to be the only ones who know how to marry - when in fact, what is the divorce rate again??
BaileyJo is offline  
post #36 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:42 PM
Weanling
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 609
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
Why not 3 people? Or four?
I'm not arguing over your group marriage. That is a banana and doesn't belong in my argument. But when you throw pedophiles and bank robbers in with gays, that won't fly in my book. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Like it or not, it will change. Otherwise we would still have slavery, still not allow women to vote or own property, (possibly not even be allowed to wear pants) have segregation, not allow people of two different races to marry, not have a Black President, on and on.....

Change is coming people.
BaileyJo is offline  
post #37 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:54 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 817
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
Can a pedophile pursue happiness? What about a bank robber? Can a Muslim pursue happiness with 4 wives in America? The states have varying laws about minimum age - why can one state ban a 16 year old from marrying, and another allow it? Should the state allow 2 men and 3 women to enter into a "marriage"? What if it makes them happy?

Virtually every law on the books interferes with the pursuit of someone's happiness. I'm happier driving at 85 mph than 75 mph - why don't I get to do what makes me happy? And for the record, I've done a LOT of speeding in my life, and haven't had an accident.
very good post with a great point.
PurpleMonkeyWrench is offline  
post #38 of 226 Old 03-26-2013, 11:57 PM
Trained
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: southern Arizona
Posts: 8,841
• Horses: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaileyJo View Post
I'm not arguing over your group marriage. That is a banana and doesn't belong in my argument. But when you throw pedophiles and bank robbers in with gays, that won't fly in my book. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Like it or not, it will change. Otherwise we would still have slavery, still not allow women to vote or own property, (possibly not even be allowed to wear pants) have segregation, not allow people of two different races to marry, not have a Black President, on and on.....

Change is coming people.
The reason we have a democratic republic is to allow change in accordance with popular demand. It may well be that homosexual marriage will be allowed by more and more states...but that isn't a constitutional matter. When long-standing rules are changed by a majority vote on a court, instead of from the legislature or initiatives, you end up with bitter battle lines. And if 'equal protection' requires allowing homosexuals to marry, then it would also require polygamy, polyandry, require a uniform age for marriage eligibility, etc.

Five justices may decide they want homosexual marriage, and then make up an excuse and say it is in the Constitution. Personally, I reject that as an acceptable way to make laws.

"There goes Earl!"
bsms is offline  
post #39 of 226 Old 03-27-2013, 12:36 AM
Green Broke
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,791
• Horses: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muppetgirl View Post
I just say live and let live.....gay or straight......the only thing I find amusing, yet it is what it is, is that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin, yet homosexuals want to marry which to my knowledge 'marriage' is a biblical principal...... I don't get it

But I'm a floater, I can see most things from most angles
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
Really? Where in the oral arguments today did anyone say, "The Bible condemns homosexuality, therefor, we must ban it!"? I must have missed that argument.
Was commenting on what Muppet said on the first page... Not to start anything either way.

Melinda
nvr2many is offline  
post #40 of 226 Old 03-27-2013, 12:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,712
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvr2many View Post
Was commenting on what Muppet said on the first page... Not to start anything either way.
Oh blah....I wasn't starting anything either.......I've just heard a lot of rantings from religious relatives about this subject, and that was THEIR view, not mine, they believe marriage is a biblical principal only to be undertaken by man and woman who are equally yoked.....(seriously my MIL nearly laid an egg when she discovered I was not what she hoped....but what DIL is?) ....like I say, I'm a great big sinner and plan to stay that way, because no ones perfect. If TWO HUMAN BEINGS wish to marry, then let them do it.....all sins are created equal, if homosexuals are going to be sent to hell for having relations, then I will be right there with them dancing on coals for any number of 'sins' I've committed.
nvr2many likes this.
Muppetgirl is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?
Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.



User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Old Thread Warning
This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 07:40 PM
Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 09:49 PM
Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 06:56 PM
Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 06:16 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome