California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage (page 7)

Junction-Guy

Yeah, I think I will do that, I probably won't mention the screen name at first, just post it.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

Indo-Dude,

Wow, that's some powerful story. The 'spiritual paradise' is truly a farce.

I'm glad you saw 'da troof' for what it was at a young age. At 24, I was blinded by Bethel. And went on to waste many more years of my life there.

And I'm glad you're here.

B the X

Junction-Guy

Ok, so I have now started my own topic, I just posted it, feel free to comment there.

Indo_Dude

Ben X wrote:
Indo-Dude,
Wow, that's some powerful story. The 'spiritual paradise' is truly a farce.
I'm glad you saw 'da troof' for what it was at a young age. At 24, I was blinded by Bethel. And went on to waste many more years of my life there.
And I'm glad you're here.
B the X

Basically it made my parent realize how two faced the witnesses were. "We" did the right thing in going to the elders with "my little problem", and they essentially forced me to get baptized, spread rumors far and wide that I was gay, and "marked" me. My dad owns his own business that his father handed down to him in the building trades business. He would be on a job site and hear other JWs talk about me being a fag even though only two elders were supposed to know about my sexual relationship with that elder's son. Of course that elder's son was never mentioned, only me as being a fag. My parents watched so many times when the elders would never follow the rules supposedly laid out in the bible and instead have rules that changed daily, and always against me.

The elders had basically decided I was a "bad egg" and they were going to do anything and everything to get rid of me. Especially since the PO's kid was involved sexually with me. Looking back now it was almost comical.

VoidEater

Thanks, Billy!

VoidEater

The last comment I can make - aside from apologizing for my angry reaction - is to point out the irony of Pilgrims coming to this new world to escape religious persecution only to persecute others; that this country was, as I was taught, founded on freedom and equality, not Christian or Bible values; and that many founding fathers of this country ADMIRED Christians, yet chose to NOT BE Christians.

Mariusuk.

Trust me one day America will get with the times. I find it bit amusing the whole nature v nurture debate, maybe there is a bit of both. I can't really see why ANYONE would become gay because they think it is cool, for example i am attracted to women and only women, no matter how "fashionable" being gay became it is simply not something I could do. Common sense would dictate that someone who is a sexually active gay person is so because they LIKE men (or women if they are lesbian) who they hell is going to put on a facade of being gay to fit in with a crowd. I have spoken to loads of gay men who knew they were gay from the moment they started to get sexual impulses, they are born that way. Some of these men came form very hetro families where no one else was gay ad none of their friends were. The nurture argument generally stems from people who fel that "gayness can be caught" which is a ridiculous viewpoint

scotsman

Trust me one day America will get with the times

the slippery slope arguement that was mentioned by someone earlier never ceases to amuse me. Polygamy and marrying your pet don't seem to have been percieved as future unions in the UK, but in America... what's with you guys?!

Justitia Themis

My youngest daughter just finished her first year of law school in California, and the students have been debating this on the discussion boards. I am against the ruling, but not because I am anti-homosexual. Frankly, the Court is overstepping its legal boundaries, which does not serve to benefit it or democracy.

California has the most lenient domestic partnership laws in the nation; married persons, and their children, have no more protection under law than domestic partners, regardless of whether they are homo or heterosexual domestic partners. For the courts to 'find" marriage in the Constitution is shameful; the Constitution does NOT speak of marriage in any stretch of the imagination. When the Court steps outside its boundaries, it serves only to constrain its stature.

This is a subject that should be reserved for the legislature.

BenV

The state supreme court based it's decision on "civil rights" and the equal treatment to all people -- not in defining marriage. Regarding domestic partnerships vs. marriage -- it's the old smoke-and-mirrors of "separate but equal."

Re: the legislature. Two gay marriage bills passed the state assembly and senate during different sessions -- both of them were vetoed by the Republican governor.

the Constitution does NOT speak of marriage in any stretch of the imagination. When the Court steps outside its boundaries, it serves only to constrain its stature.
This is a subject that should be reserved for the legislature.

All I have to say is this country waves the flag and defines itself as the land of liberty and justice for all. It's time for it to align its actions with it noble wordsl Time to join the rest of the civilized world that recognizes human equality and the importance of basic civil rights. Some other countries that have legalized gay marriage: the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Spain.

Wishing you the best,

Ben (out)

California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage

Share this