Gay activists jarred by California marriage defeat

[LuLu Ford]

fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
I accept your apology, thank you and offer one to you also if I have offended. I have always been taught that there is no sin more awful than another. You may not agree but it is what Ihave been taught and my understanding.
I don't want to get into a huge bible debate.As I see what you are saying about calling homosexuals sinful being mean and insulting I would like to explain to you the mindset that goes behind that for many of us.To me calling someone sinful is not an insult it is a fact.I am sinful, my mother,brother,sister etc are sinful.To me and most christians we are all sinners.I can only speak for me here and not those who are truly hateful to you.
As for calling it the homosexual lifestyle, I sincerely ask what do you want to be called in this forum?Is it gay community? what?What exactly CAN I say that won't be perceived as an insult as we are on opposite sides here? Is there a phrase you wouldn't be offended by?

Bless you for your apology. I offer you my humble gratitude in exchange. May I suggest you read the Gospels carefully. Consider if Jesus is teaching that all sin is equal. I don't believe he is. On the other hand, I believe he teaches that all sin is forgivable. You said, and I quote you, "To me calling someone sinful is not an insult it is a fact." It is not our place to call someone sinful. To do so is a sin in itself.(Matthew 7:1) We need to realize that Paul was writing letters (epistles) in an attempt to build the early church. We must be careful to measure what he is saying against the Gospels (teachings of Christ). We must also take into account the time, place, and reasons for what he says in his letters.(context) Your question about lifestyle is touching. It shows a great deal of compassion and growth on your part. The word 'lifestyle' assumes that people choose their sexuality as one might choose to live a 'healthy lifestyle'. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is about who one loves, who one wants to spend their life with, commitments, joy, sadness, sharing, and yes, sexuality sometimes. The gay community is a much better choice. When I see you asking these heart felt questions, I can see the holy spirit moving within both of us. It brings tears to my eyes and softens my heart.

Bless you sister.

[LuLu Ford]

Nemesys wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I'm saying that you don't qualify for a marriage licence.
You are entitled to the rights associated with that licence, for which it can be argued that you are eligible, but not to the licence itself.
Your argument boils down to "We deserve it because we want it". State licences don't work like that, nor can they be federally mandated to be like that without being unconstitional.

Aren't you making a big assumption? It is a fact that I have been legally married for over 25 years.

State law may not conflict with Federal law. If a state law diminishes the Constitutional rights of a group of individuals, then it will eventually be overruled. It takes time and the appropriate legal action for it to happen. For instance, slavery was eventually abolished at a great cost. The Constitution did not change. The people eventually learned what the Constitution meant from the very beginning.

[fed up]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Bless you for your apology. I offer you my humble gratitude in exchange. May I suggest you read the Gospels carefully. Consider if Jesus is teaching that all sin is equal. I don't believe he is. On the other hand, I believe he teaches that all sin is forgivable. You said, and I quote you, "To me calling someone sinful is not an insult it is a fact." It is not our place to call someone sinful. To do so is a sin in itself.(Matthew 7:1) We need to realize that Paul was writing letters (epistles) in an attempt to build the early church. We must be careful to measure what he is saying against the Gospels (teachings of Christ). We must also take into account the time, place, and reasons for what he says in his letters.(context) Your question about lifestyle is touching. It shows a great deal of compassion and growth on your part. The word 'lifestyle' assumes that people choose their sexuality as one might choose to live a 'healthy lifestyle'. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is about who one loves, who one wants to spend their life with, commitments, joy, sadness, sharing, and yes, sexuality sometimes. The gay community is a much better choice. When I see you asking these heart felt questions, I can see the holy spirit moving within both of us. It brings tears to my eyes and softens my heart.
Bless you sister.

thanks, when I said sinful I was referring to your post. I don't believe I have outright said someone was sinful. When asked I will specifically state my opinion on homosexuality but no I don't go around saying hey, your sinful. I agree that would not be befitting a christian.
Contrary to popular belief I am not someone who thinks only straight people can be christian.
I think I have been using the term gay community, but if I didn't I apologize.It is knda like the Black community sometimes for me. What I mean is it is hard to keep up with what the politically correct term is and not everyon agrees. Some gays don'tlike the term gay community either so it is confusing to try and speak without offending.

[LuLu Ford]

fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
thanks, when I said sinful I was referring to your post. I don't believe I have outright said someone was sinful. When asked I will specifically state my opinion on homosexuality but no I don't go around saying hey, your sinful. I agree that would not be befitting a christian.
Contrary to popular belief I am not someone who thinks only straight people can be christian.
I think I have been using the term gay community, but if I didn't I apologize.It is knda like the Black community sometimes for me. What I mean is it is hard to keep up with what the politically correct term is and not everyon agrees. Some gays don'tlike the term gay community either so it is confusing to try and speak without offending.

I don't think I have said anything which is sinful in nature. I have debated a great many things and will continue to do so. The Jewish tradition (75% of the Bible) encourages debate and discussion to arrive at a deeper understanding. I find my Christian brothers and sisters often congregate into small groups of like minded individuals often cutting themselves off from anything which differs from their personal opinions. This what sects do. The early Christian were a sect. Paul's letters reflect the workings of a sect. A sect gathers around a rigid set of beliefs and excludes those who disagree. Welcome to the debate.

[fed up]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think I have said anything which is sinful in nature. I have debated a great many things and will continue to do so. The Jewish tradition (75% of the Bible) encourages debate and discussion to arrive at a deeper understanding. I find my Christian brothers and sisters often congregate into small groups of like minded individuals often cutting themselves off from anything which differs from their personal opinions. This what sects do. The early Christian were a sect. Paul's letters reflect the workings of a sect. A sect gathers around a rigid set of beliefs and excludes those who disagree. Welcome to the debate.

No I was not saying you said anything sinful in nature. I meant to say I was responding to your phrasing it that way."when you say someone sinful"

[LuLu Ford]

fed up wrote:

<quoted text>
No I was not saying you said anything sinful in nature. I meant to say I was responding to your phrasing it that way."when you say someone sinful"

Thanks for the clarification.

Peace be with you.

[Jitney]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Non sequitur.
Here is what I posted previously.
This may be true, however, there are families which function in the same way. The civil part is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
Sorry, no soap!

Please explain how the civil part is discriminatory.

[Nemesys]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you making a big assumption? It is a fact that I have been legally married for over 25 years.
State law may not conflict with Federal law. If a state law diminishes the Constitutional rights of a group of individuals, then it will eventually be overruled. It takes time and the appropriate legal action for it to happen. For instance, slavery was eventually abolished at a great cost. The Constitution did not change. The people eventually learned what the Constitution meant from the very beginning.

"You" was meant in a generic sense. I have no idea what your personal situation is.

You're correct about the evolution of constitutionality, but the constitutional issue involved is state rights, not civil rights, and it'll be tricky to carve out something from that that keeps homosexuals happy while giving more power from the states to the central federal government.

As new rights evolve, the rights of others are curtailed. People who owned slaves, for example, lost "property rights" as more fundamental human rights were granted to others. However, I do agree that as the Constitution evolves, the rights of many will one day eventually be recognized, including gays and poly groups to marry, and of the unborn having the right to live.

[chief22]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a fallacious straw man argument which has nothing to do with the original argument.
Here is what I posted previously:
This may be true, however, there are families which function in the same way. The civil part is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
What this means is I was talking about families and the rights of those families to function free of discrimination. Your educational example is irrelevant.

And I was talking about eligibility, there is no discrimination involved not everyone gets to participate in everything the government offers, THAT is the bottom line, Marriage has a set of eligebility requirements, and in over 30 states they have voted to have those requirements one man and one woman, as it has been in this country/colony for 400 years

[Jim]

Gays and Lesbians have no right forcing their beliefs on our children. Where they want a class in schools to understand and accept them. Obama needs to throw out all the Gay and Lesbian liberal promoters and tend to our wars and economy. I lived in Calif and it is only in small areas that this stinken thinken goes on. How ever with their money and power they try and push our government people in the corner. Look what happened to Harvey Milk in San Francisco. Once they get a hold in our government it will not be good. Obama and Hilary and I am sure there are more that promised to the gays and lesbian to get their votes. They are sick and need help. Gay's, Lesbian lobbiest need to get out of Washington a long with the liberal's so we can clean it up.

[LuLu Ford]

Nemesys wrote:

<quoted text>
"You" was meant in a generic sense. I have no idea what your personal situation is.
You're correct about the evolution of constitutionality, but the constitutional issue involved is state rights, not civil rights, and it'll be tricky to carve out something from that that keeps homosexuals happy while giving more power from the states to the central federal government.
As new rights evolve, the rights of others are curtailed. People who owned slaves, for example, lost "property rights" as more fundamental human rights were granted to others. However, I do agree that as the Constitution evolves, the rights of many will one day eventually be recognized, including gays and poly groups to marry, and of the unborn having the right to live.

True enough in many matters here, although so called "states rights" always must always give way to our Federal Constitution. They cannot be in conflict.

[LuLu Ford]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I was talking about eligibility, there is no discrimination involved not everyone gets to participate in everything the government offers, THAT is the bottom line, Marriage has a set of eligebility requirements, and in over 30 states they have voted to have those requirements one man and one woman, as it has been in this country/colony for 400 years

I didn't know the government "offered marriage." I have always thought it was a commitment between consenting adults and perhaps God. It certainly has nothing to do with the bottom line of anything, other than taxation and rights of families regardless of the gender make up of those families. The justification of inequality by history is silly. Slavery and racial inequality certainly can be justified by the thousands of years it existed and the Bible. The argument is no justification for its unfairness. For your information, DOMA will soon be repealed opening the door to marriage equality.

[LuLu Ford]

Jim wrote:

Gays and Lesbians have no right forcing their beliefs on our children. Where they want a class in schools to understand and accept them. Obama needs to throw out all the Gay and Lesbian liberal promoters and tend to our wars and economy. I lived in Calif and it is only in small areas that this stinken thinken goes on. How ever with their money and power they try and push our government people in the corner. Look what happened to Harvey Milk in San Francisco. Once they get a hold in our government it will not be good. Obama and Hilary and I am sure there are more that promised to the gays and lesbian to get their votes. They are sick and need help. Gay's, Lesbian lobbiest need to get out of Washington a long with the liberal's so we can clean it up.

You should be ashamed of forcing your prejudiced beliefs upon other people. This post is merely a put down of people you believe to be less than you. One who attempts to stand tall by cutting off the heads of others, only succeeds to cut himself off at the knees.

[grizwald713]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
According to an earlier version of the creation story, Adam started out as a hermaphrodite. Too bad you didn't know this.

NOT in any passage I ever read in the Bible! That IS where the creation story is written you know!

[chief22]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't know the government "offered marriage." I have always thought it was a commitment between consenting adults and perhaps God. It certainly has nothing to do with the bottom line of anything, other than taxation and rights of families regardless of the gender make up of those families. The justification of inequality by history is silly. Slavery and racial inequality certainly can be justified by the thousands of years it existed and the Bible. The argument is no justification for its unfairness. For your information, DOMA will soon be repealed opening the door to marriage equality.

Well they sure don't mandate marriage either, but they do offer a licenses for those who are eligible. If you plan on repealing DOMA you better get it done quick you only have about 11 months left. Not to mention this administration does not support homosexual marriage either, so it is not on the top of his agenda, and it looks like homosexual issues won't be really looked at till middle of nest year, right in the middle of the election cycle, and as it looks like now that liberals and progressives won't be holding on to congress.

[LuLu Ford]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well they sure don't mandate marriage either, but they do offer a licenses for those who are eligible. If you plan on repealing DOMA you better get it done quick you only have about 11 months left. Not to mention this administration does not support homosexual marriage either, so it is not on the top of his agenda, and it looks like homosexual issues won't be really looked at till middle of nest year, right in the middle of the election cycle, and as it looks like now that liberals and progressives won't be holding on to congress.

It is a matter of our Constitutional rights under the 1st and 14th amendments. This matter will eventually be settled in the courts. It may take quite a while but it will happen within the next 50 years, perhaps sooner. It will just be another black spot of injustice in the American history books.

[LuLu Ford]

grizwald713 wrote:

<quoted text>
NOT in any passage I ever read in the Bible! That IS where the creation story is written you know!

I never said it was in the Bible. For your information, the Bible is but a selection of stories from various oral and verbal traditions. If we consider "the word of God" to be limited to the Bible, then we make a false idol of the Bible fail to see the true meaning of the phrase.

[LuLu Ford]

Jitney wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain how the civil part is discriminatory.

I already have explained this point. You failed to grasp it the first time around. Why should I repeat myself?

[chief22]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a matter of our Constitutional rights under the 1st and 14th amendments. This matter will eventually be settled in the courts. It may take quite a while but it will happen within the next 50 years, perhaps sooner. It will just be another black spot of injustice in the American history books.

not until you can repeal the 10 amendment. homosexual marriage is unlikely to raise to the level of a black spot on anything let alone make in in the history books

[fed up]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said it was in the Bible. For your information, the Bible is but a selection of stories from various oral and verbal traditions. If we consider "the word of God" to be limited to the Bible, then we make a false idol of the Bible fail to see the true meaning of the phrase.

Lu lu it is referenced in both Dt and revelations that we are not to add nor detract from the BIble. Where are you getting the word of God from if not the bible?