Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."
Abraham Lincoln

Proposition 8 defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman....Nothing more

They can still do what ever they want to do and call it what ever they want to.

The atheists among us may not see any harm in sanctioning a marriage between anything but a man and a woman, but I do.

Call it what you will...It doesn't change what it is.

As for open carry of a firearm or the possession of a firearm...it is a right and ALL should be allowed to exercise that right.

As a right it should not be tied to any other concept or cause.

It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.

You don't like that....that's OK...Some people don't like you carrying a gun openly and that's OK

I'm OK with people doing what ever they want with their bodies...But call it what it is and not what it is not. They must be held responsible for their actions.

I'm OK with you carrying any gun you want to carry any way you want, and I say the same here...Call it what it is and not what it is not.You must be held responsible foryour actions.

I truly hate terms like always and never, because in the real world there are very few absolute things.

Like them or not, the above statements are absolute.

MudCamper · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

I have no clue why this thread is even on a gun forum.

Click to expand...

Allow me to disagree. I require freedom. To me, there is little distinction between open carry rights and gay marriage rights. I fail to understand what could be divisive about freedom; and I have no desire to work towards freedom with those who oppose it.

While I agree with your stance in this particular case (I have some very close friends and family who are gay), there are many in the pro-2A community that also happen to fear/dislike the gay community. While you and I may agree that all people should be treated equal, it doesn't alter the fact that this topic will create argument (and possibly divide) amongst the otherwise very diverse pro-gun community. We come to these forums from different sides of the political and social spectrum because the single issue we share here is an interest in firearms and firearms rights. Bickering about things that are totally unrelated to firearms rights can be, IMO, counterproductive here, in a gun forum.

KS_to_CA · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Prophet wrote:

My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?

I love to carry loaded and without permit, but if they are in the same proposition, I would vote it down. Besides, the prop 8 had been decided. Please, people, respect the vote. The anti-prop8 people would insist that the pro-pro8 people to respect the vote had prop8 been defeated. But since prop8 passed, now they are whining? Lets all be adults, you will gain respect that way. This is a gun forum. MOVE ON.

marshaul · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

Prophet wrote:

My question/suggestion is this: what if another gay marriage bill is proposed but this time ALSO contains the legalization of non-licensed loaded open carry?

Click to expand...

I love to carry loaded and without permit, but if they are in the same proposition, I would vote it down. Besides, the prop 8 had been decided. Please, people, respect the vote. The anti-prop8 people would insist that the pro-pro8 people to respect the vote had prop8 been defeated. But since prop8 passed, now they are whining? Lets all be adults, you will gain respect that way. This is a gun forum. MOVE ON.

Adults don't use ballots to create a tyranny of the plurality and strip minorities of their rights.

Paladain_Havegun_Willtravel is mistaken about the effect of proposition 8 (perhaps since he doesn't live in California he should take the advice he gave me about Arizona). The Supreme Court of California decided that marriage benefits had to be applied to all persons, regardless of sex, who choose to be married. Prop 8 reversed this. It did a lot more than "define" marriage. Trust me, this is not an issue of terminology. This is an issue of equal protection (or benefits) under the law.

CA_Libertarian · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

The atheists among us may not see any harm in sanctioning a marriage between anything but a man and a woman, but I do.

It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.

You are correct, without an imaginary person to tell me how to think, I am incapable of that type of bigotry.

bigtoe416 · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Allow me to disagree. I require freedom. To me, there is little distinction between open carry rights and gay marriage rights.

Spot on. Right are rights. I may place gun rights a little higher than the rest though just because it is my guarantee that the government can't wantonly violate its citizens. They're all the same to me outside of that though.

marshaul · Nov 12, 2008

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

The atheists among us may not see any harm in sanctioning a marriage between anything but a man and a woman, but I do.

It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.

Click to expand...

You are correct, without an imaginary person to tell me how to think, I am incapable of that type of bigotry.

:lol: +1

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

In life we are the sum total of our experiences and our growth through our experiences.

Am I biast...certinlly I am, we all are. We judge all situations based on what we know and feel.

From my standpoint and beliefs...immorality is wrong, in all of its venues. What happened to me was wrong also.

I realize that not all homosexuals rape children. I know many homosexuals and have 2 nephews that are openly homosexual, who, to my knowledge do not rape children.

As a group they are, however, evangelical, in that they want to not only be allowed to do what they do, but they want it to be viewed as normal and acceptable. That, in and of its self is not so unique, but they want to force others to accept and portray their actions in that normal and accepted light, no matter what the views of the person who has to teach those values.

If what ever they want to call their relationship, has legal standing, by definition, it will go far in propagating their lifestyle.

Young children are extremely trusting and believing. They take what they are taught as truth and will accept it.

Teens are searching and vulnerable, wanting acceptance and love and can be easily confused if they are targeted by a talented individual.

I am just as appalled by the current acceptance of immoral heterosexual relationships as I am about the current acceptance of homosexual relationships.

I don't know why it is, but those who have been abused seem to have a huge V indelibly stamped on their forehead and they commonly fall victim to many abusers through their life. I know it does something to their assessment of relationships, that causes them to make them selves allow these advances.

What happened to me was not one time or one individual, but many many. The nature of my past is a two edge sword, I know more about what predators do and I know better how to spot their advances, but I am also more willing to use an iceberg view and assume that what I see is only the tip there of.

The only other people who really knows what happened to me are my wife, my abusers, and to a small degree some of my sisters.

I have never shared this before, but felt compelled to to let you, who really want to know, have a glimpse that all is not rosy and happy in the homosexual world.

Wickedness, never was happiness. Those I have known, and I have known plenty and in the biblical sense, want control and acceptance and propagation of their opportunities. I share only what I know and have experienced. Believe what you will.

Theseus · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

In life we are the sum total of our experiences and our growth through our experiences.

Am I biast...certinlly I am, we all are. We judge all situations based on what we know and feel.

From my standpoint and beliefs...immorality is wrong, in all of its venues. What happened to me was wrong also.

I realize that not all homosexuals rape children. I know many homosexuals and have 2 nephews that are openly homosexual, who, to my knowledge do not rape children.

As a group they are, however, evangelical, in that they want to not only be allowed to do what they do, but they want it to be viewed as normal and acceptable. That, in and of its self is not so unique, but they want to force others to accept and portray their actions in that normal and accepted light, no matter what the views of the person who has to teach those values.

If what ever they want to call their relationship, has legal standing, by definition, it will go far in propagating their lifestyle.

Young children are extremely trusting and believing. They take what they are taught as truth and will accept it.

Teens are searching and vulnerable, wanting acceptance and love and can be easily confused if they are targeted by a talented individual.

I am just as appalled by the current acceptance of immoral heterosexual relationships as I am about the current acceptance of homosexual relationships.

I don't know why it is, but those who have been abused seem to have a huge V indelibly stamped on their forehead and they commonly fall victim to many abusers through their life. I know it does something to their assessment of relationships, that causes them to make them selves allow these advances.

What happened to me was not one time or one individual, but many many. The nature of my past is a two edge sword, I know more about what predators do and I know better how to spot their advances, but I am also more willing to use an iceberg view and assume that what I see is only the tip there of.

The only other people who really knows what happened to me are my wife, my abusers, and to a small degree some of my sisters.

I have never shared this before, but felt compelled to to let you, who really want to know, have a glimpse that all is not rosy and happy in the homosexual world.

Wickedness, never was happiness. Those I have known, and I have known plenty and in the biblical sense, want control and acceptance and propagation of their opportunities. I share only what I know and have experienced. Believe what you will.

Well, I am sorry that you were a "V", but an anti could say the same about guns. . . "Not all gun owners are murderers, but one victimised me so they must all be horded into the same category so that I can feel safe".

I am not trying to minimise your situation, but have you understand that just because someone may have victimised you and may have been a homosexual doesn't mean that you or anyone has the right to cast all of them in that light and punish them.

Regardless of their lifestyle it is still wrong to deny them of the equal protections and priviledges of the law. If we can do this to GLBT community so easily then they can do the same to us. They can pass an amendment that removes our right to due process because we are black and "dragging down" the judicial system.

As for the argument that kids are looking and impressionable, YEAH! But it is the job of the parent to teach them constructive outlets for those feelings and I feel to encourage them to expolore all viable options before taking a path. If that means they question their own sexuality then so be it. I am more for them being able to choose their path than letting anyone dictate to them the path they must take.

Maybe next we should take children born as a result of rape and take their rights away because they were conceived out of wedlock and in a dispicable and deplorable manner. . . Or maybe we just take away the rights of married people because they chose to marry heterosexually instead of homosexually!

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
TIMOTHY
CHAPTER 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET
ISAIAH
CHAPTER 5

20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Say what you will....believe what you will....It doesn't change the truth.

FogRider · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
TIMOTHY
CHAPTER 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET
ISAIAH
CHAPTER 5

20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Say what you will....believe what you will....It doesn't change the truth.

Boy, it's good thing everyone believes the same as you, otherwise you'd be trying to force your morals on folks that don't share them.

Gray Peterson · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

It was given from Our Father in Heaven to all, just as He defined marriage and ordained the proper use of the power to pro-create.

Like them or not, the above statements are absolute.

Nope, not absolute, especially to the above statement:

1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
7. Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
8. Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
11. Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

The real issue here is of three fold: The idea of "separate but equal" is not equal at all, access to benefits, and the intermixing of a religious construct with the legal construct.

Personally, the real simple answer to this question in terms of separate but equal as well as unmixing the constructs is to make it real simple: Civil Unions for everyone. You wanna get married? Go to a church to get married, but the state will issue the state license as a CIVIL UNION. This is the only way that this entire issue would be solved quick, but from what I understand, this offer was made by the GLBT rights side to the "pro family" side over a decade, and it was rejected out of hand. In fact, it caused the "pro-family" side to retune their constitutional amendment language to go after any relationship recognition between same gendered couples.

This is the reason why also there's an issue of access to benefits. Right now, the Federal DOMA law does two things: It prohibits the federal government from recognizing any sort of union on the basis of marriage licensing for same gendered couples, and it supposedly allows the states to refuse to recognize the same.

The real libertarian answer is to stop the entire state marriage licensing business, but until that actually happens, it's either one or the other, not both.

CA_Libertarian · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

The quoting of your dogma is only relavent if I agree it is true. To me having scriptures from the Bible spewed about is as meaningful as if I were to start quoting Chinese proverbs I found in fortune cookies. The only common ground we have to debate from is logic.

And as for the dragging of rape and child molestation into the debate... it is an unfounded rumor that homosexuals are statistically more prone to committing sex crimes. I have heard the claim made many times and have yet to see any proof. Further, the two sexual preditors I have the misfortune of being related to are overt homophobes and have (to my knowledge) never victimized males, despite opportunities.

marshaul · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

(god)

Please don't pull out the Qu'ran or whatever holy book it is you subscribe to... All that superstition gives me a splitting headache.

marshaul · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel wrote:

I have never shared this before, but felt compelled to to let you, who really want to know, have a glimpse that all is not rosy and happy in the homosexual world.

Once again, you're conflating violent acts of rape with "the homosexual world". Allow me to quote (and thus repeat) myself:

marshaul wrote:

What I'm saying is there is something quite wrong with individuals who rape children (of any sex), and that this something is quite distinct from homosexuality per se. The crime of a man who rapes a boy is no more "gay" than the crime of a man who rapes a girl is "straight". Rape of any sort is twisted sexuality which should be kept quite distinct from sexual behavior between consenting adults.

The drive to rape children is not the same as being gay. Therefore, your experiences apply to child molesters of all stripes, but they do not apply to gays of any sort, although you assume they are one and the same.

Robin47 · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

Well Hi All !

Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel, is right about one thing "2 Tim 3:1" we ARE living in Dangerous Times that was Paul telling believers at that time what the future would bring.

If this is not a BAD situation I really don't know what is, we all like our freedom but its soon to be taken away by H.R. 1955 called " Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" of 2007 It passed the house and is now in the Senante Its also S.B. 1959 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Well if this goes through, we can say " I remember when we had free speech" to your grandkids. Not to mention the 2d A. :shock:

Meanwhile to all the freedom lovers, have a good day it might be our last :uhoh:

Robin47

KS_to_CA · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

The Supreme Court of California decided that marriage benefits had to be applied to all persons, regardless of sex, who choose to be married. Prop 8 reversed this.

You got it all wrong my friend. The California Family Code 300 defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

Family Code 308.5 states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Then in 2000, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage in support of the Family Code through Proposition 22.

Then, some rouge, radical judges who love to legislate from the bench, something they should not do (read the structure of the US government), said it is okay.

Proposition 8 simply supports the Family Code and proposition 22.

This is one of those time that the judges think they are so good they are above the law and can wantonly disegard the voice of the people.

And yes, adults use the ballot, for to discard and not respect it, like the way the gay community is doing, is simply anarchy - mob rule.

Can you imagine if McCain supporters march to the streets and claim that the presidency should be stolen from Obama and given to McCain because the very vote they participated in, just because they lost, is now no longer a valid legal exercise?

How it is absurd for McCain supporters to do that, but Yee-Haw for the gay community. Answer me honestly if you can.

Again I would say, this is a gun forum, the prop 8 was voted on, don't be whiners and MOVE ON.

Citizen · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

I think Marshaul hit the nail on the head a while back.

Once government got involved in marriage at all, it opened the door everybody and anybody demanding legal recognition sooner or later.

While I personally do not agree that heteros should be forced to recognize gay marriage--the result of legalizing it, and everything it means, its very hard to argue with the freedom angle without getting intoethicaland philosophical angles that will be, I think, quite difficult to get broad agreement on.

Had there been no government licensing and legal benefits of marriage, nobody wouldmuch object if two gays wanted tomake a marriage committment with one another.

With all that said, I'm not in favor of negotiating for 2Awith this as the concession.

2Arelates to the basic human right of self-preservation.There shouldn't be any reason tohave to bargain for it.

Also, consider that in attempting it,one might run up against a few hundred thousand CA gun-owners who aren't willing to promote gay interests, thus dividing gun-owners on the issue.

cato · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

This is one of those threads which is so way OT I vote for a lock. Goargue gay marriage on the Calguns.net off topic forum. I just don't see these two sides convincing each other withtheir opposing logic.

Lets make it simple and get government out of the license business altogether; marriage, driver's, and concealed!

Or................................................................................................

let the messiah rule!

CA_Libertarian · Nov 13, 2008

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

...some rouge, radical judges who love to legislate from the bench, something they should not do (read the structure of the US government), said it is okay...

...This is one of those time that the judges think they are so good they are above the law and can wantonly disegard the voice of the people....

The purpose of those judges is to ensure that the majority (the 'mob rule') doesn't violate the rights of others. Just because slightly more than 50% of the sheeple think gay marriage should be prohibited doesn't make the majority right.

If a law is duly voted on by the people, or their elected representitives, should it be impossible for a court to overturn that law? How about the DC gun ban? The AW ban? The CA Gun Free School Zone Act? The CA lead ammo ban? The CA microstamping requirement? The seemingly inevitible ammo licensing and purchasing limits?

These are all laws designed to systematically deprive you and me of our rights. Each of these was passed by the people or their elected representatives. Would you really be oposed to a 'rogue' judge overturning any of them?

Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

State Researcher

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

State Researcher

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Newbie

State Researcher