New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

[HemlockGrey]

No thanks! I like crabs from time to time, although I don't particularly care for lobster

Well, as you say, sin is sin, and eating shellfish is a sin. And since all sins are equal, enjoy your fiery torment!

[jegs2]

Well, as you say, sin is sin, and eating shellfish is a sin. And since all sins are equal, enjoy your fiery torment!

Darn, could have sworn I posted this before, pointing out it was okay to eat stuff like that.

[sketerpot]

Sin remains sin, but the temporal penalty for those sins that were ascribed to the kingdom of Israel do not apply in the modern world, unless of course a people choose to enforce them as such.

So let me get this straight. There are things which the Bible said to be sins which we consider bad today and some that we don't. How can you tell which should be which? What business do you have selectively applying some Biblical laws to ban something you don't like while ignoring others?

Suppose that people were voting on a constitutional amendment to reinstitute the "temporal penalties" described in the Bible. Would you vote for it? It would violate people's rights---but so would a gay marriage ban. Do you just dislike homosexuality?

For a more "moderate" amendment, how about we just institute some penalties for the things the Bible says are wrong. Ranging from, say, a $50 fine to prison terms and possibly death. Would you vote for that? If not, why do you want a ban on gay marriage? Are you just singling it out?

[Keevan_Colton]

Jegs your nothing but a bigoted little shit head.
Why the fuck cant you accept that your beliefs should not be LAW, you seem to accept that banning people from working on whichever days they wish is not a valid course and that true christians should just try and keep the sabbath in their own way...why cant you take this and realise, if people want to sin then they can do it on thier own time and fuck your precious little messiah. True christians dont have to be homosexual after all .

Premarital sex is not illegal.
Shellfish are not illegal.
Working on sunday is not illegal.
Failing to respect your parents is not illegal.
Being gay is not illegal!

In fact, nothing from that silly little story book is illegal, save for those things that almost every society through the ages have agreed is bad....theft and murder were frowned on long before the egotistical sky faerie reared his ugly head.

You frankly make me sick with your bigotry.

[Durandal]

Ok, have had time to read some of your thoughts and see a need for clarification. These United States are a representative republic wherein folks vote for who will represent them. The representatives (in theory) vote in a manner those who elected them would want them to vote. Some areas in these United States contain more folks who believe in the Bible and espouse faith in God than others, while some simply espouse belief in "old-fashioned values," whatever those are. It is my belief that a lot of common law should rest on the authority of individual states, vice the central government.

Translation: "The states should have the right to exert majority rule to infringe the civil rights of minorities, even though the 14th amendment disallows them from doing this." Your belief is flagrantly unconstitutional. Civil rights always trump the majority vote. Why do you think we had to forcibly integrate the South 30 years ago? Just for fun?

Only when the judicial system (read: SCOTUS) decides to interpret a piece of the Constitution unfavorably, robbing states of their rightful authority, would I support an amendment to the Constitution. That isn't to be taken lightly, for there should be a separation of powers between state and Federal government. One individual asked me what punishment we should levy against those who break the Sabbath (i.e. work on Sunday), to which I replied that I would recommend no punishment, as neither would I recommend punishment for those who refuse to honor their parents.

Translation: "I don't have to be consistent with the beliefs I want to force into the federal government."

Please give a justification for banning homosexual marriage, but not legislating other Biblical codes of behavior into law that isn't "Jegs2's whim."

It is a case-by-case basis for how I and others would vote (should such an opportunity arise) regarding common law (which is generally in the form of our voting for elected representatives). I brought up the example of murder, which even most outside the Faith agree is wrong and should be punished. Nowhere have I condoned punishment for homosexual acts, although the Bible describes such as a sin. Nor will I vote to legitimize what I believe to be a sin by voting in favor of homosexual marriage -- I simply could not support it in good conscience.

Translation: "The civil institution of marriage is the same thing as my religious institution of marriage, so anything that happens to the civil institution must be carried over to the religious institution."

Um, no.

For those of you who would support homosexual marriage (which is the majority of this board), more power to you -- and you should exercise your voting priviledges (if you're not an American, sorry). While I know many will continue to hurl insults and express outrage, I hope that clarifies my opinion.

Your opinion is based on the following flawed premises.

1. That the states have the power to deprive individuals of their civil rights through unjustifiable legislative discrimination.
2. That the civil institution of marriage and the religious institution(s) are one and the same, therefore any amendment to the civil definition must be carried over to every religious institution's.

The first is patently absurd and flatly rejected by the 14th amendment. The second is simple religious egocentrism, and that is what's drawing so much flak from the board denizens to you. Please explain how a change in the definition of the civil institution of marriage affects, in any way, your religion's definition.

[jegs2]

Please give a justification for banning homosexual marriage, but not legislating other Biblical codes of behavior into law that isn't "Jegs2's whim."

The Constitutional amendment I would look for would be worded in such a way as to give individual states that power, vice banning homosexual marriage outright.

[Keevan_Colton]

Please give a justification for banning homosexual marriage, but not legislating other Biblical codes of behavior into law that isn't "Jegs2's whim."

The Constitutional amendment I would look for would be worded in such a way as to give individual states that power, vice banning homosexual marriage outright.

You're a shitty little biggot, you claimed earlier you dont want to pass any law leaglizing/"normalizing" homosexuality, yet it is NOT illegal in the first place and anti-sodomy laws have already been struck down.
This is strictly a right to enter into a contract that is being denied based upon gender, which is nothing but gender discrimination no matter how you try to sell it. No one is forcing you ass backward shithead christians to "turn gay" or anything, it's you who are demanding those who dont follow your shitty sky pixie's teachings be punished for it with reduced rights.

[Durandal]

Please give a justification for banning homosexual marriage, but not legislating other Biblical codes of behavior into law that isn't "Jegs2's whim."

The Constitutional amendment I would look for would be worded in such a way as to give individual states that power, vice banning homosexual marriage outright.

They already have that power through the Defense of Marriage Act. Please explain why states should have the power to sexually discriminate.

[jegs2]

So let me get this straight. There are things which the Bible said to be sins which we consider bad today and some that we don't. How can you tell which should be which? What business do you have selectively applying some Biblical laws to ban something you don't like while ignoring others?

It is a matter of translation. Some precepts were obviously meant only for the Israelite theocracy, while the New Testament makes clear what is still sin and thus was not intended only for the Israelite theocracy. IMO, it is up to a people in a representative republic to vote for those they deem most likely to legislate and enforce laws based on whatever they believe. As to my beliefs, they should be quite clear, and I will vote for those I believe to be most in line with them.

[Keevan_Colton]

So let me get this straight. There are things which the Bible said to be sins which we consider bad today and some that we don't. How can you tell which should be which? What business do you have selectively applying some Biblical laws to ban something you don't like while ignoring others?

It is a matter of translation. Some precepts were obviously meant only for the Israelite theocracy, while the New Testament makes clear what is still sin and thus was not intended only for the Israelite theocracy. IMO, it is up to a people in a representative republic to vote for those they deem most likely to legislate and enforce laws based on whatever they believe. As to my beliefs, they should be quite clear, and I will vote for those I believe to be most in line with them.

*whips out the tricorder*
Captain, there is an amazing concentration of handwavium and a seam of pure bullshit present.


"I dont like this, so it's one of the stupid rules we still have to follow, but I like crab so pass the shellfish"

[jegs2]

They already have that power through the Defense of Marriage Act. Please explain why states should have the power to sexually discriminate.

States should have the power to legislate and enforce common law as the people of that state see fit. I can see no reason to force them to recognize homosexual marriage, but if a Federal court forces them to do so, then I favor a Consitutional amendment.

[Keevan_Colton]

They already have that power through the Defense of Marriage Act. Please explain why states should have the power to sexually discriminate.

States should have the power to legislate and enforce common law as the people of that state see fit. I can see no reason to force them to recognize homosexual marriage, but if a Federal court forces them to do so, then I favor a Consitutional amendment.

So, if it's deemed illegal to discriminate, I would favour altering the law to make it legal to do so.

Bigot.

[Durandal]

They already have that power through the Defense of Marriage Act. Please explain why states should have the power to sexually discriminate.

States should have the power to legislate and enforce common law as the people of that state see fit. I can see no reason to force them to recognize homosexual marriage, but if a Federal court forces them to do so, then I favor a Consitutional amendment.

"Common law" (or your euphemism for "majority whim") does not trump civil rights. This has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Please explain what part of this is evading your comprehension.

[jegs2]

"Common law" (or your euphemism for "majority whim") does not trump civil rights. This has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Please explain what part of this is evading your comprehension.

If the SCOTUS forces states to see homosexual marriage as a civil right, then they are in effect trumping states rights -- hus the amendment.

[jegs2]

...argh! "THUS" the amendment.

[Keevan_Colton]

So if a state doesnt think that "'people of colour'/gays/people called 'bob'/etc." should have a right, an ammendment should be used to stop SCOTUS telling them to fuck off.

Alright then Mr. Bigot.

[Durandal]

"Common law" (or your euphemism for "majority whim") does not trump civil rights. This has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Please explain what part of this is evading your comprehension.

If the SCOTUS forces states to see homosexual marriage as a civil right, then they are in effect trumping states rights -- hus the amendment.

And this is a bad thing? Please apply your logic to the civil rights era, and see if we would've gotten anywhere.

[SirNitram]

"Common law" (or your euphemism for "majority whim") does not trump civil rights. This has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. Please explain what part of this is evading your comprehension.

If the SCOTUS forces states to see homosexual marriage as a civil right, then they are in effect trumping states rights -- thus the amendment.

Thankfully, the United States of America values Constitutional rights over States rights.

[jegs2]

And this is a bad thing? Please apply your logic to the civil rights era, and see if we would've gotten anywhere.

Durandal, I do see your point. I just disagree that homosexual marriage should be forced on every state by the Federal government. Keep in mind that a Consitutional amendment is not an easy undertaking, and I favor it only when it appears that states rights are threatened. If enough folks perceive homosexual marriage as a bonified civil right, then the amendment will not pass, and the will of the people will prevail, albeit in the form of a decision by SCOTUS.

[Dalton]

So tell me...

1. Exactly why is homosexual marriage bad?
2. What chapter and verse in the Bible forbid homosexual marriage? Or, more accurately, where is it defined?

Just out of curiosity.

[General Zod]

And this is a bad thing? Please apply your logic to the civil rights era, and see if we would've gotten anywhere.

Durandal, I do see your point. I just disagree that homosexual marriage should be forced on every state by the Federal government. Keep in mind that a Consitutional amendment is not an easy undertaking, and I favor it only when it appears that states rights are threatened. If enough folks perceive homosexual marriage as a bonified civil right, then the amendment will not pass, and the will of the people will prevail, albeit in the form of a decision by SCOTUS.

exactly how does allowing homosexual marriage threaten states rights?

[Keevan_Colton]

Why is it a states right to discriminate?

[Dalton]

Why is it a states right to discriminate?

I think a question similar to that was asked back in the 1860s...

[jegs2]

So tell me...

1. Exactly why is homosexual marriage bad?

Assuming you mean Biblically, homosexual acts are described as sin.

2. What chapter and verse in the Bible forbid homosexual marriage? Or, more accurately, where is it defined?

1 Corinthians

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Keevan_Colton]

No, shit for brains, where does it say homosexual marriage is wrong in the bible?

We've already got it cleared up homosexual acts are not illegal in the US.