Prop 8 in California

[Elyk88]

You sound like an intelligent person and I respect your right to believe what you will .. but belief aside, the democracy that you cherish will ultimately make you the loser on this issue.

Gays have every right, as do you, to demand their rights be protected and ultimately, they will prevail. Would you be of the belief that this isn't true?

There are genetic reasons why you and your sister shouldn't marry or have children .. none of which exists about gays .. who can't have children.

Because you seem intelligent, sane, and civil .. may I ask .. what difference does it make to you what two consenting adults do with their lives?

Look. Marriage has been since the beginning of man been between one man and one woman. They get the same benefits. They should be content. But they aren't...

America isn't like those other countries killing people if they are gay. They are equals.

Marriage is not an American tradition. It is not even just a religious tradition.

But tradition of mankind. One man one woman.

 

[Jeepers]

The people have spoken. They don't want perverted homo marriage!

So california is not a liberal wasteland?

 

[jillian]

But tradition of mankind. One man one woman.

because, polygamy, of course doesn't go back to biblical times, eh?

 

[Elyk88]

because, polygamy, of course doesn't go back to biblical times, eh?

oh i'm sorry I did not know mankind revolves around biblical times alone..I thought there were a few more years before and after that.

a lot of things came from biblical times...a lot aren't around anymore.

survival of the fittest.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Look. Marriage has been since the beginning of man been between one man and one woman. They get the same benefits. They should be content. But they aren't...

America isn't like those other countries killing people if they are gay. They are equals.

Marriage is not an American tradition. It is not even just a religious tradition.

But tradition of mankind. One man one woman.

Still you failed to articulate your specific reasons why anyone should care what two consenting adults should do with their lives. All you offer is "tradition" .. but tradition is not forever, nor should it be .. AND my brother, life is dynamic, ever changing, ever evolving.

Religion shouldn't be any part of the argument about civil liberty and freedom .. given religious "tradition" and long ugly ass record of suppressing liberty and freedom.

American "tradition" is white men first and only .. but that didn't last either.

Intelligent society evolves

 

[N4mddissent]

oh i'm sorry I did not know mankind revolves around biblical times alone..I thought there were a few more years before and after that.

a lot of things came from biblical times...a lot aren't around anymore.

survival of the fittest.

I'm not sure about the "tradition" of marriage. Tradition does not make something morally sound. The divine right of kings was a widespread historic tradition. Slavery was a widespread historic tradition. Subserviance of women was a widespread historic tradition. These arguments about marriage being a tradition were used every time there has been a social change. But the only way it would generated such heated debate is through arguments based on its morality and by default the theological implications. Otherwise, it should be no more controversial than the destruction of Yankee stadium. The moral argument is based on a narrow religious view, not shared by all christians, much less by those who do not believe. I understand many see it as a sacred institution and I have no problem with that and certainly don't want to infringe upon that belief through the government. That is why I believe marriage should be taken out of the political domain completely. The government should legally only issue civil unions. To anyone. If somebody wants to get "married" it should be a private religious ceremony similar to a baptism or bar mitzvah. That way marriage, however your beliefs define it, is protected.

And since as you said, civil unions are equivalent, no one should have any reason to complain.

 

[Elyk88]

Still you failed to articulate your specific reasons why anyone should care what two consenting adults should do with their lives. All you offer is "tradition" .. but tradition is not forever, nor should it be .. AND my brother, life is dynamic, ever changing, ever evolving.

Religion shouldn't be any part of the argument about civil liberty and freedom .. given religious "tradition" and long ugly ass record of suppressing liberty and freedom.

American "tradition" is white men first and only .. but that didn't last either.

Intelligent society evolves

Because what they would do is force churches to go against their own right to religion and separation of church and state by forcing them to marry gays or close shop.

I don't care what they do..unless what they do violates

-separation from church and state
-freedom of religion

 

[Coloradomtnman]

In other words "separate but equal"? We all know that isn't how it works. After Jim Crowe laws that was the state endorsed discrimination: separate but equal.

-No, how it works is one man one woman. Read a history book. Why can't they just call it a union?

What history book are you talking about? The Bible?!

And your statement above doesn't address the argument that "separate but equal" isn't equal. It just says one man one woman.

I think civil unions for the government but marriage is only religious is a great idea. Then no one gets "marriage" rights but everyone gets "civil union rights". That would be equality. But that isn't how it is. Civil unions aren't recognized the same way marriage is. That's why homosexuals want to get married.

Sounds good to me.

-So you are for separation from church and state..but then it is okay for the state to tell what they can and cannot do in church?

Can you say hypocrite?

No, I'm not saying the government should control the church's at all. So, I'm not a hypocrite. What I am saying is that if a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they won't because homosexuals won't attend that church or apply to get married there. There are church's that will marry homosexuals and that's where homosexuals will get married. Also, if it was law that an institution can't discriminate, then that institution can't discriminate. Doesn't the Bible tell Christians to follow the law of the land?

If marriage isn't a right, then how come there aren't any laws against straight people doing it? What do straight people have to do to get married? Get a license and prove they aren't already married. That's it. What do gay people have to do to get married? They can't! The only people marriage is not a right for are gay.

Everyone in this nation can get married except gay people. That's how its discrimination.

-First of all...there are no laws saying a gay person can't get married. There are only laws against same-sex marriage. "I'm straight and wanna marry my bud just to get benefits...aw but I can't." - goes both ways...watch Chuck and Larry

What a ridiculous point. C'mon, don't insult my intelligence with idiotic logic like that.

Are you kidding? They just want to flaunt what victory? And what "other gays" might you be referring to? The ones in the Catholic church?

And who is shoving their lives down someone else's throat?!

-Well if it looks like marriage, gets the same benefits as marriage, but just isn't called marriage...then it seems like an agenda..

Like I said, they are't given the same rights in a civil union.

And there are gays who are more concerned with how to pay rent or put food on the table for their "partner" and that are content with being in a union together... Not to mention..plenty of straight couples stay together with not wanting to marry..to assume there are no gays like that is ignorant.

Are you really trying to make an argument with the above remark?!

That's not even a logical argument!

- Why isn't it logical? So man and man is okay but man + man + man isn't?
Or a bi man with a husband and a wife? no polygamy? aww shoot..your discriminating now

Homsexuality isn't against the law. Polygamy is.

Um, with gay people. They get to marry and so do straights. Incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

-And Polygamy? Where do you draw the line for incest then? A 40 yr old and a 17 year old?

Like I said, polygamy is illegal. Some Mormons of the Mormon church practice polygamy. Do you think the government shouldn't tell the Mormon church how to run its institution?

Like I said in my last post: incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

This is your church's propadanda! Don't make these kind of ignorant statments: marriage has never been sacred to aetheists or secular humanists beyond that it is a way of committing to someone for life; and it doesn't matter when there is a separation of church and state in this nation. Religious beliefs should be kept out of government!

-but government can force churches to marry gays?

Already addressed this argument.

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

I never said the government should force churches to marry homosexuals. But if it were the law then the church has to follow the law of the land.

-Yes, unfortunately, ignorant people out number the enlightened.
LOL , unfortunately for your agenda...ignorant people are allowed to vote..

and unfortunately... Democracy does not rule out your so called ignorant.

ha..talk about fundamental rights and yet you wont defend my vote.

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, so I defended your right to vote. And I didn't say ignorant people aren't allowed to vote, I just said that they do and in more numbers than those of us who are progressive, critical, rational thinkers.

 

[DiveCon]

because, polygamy, of course doesn't go back to biblical times, eh?

so, does this mean you would support polygamy being legal as well?

 

[N4mddissent]

so, does this mean you would support polygamy being legal as well?

Following my suggestion would make this a non-issue as well.

 

[tymebeta]

Ok someone clear this up for me. In California, do civil unions get all the same benefits as marriage provided by the state? If not, what are the differences?

One side keeps saying it's the same. Other side says there are things missing. If you could provide links to back up your statement, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Following my suggestion would make this a non-issue as well.

Would you mind repeating your suggestion because I would like to see what it is? I went back on this thread and didn't stumble across it but I am curious...

 

[DiveCon]

Following my suggestion would make this a non-issue as well.

for myself, i'm against it
but, what consenting adults do is their business
the key word being "consenting"
as long as all party's involved are fine with it

 

[tymebeta]

so, does this mean you would support polygamy being legal as well?

I don't care. Doesn't affect me what-so-ever. If someone finds a conclusive study that negatively affects the growth/education of their children, then I'll re-examine the issue.

 

[Elyk88]

What history book are you talking about? The Bible?!

And your statement above doesn't address the argument that "separate but equal" isn't equal. It just says one man one woman.

- History includes much more than biblical times. In this thing called history.. Marriage has been between one man and one woman..usually regardless of religion.

I think civil unions for the government but marriage is only religious is a great idea. Then no one gets "marriage" rights but everyone gets "civil union rights". That would be equality. But that isn't how it is. Civil unions aren't recognized the same way marriage is. That's why homosexuals want to get married.

- That's is an opinion. And they are separate but equal. Like a high school diploma vs. GED. Some people may prefer the diploma..but by law they are equal..you can't force people to accept your way of thinking.



No, I'm not saying the government should control the church's at all. So, I'm not a hypocrite. What I am saying is that if a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they won't because homosexuals won't attend that church or apply to get married there. There are church's that will marry homosexuals and that's where homosexuals will get married. Also, if it was law that an institution can't discriminate, then that institution can't discriminate. Doesn't the Bible tell Christians to follow the law of the land?

- 1) that's what would happen.
2) If it is legal to get married in any church you are ignorant to think no1 will want to purposely marry in an opposing church just to start controversy..after all..that's what it is all about in the first place.
3) So you are okay with taking away the right to freedom of religion...you are forcing the church to go against their religion



What a ridiculous point. C'mon, don't insult my intelligence with idiotic logic like that.

- It can clearly happen. you insult your own intelligence to think it wouldn't.

Good luck with that crossing your finger wishing stuff.



-Like I said, they are't given the same rights in a civil union.
No, they all have the same rights. They choose to get in a Union and limit themselves.



Are you really trying to make an argument with the above remark?!

That's not even a logical argument!

-It is a valid argument. Opportunity cost. Same benefits, different title vs. A days worth of work.


Homsexuality isn't against the law. Polygamy is.

Same sex marriage is against the law... Stop trying.




Like I said, polygamy is illegal. Some Mormons of the Mormon church practice polygamy. Do you think the government shouldn't tell the Mormon church how to run its institution?

Like I said in my last post: incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

-And like I said..same sex marriage is illegal in CA. Some places it isn't. When incest is on the ballot will you support it?



Already addressed this argument.

- Yup, you addressed it by saying it is okay for the state to tell churches who they can and can't marry.



I never said the government should force churches to marry homosexuals. But if it were the law then the church has to follow the law of the land.

- but you said they can. Isn't that against freedom of religion and against separation of church and state??






I served 4 years in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, so I defended your right to vote. And I didn't say ignorant people aren't allowed to vote, I just said that they do and in more numbers than those of us who are progressive, critical, rational thinkers.

-1) Grats on your service. I also am enlisted in the military. That doesn't mean I let my ideology suppress my belief in democracy.
2) So everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. And everyone who agrees with you is a progressive, critical, rational thinker.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok someone clear this up for me. In California, do civil unions get all the same benefits as marriage provided by the state? If not, what are the differences?

One side keeps saying it's the same. Other side says there are things missing. If you could provide links to back up your statement, I'd appreciate it.

Here are some links, Tyme:

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Therese Stewart - Gay Marriage vs Civil Unions Video

Civil Unions Vs Marriage In US: American LGBT Citizens Seek More Rights States Provide

CNN.com - Comparing marriage and civil unions - Feb. 26, 2004

 

[Elyk88]

so, does this mean you would support polygamy being legal as well?

I would be against it. However I would accept it if..and read this correctly the first time..

The people voted for it.

Why? because Democracy>my agenda

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What history book are you talking about? The Bible?!

And your statement above doesn't address the argument that "separate but equal" isn't equal. It just says one man one woman.

- History includes much more than biblical times. In this thing called history.. Marriage has been between one man and one woman..usually regardless of religion.

Which is a moot point because we can change history in this country. We just did.

I think civil unions for the government but marriage is only religious is a great idea. Then no one gets "marriage" rights but everyone gets "civil union rights". That would be equality. But that isn't how it is. Civil unions aren't recognized the same way marriage is. That's why homosexuals want to get married.

- That's is an opinion. And they are separate but equal. Like a high school diploma vs. GED. Some people may prefer the diploma..but by law they are equal..you can't force people to accept your way of thinking.

And if you think separate but equal isn't equal is an opinion...you have a long ways to go to catch up with the modern world.

Hich school diplomas and GEDs are entirely different than people's rights as a couple being recognized by the government.

No, I'm not saying the government should control the church's at all. So, I'm not a hypocrite. What I am saying is that if a church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, they won't because homosexuals won't attend that church or apply to get married there. There are church's that will marry homosexuals and that's where homosexuals will get married. Also, if it was law that an institution can't discriminate, then that institution can't discriminate. Doesn't the Bible tell Christians to follow the law of the land?

- 1) that's what would happen.
2) If it is legal to get married in any church you are ignorant to think no1 will want to purposely marry in an opposing church just to start controversy..after all..that's what it is all about in the first place.
3) So you are okay with taking away the right to freedom of religion...you are forcing the church to go against their religion

These don't address that Christians believe they should follow the law of the land. What about that? If discriminating against homosexuals were illegal, shouldn't Christians follow the law of the land?

And if a church doesn't allow homosexuality, would homosexuals attend there? Does this happen? What church is that?

-Like I said, they are't given the same rights in a civil union.
No, they all have the same rights. They choose to get in a Union and limit themselves.

Which makes my argument credible and valid. You've just stated my own thinking. Gay rights are limited when compared with straight people's rights.

Homsexuality isn't against the law. Polygamy is.

Same sex marriage is against the law... Stop trying.

That's avoiding the argument.

Like I said, polygamy is illegal. Some Mormons of the Mormon church practice polygamy. Do you think the government shouldn't tell the Mormon church how to run its institution?

Like I said in my last post: incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

-And like I said..same sex marriage is illegal in CA. Some places it isn't. When incest is on the ballot will you support it?

No, I won't support incest for very obvious reasons: its harmful for offspring. This is scientific.

And if polygamy were brought up on the ballot, then I would support it. If someone wants to marry an already married couple - that's their choice.

And you are still avoiding the argument:

Homosexuality is legal. Polygamy and incest are not. So why shouldn't a homosexual couple be extended the same rights as straight couples.

- Yup, you addressed it by saying it is okay for the state to tell churches who they can and can't marry.

I never said the government should force churches to marry homosexuals. But if it were the law then the church has to follow the law of the land.

- but you said they can. Isn't that against freedom of religion and against separation of church and state??

Any institution that discriminates in a free country will have to stop discriminating or break the law. Where else can a compromise be made between freedom of religion and separation of church and state? When civil unions are the only thing the government recognizes and the same rights that married couples currently enjoy are extended to civil unions. That's the compromise because it is more important that we are free and equal in the United States than it is for a church to discriminate.

I served 4 years in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm, so I defended your right to vote. And I didn't say ignorant people aren't allowed to vote, I just said that they do and in more numbers than those of us who are progressive, critical, rational thinkers.

-1) Grats on your service. I also am enlisted in the military. That doesn't mean I let my ideology suppress my belief in democracy.

Your belief in democracy comes before your belief in freedom. That much is obvious.

2) So everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. And everyone who agrees with you is a progressive, critical, rational thinker.

No. Anyone who is ignorant isn't a progressive, critical, rational thinker. That's what I said.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Because what they would do is force churches to go against their own right to religion and separation of church and state by forcing them to marry gays or close shop.

I don't care what they do..unless what they do violates

-separation from church and state
-freedom of religion

Churches can go to hell.

They do not have precedent over the civil liberties of Americans .. and that is the REAL separation of church and state.

 

[Vintij]

Churches can go to hell.

They do not have precedent over the civil liberties of Americans .. and that is the REAL separation of church and state.

Exactly, and its embarrassing that inequality is still going on today. For the past thousand years, it was religion that went out of their way to poison our morality. And today, it is religious conservatives that went out of their way with nothing to lose at all, that voted to strike down gay marriage. Imagine all the people who had everything to lose when they voted? Looking of at the jackass laughing about voting yes on 8 because he himself would not be effected no matter the outcome. That, is explicit injustice.....when a proposition is passed by people who are literally not affected personally by gay marriage in any way, and have nothing to lose......the people who are affected who went to the polling both to vote had EVERYTHING to vote for, everything to fight for. Thats the sad part. Its the embarrassing part about this state, they go out of their way to ruin the quality of someone elses life while not risking the quality of their own in any way. Oh and they go out of their way to vote for a 40 billion dollar train instead of voting for two propositions toward energy independence......why? I guess they felt they had to spend tax dollars on important things like high speed trains right? While in the process, they ruin everyones chance at renewable energy for a fucking tourist joke of a high speed train. That lets you know how uniformed Californians were this election year. At least other states were consistently conservative with their tax dollars.