|
On November 05 2008 09:26 Raz0r wrote:
I am for Prop 8 I'm not against gays or anything, but I simply do not agree with gay marriage, I agree that a marriage is meant for a man and a woman, the psychological needs of both man and woman to take care of their kids, I believe is a necessity.
I think the problem with alot of people is that they believe marriage is something spiritual something religious. In fact it's a Legal manner... and the equality for all stands under legal terms. Now you can argue that marriage inside of a church shouldn't be allowed but in my mind. Everyone should get = chance to such benefits in marriage, call it w.e you want but i believe such benefits and recognition should belong to everyone no matter what their partner preference will be.
I voted no on 8
|
I don't support a ban on prop 8, but I believe that the CA court decision was horrible.
|
Not allowing same sex marriage in a non bias standpoint in purely legal and logical stand point doesn't work. Last time i checked all you need is some papers to be married not some religion or anything extra. Maybe we should ban interracial marriage with the logic behind prop 8 you can apparently. This is how prop 8 supports go "I believe marriage should" my teacher used to call belief and should bull shit in terms of arguing.
Separation of church and state much people. Leave your bias at the door.
|
Looks like it's gonna pass. Voted yes.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 05 2008 15:18 Bosu wrote:
I hate religion.
Thank you for another deeply well thought out and informative post.
p.s. My post may be confusing and look like shit but atlest I try to get a point across.
|
On November 05 2008 15:18 Bosu wrote:
I hate religion.
I love religion.
Doesn't mean I support Prop 8 though.
|
I voted no but I'm pretty sure it's gonna pass.
|
any marriage should be outlawed, period
as in not defined under the law
marriage is a religiously loaded term that means different things for different people
legal benefits can go under an umbrella term that acts upon all civil unions the same way, i.e. a civil union, whether gay, straight, or otherwise (??? otherwise??)
marriage should not be touched upon by the law, it can be whatever a particular religious sect wants it to be
what the fuck
|
In 25 years we will look back on this moment in our history in the same way that we do about racial inequality and women's suffrage.
Let's put it this way: if you voted to eliminate the right of same-sex couples, you'll probably be too embarrassed to admit it to your grandchildren.
|
On November 05 2008 10:41 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 10:34 Sadist wrote:
my thing is if you call marriage a religious ceremony or whatever, or even largely religious.
Why not ban atheists or agnostics or Muslims from getting married too? cuz they're religious too. christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion
atheists and agnostics are religious?
|
if so many educated young men with a higher IQ than the average think this way, it makes me feel really hopeless, god you are fucking idiots.
this world would be such a better place without you, seriously die.
|
So, watching TV of the california ballot propositions, prop 8 is like 53% yes, 47% no, as far has been counted. Fuck. I'm confused about one thing though. The proposition is a proposed amendment to the california constitution. To amend the US constitution, a 2/3 majority is required. I thought the same would have applied for the california constitution, but I am apparently mistaken. I really hope it gets voted down.
+ Show Spoiler [California Constitution Article 2 Sect…] +
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.
(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the
Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the
proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to
have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the
case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the
Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the
last gubernatorial election.
(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the
next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at
any special statewide election held prior to that general election.
The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.
(d) An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not
be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
(e) An initiative measure may not include or exclude any political
subdivision of the State from the application or effect of its
provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative
measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes
in favor of the measure, by the electors of that political
subdivision.
(f) An initiative measure may not contain alternative or
cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would
become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of
votes for or against the measure.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
- In response to the OP, I almost fully agree. If the government wants to prevent same-sex marriages from being recognized legally, then I disagree with them but that's an acceptable use of their power. But to prevent religious institutions from marrying same-sex couples is ludicrous. If they want a strictly-legal term for that purpose, then they should choose something other than "marriage".
- Diverging from the OP now, same-sex couples should have a right to refer to themselves as "married" (without necessarily being "legally-married"), regardless of whether they have gone through the ritual of any major religious institution. Now I agree that "marriage" is a term utilized by multiple religions, and that they should have every right to continue to use it. But one cannot restrict that term to religious marriages only: that is fundamentally the same as restricting its use to one single religion. If two people want to be "married" outside of any religion then that should be completely acceptable.
- Furthermore, same-sex couples should, in fact, be entitled to all of the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. What possible reason could there be to deny them, aside from discriminating against gays?
- It amazes me -- in a depressing way -- that d_so, someone who can approach Prop 8 from such an unbiased standpoint, also disagrees with gay marriage.
- I would love to see a single logic-based argument against gay marriage. I do not believe any exists. As far as I have seen, there is only faulty logic, used to attempt to justify a position that is clearly emotionally-driven. (Note that a position based on what God said is not a position based on logic.)
|
I can't imagine any intelligent person voting YES for non-religious reasons... and yet it's passing.
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
Do you believe in free choice for consenting adults?
Albeit not nearly as easily as in Arizona and Florida (which have similar props)
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 17:35 LxRogue wrote:
I can't imagine any intelligent person voting YES for non-religious reasons... and yet it's passing.
My guess is that many of those "intelligent" people are actually significantly homophobic.
|
this is a fucking mockery of freedom all around the world
the incredible irony of america passing a vote like this is absolutely beyond disgusting
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 17:38 Frits wrote:
this is a fucking mockery of freedom all around the world
the incredible irony of america passing a vote like this is absolutely beyond disgusting
I think the irony of America not being the "land of the free" disappeared a long time ago.
At this point, I would consider it ironic for America to do anything that promotes freedom.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is just in california. prospects in other states do not bold well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
