NO on Prop 8 (California)

[quade 3]

Quote

And I have stated repetedly why I brought it up. Maybe you should go back and reread my posts, anybody with some rational sense could understand. There was no comparison. There was an illustaration of drawing the line of right and wrong. For some it may be cussing for others screwing dad animals, but there is a line somewhere for each of us.

I find it "interesting" that you then choose to bring up the bestial necrophilia and not the swearing.

Try not to play as if you're simply trying to "educate" people when you use lame illustrations designed to dehumanize the topic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chadkal 0]

I am not trying to play anything. I am stating as I have all along, and you have been to close minded to be able to understand what has been pretty simple to figure out

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[billvon 2,400]

>was the man within his rights?

The guy who you posted about? No. He killed a horse that wasn't his, and that is (and should be) illegal.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>At some point you have to have a moral standard.

Yes, YOU do, and you have the absolute right to make any moral standard you choose. You do not have the right to legislate it for everyone else.

Really? How do you explain "hate speech" laws, then? Is that not saying that some words are morally unacceptable?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[labrys 0]

Quote

Really? How do you explain "hate speech" laws, then? Is that not saying that some words are morally unacceptable?

Yelling "fire" in a crowded (and not burning) theater is a common example, Mike. There's nothing most people would find morally unacceptable with the word "fire" except when it's used to incite panic and could cause physical harm.

Owned by Remi #?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Really? How do you explain "hate speech" laws, then? Is that not saying that some words are morally unacceptable?

Yelling "fire" in a crowded (and not burning) theater is a common example, Mike. There's nothing most people would find morally unacceptable with the word "fire" except when it's used to incite panic and could cause physical harm.

I don't disagree with your example, although I was thinking more along the lines of racial epithets.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Again you put words in others mouth of others.

Those were quotes from your own posts.

>I have in not one post said I want to denie anyone the same rights have I.

OK, then I will ask you directly.

You currently have the right to marry anyone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. Do you think gays should have that right as well?

Yet again, I have stated that gays should be allowed to be couples and viewed as such under the law. Civil Unions work for all if that is what they so chose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since being married has a religous meaning

Nope. Being married has a religious meaning to a religious person. Being married does not have a religious meaning to a non religious person.

Disagree

You can disagree all you want.

You would still be 100% wrong for projecting YOUR beliefs onto others.

I was married for about 11 years. Never, at any time, did I feel that my marriage had any religious meaning whatsoever. It was a personal and legal contract between me and my now ex-wife. Religion was not, in any way, connected to my marriage. I don't go to church. Never have, never will.
I was brought up in a very church-going neighborhood. I learned at an early age that almost all those that cloak themselves in their religious beliefs are really all about being superior to others. The stronger their "beliefs", the nastier they are to those that don't share them. Those people rarely travel and are very fearful of outside ideas. No amount of fact can shake them from their "beliefs".

As far as other lame justifications used by the "conservative" bigots, I didn't have any children and I didn't plan to when I got married. So much for that argument...

Should I have been allowed to get married? Or is a secular liberal with no plans to have children so far outside the confines of a "traditional" marriage that I should have had a civil union?

My take on the matter is that

1. You go to the county clerk and take out a "Civil Union" contract that provides all of the rights and benefits, 100%, of what is currently known as a marriage license.
2. The County Clerk (or their employees) have you sign, and thumbprint, the documents that complete the legal contract between the two consenting adults.
3. You walk out of the County Clerk's office with the legal business aspect of the relationship completed, in the eyes of the law.
4. Go have whatever ceremony, party, boogie, celebration, or whatever you need to satisfy your own religious or moral beliefs.

Done deal.

The American Way would have happened the way it is supposed to. Society evolved to provide greater freedom to the people.

None of the righties have ever been able to answer my standing question - What positive social change has come about due to conservative philosophy?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Since being married has a religous meaning

Nope. Being married has a religious meaning to a religious person. Being married does not have a religious meaning to a non religious person.

Disagree

You can disagree all you want.

You would still be 100% wrong for projecting YOUR beliefs onto others.It seems to me it is you pushing your beliefs on to others

I was married for about 11 years. Never, at any time, did I feel that my marriage had any religious meaning whatsoever. It was a personal and legal contract between me and my now ex-wife. Religion was not, in any way, connected to my marriage. I don't go to church. Never have, never will. Your choice but, that does not change the fact that marriage is definded in the Bible and the state recognises that definition
I was brought up in a very church-going neighborhood. I learned at an early age that almost all those that cloak themselves in their religious beliefs are really all about being superior to others. The stronger their "beliefs", the nastier they are to those that don't share them. Those people rarely travel and are very fearful of outside ideas. No amount of fact can shake them from their "beliefs".

As far as other lame justifications used by the "conservative" bigots, I didn't have any children and I didn't plan to when I got married. So much for that argument...ah, now to the name calling of those who disagree with you


Should I have been allowed to get married? Or is a secular liberal with no plans to have children so far outside the confines of a "traditional" marriage that I should have had a civil union?Betwwen you and God. You fit the dedinition, you made your choices. You could have gotten married by a jp. Did you? Or did you use a church? If you used a church then are you a hypocrit?

My take on the matter is that

1. You go to the county clerk and take out a "Civil Union" contract that provides all of the rights and benefits, 100%, of what is currently known as a marriage license.
2. The County Clerk (or their employees) have you sign, and thumbprint, the documents that complete the legal contract between the two consenting adults.
3. You walk out of the County Clerk's office with the legal business aspect of the relationship completed, in the eyes of the law.
4. Go have whatever ceremony, party, boogie, celebration, or whatever you need to satisfy your own religious or moral beliefs.
That is what I have been saying all along
Done deal.

The American Way would have happened the way it is supposed to. Society evolved to provide greater freedom to the people.

None of the righties have ever been able to answer my standing question - What positive social change has come about due to conservative philosophy?

Not directly but, the damage done by progressives is clearly apparent today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

You got me to thinking about this. So it is your fault I woke up at 3 AM this morning thinking about this.


The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Now, I see no reason that any two people can be seen as couples that have legal standing under law either but, I feel that saying they can be married is establishing law regarding religion based on what I posted above.

Now, you brought up the church’s that allow gay marriage within their walls. I submit that they operate under the same writings as the rest of the churches, and doing so goes against the very documents that were used when those churches were founded. I think they have the right to do so if they choose but, they still have not and can not change the writings by which they have been governed and are doing so on their own. So, while this is an example it really does not back up the assertion that marriage of gays should be allowed. I feel they are going against the foundations of that church. Again, it is their choice.

Another example raised was that of two atheists being married. Well, you may want to say whether or not the term marriage should apply by, they fall under the definition and I feel it is they that are lying to themselves or their God. (By the way, Atheism is a religion too. It is the atheists that attack the Judeo-Christian church’s more regularly than the other way around).

I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.

That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.

Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tigra 0]

As it stands now, in this country, marriage is a LEGAL institution, one that allows certain rights and priveleges, and in some cases, a financial benefit. As it is now, "civil unions" are not given the same rights, benefits or credibility in this country.

Besides which, wasn't the whole concept of "separate but equal" (which is pretty much what you are suggesting) shot down when they de-segregated the public schools back in the 60s?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

As it stands now, in this country, marriage is a LEGAL institution, one that allows certain rights and priveleges, and in some cases, a financial benefit. As it is now, "civil unions" are not given the same rights, benefits or credibility in this country.

Besides which, wasn't the whole concept of "separate but equal" (which is pretty much what you are suggesting) shot down when they de-segregated the public schools back in the 60s?

It is also a religious institution is it not?

And your point to me is?

I have stated many times I feel the same rights should be granted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

None of the righties have ever been able to answer my standing question - What positive social change has come about due to conservative philosophy?

Not directly but, the damage done by progressives is clearly apparent today

[billvon 2,400]

>>You currently have the right to marry anyone you love and want to spend the
>>rest of your life with. Do you think gays should have that right as well?

> I have stated that gays should be allowed to be couples . . .

If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then you want to deny others the rights that you have.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.

That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.

Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe

As far as I know (and I may be wrong about this) you don't go to city hall and get a legal union license. You get a marriage license. That is what mine says right on the top. Maybe if we change the name of the license for everyone to a legal union license it would be sufficient to satisfy both sides. If the union is presided over by some religious figure in a church, you have a traditional marriage ceremony. If your ceremony is in Vegas by Elvis or in freefall by me (price of a jump ticket only ) the ceremony itself is called something else, but the legal part of it is exactly the same.

Requirements for the legal union would be two people of legal age to enter into the legal union. Gender has no discriminatory basis.

Seems rational to me.

[billvon 2,400]

> How do you explain "hate speech" laws, then?

People get bent out of shape by language they don't like, and they pass laws concerning it. The only "hate speech" that should be covered by any laws, IMO, are:

1) Causing a panic (i.e. yelling "fire!" in an airplane)
2) Libel (i.e. saying "those three black guys are rapists!")
3) Inciting violence (i.e. "let's go hang us some whiteys!")

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>You currently have the right to marry anyone you love and want to spend the
>>rest of your life with. Do you think gays should have that right as well?

> I have stated that gays should be allowed to be couples . . .

If you cannot answer "yes" to that question, then you want to deny others the rights that you have.

I can help it that you frame questions that can not be answered in a correct context, So please stop putting words in my mouth and lying about my position.

So no, I do not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tigra 0]

Quote

Quote

The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?

Yes they were- for reasons far more practical than religion.

[livendive 8]

Quote

You got me to thinking about this. So it is your fault I woke up at 3 AM this morning thinking about this.


The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Now, I see no reason that any two people can be seen as couples that have legal standing under law either but, I feel that saying they can be married is establishing law regarding religion based on what I posted above.

Now, you brought up the church’s that allow gay marriage within their walls. I submit that they operate under the same writings as the rest of the churches, and doing so goes against the very documents that were used when those churches were founded. I think they have the right to do so if they choose but, they still have not and can not change the writings by which they have been governed and are doing so on their own. So, while this is an example it really does not back up the assertion that marriage of gays should be allowed. I feel they are going against the foundations of that church. Again, it is their choice.

Another example raised was that of two atheists being married. Well, you may want to say whether or not the term marriage should apply by, they fall under the definition and I feel it is they that are lying to themselves or their God. (By the way, Atheism is a religion too. It is the atheists that attack the Judeo-Christian church’s more regularly than the other way around).

I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.

That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.

Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe

I mostly agree that saying they can be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion, however I also feel that saying they cannot be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion. The thing is, this ship has already sailed. There are already tons of references to marriage (an establishment of religion) in existing laws. So, the option in California was to either enact a constitutional amendment FURTHER respecting an establishment of religion in order to prohibit gays from availing themselves of it, or have the government remain silent on the issue and not make ANOTHER law respecting an establishment of religion. The effect of not making such a law would have been to let the equal protection clauses allow gay and straight people to practice their religions as they see fit.

Would you also support a constitutional amendment banning gays from baptism? Or mormons from bar mitzvahs?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,400]

>So no, I do not

You want to be able to marry. You do not want gays to be able to marry. You have stated that yourself. Take it up with RushMC if you don't like what that says about you.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You got me to thinking about this. So it is your fault I woke up at 3 AM this morning thinking about this.


The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Now, I see no reason that any two people can be seen as couples that have legal standing under law either but, I feel that saying they can be married is establishing law regarding religion based on what I posted above.

Now, you brought up the church’s that allow gay marriage within their walls. I submit that they operate under the same writings as the rest of the churches, and doing so goes against the very documents that were used when those churches were founded. I think they have the right to do so if they choose but, they still have not and can not change the writings by which they have been governed and are doing so on their own. So, while this is an example it really does not back up the assertion that marriage of gays should be allowed. I feel they are going against the foundations of that church. Again, it is their choice.

Another example raised was that of two atheists being married. Well, you may want to say whether or not the term marriage should apply by, they fall under the definition and I feel it is they that are lying to themselves or their God. (By the way, Atheism is a religion too. It is the atheists that attack the Judeo-Christian church’s more regularly than the other way around).

I in no way claim that I am right on this topic but, it is the way I believe this should be looked at. I feel gays, if they want to be life partners, should be looked at legally the same as a married man and woman. What I really don’t understand is why it has to be marriage.

That is why I feel that pushing to call it marriage is an attack on religious institution and belief. And congress shall make no law…….. And if they recognize the couples the same under the law then no discrimination is being seen.

Hope this clarifies where I come from. Again, don’t know if I am right, it is just what I believe

I mostly agree that saying they can be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion, however I also feel that saying they cannot be married is a law respecting an establishment of religion. The thing is, this ship has already sailed. There are already tons of references to marriage (an establishment of religion) in existing laws. So, the option in California was to either enact a constitutional amendment FURTHER respecting an establishment of religion in order to prohibit gays from availing themselves of it, or have the government remain silent on the issue and not make ANOTHER law respecting an establishment of religion. The effect of not making such a law would have been to let the equal protection clauses allow gay and straight people to practice their religions as they see fit.

Would you also support a constitutional amendment banning gays from baptism? Or mormons from bar mitzvahs?

Blues,
Dave

To answer your question, no. No more that I would support an amendment saying they have to be allowed.

Seeing where you are headed though requires I say the following. IF judges interfeared as they are with the gay marriage thing, then I would consider it again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

Marc, the problem lies not in your belief that they should have the same rights. fine. The problem is a PRACTICAL one. That's it. I'm boiling it down, here. yes, there's the higher issues of discrimination, etc, but so many conservatives hold practicality above many other concerns that i'll lay it out like that.

there are several (i've heard the number 20 bandied about, but i haven't had time to research them all myself) laws on the california books that contain the term "marriage" or "married" when referring to legal rights for couples. They do NOT say "civil union", "legal union", "domestic partner" or anything else. they say "married".

What is GOING to happen (all hail the almighty dollar) is that some insurance firm is going to attempt to deny a gay partner coverage based on the fact that they aren't "married" in the eyes of the laws that cover non-discrimination for those types of companies and policies. And you know what? under current CA law, and proposition 8, they would be allowed to do that. How many lawsuits are won and lost on the basis of semantics alone?

Now tell me, for PRACTICAL reasons, which is less costly, time consuming, and downright easier: Changing, repealing, or rewriting 20 laws, or changing one?

All religion and "morality" aside, in a very practical sense, until every single law that uses the term "marriage" is rewritten or repealed, taking away the right of gays to "marry" IS taking away their legal rights to many of the privileges that being "married" affords people.

I'd fall over dead the day i see the Mormon church spending $75million to get all those laws changed. Never happen. Because at the core of their support and the support of many of the people who funded prop 8 is the fact that they think gay people are wrong, bad, or unnatural and don't deserve the rights and happiness that "normal" people (meaning, people just ike them) have.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The term “marriage” is found throughout Judeo-Christian writings going back for many years. Primarily it is found in the Bible. The term, as it is seen in the Bible is defined as a holy union between one man and one woman. It is a contract put in place under “God”. For some reason the state has recognized this term for that and has given it legal standing.

Were people getting "married" before the Jewish or Christian Bible?

Hindus marry. Buddhists marry. Taoists marry. Zoroastrians marry...

In each case the word is used to describe heterosexual partnerships.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Conundrum 1]

Why are gay couples not considered equal in religion?