kelpdiver 2 #51 November 3, 2008 Quote A complete and total lack of empathy from both sides of the argument. Watching this play out is like watching a dog trying to play with a cat that is telling it to back off. The religious people don't understand what they are trying to take away from the gays, and the gays don't understand at all what marriage means to the religious. Why the hell would you expect gays to show empathy towards a side that history has condemned them, tried to cure them, occasionally (or frequently) beat and killed them, and now is spending tens of millions of dollars to tell them how they can live? It's no different than expecting blacks to show empathy to a KKK initiative, save that there are actually some churches that accept and marry gays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #52 November 3, 2008 what part of... "It is fundamentally unfair that homosexual couples and polygamous family units cannot avail themselves of the contractual and legislative benefits accessible to traditionally married couples: tax breaks, inheritance, hospital visitation, health care and others. " ... do you not understand? sounds like you've stopped pretending you understand English, eh? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #53 November 3, 2008 You're funny. QuoteThat is why I chose to turn billvon's street sign whimpering... I thought it sounded whiney, too. Your offbeat interludes have certainly jazzed the thread up a bit, though.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 November 3, 2008 Quote sounds like you've stopped pretending you understand English, eh? when it stinks, yes, I tend to discount it. You sound like Kallend when he claims to be for gun rights. Part of SC is reading between the lines. And believe it or not, it's actually about polite, if spirited debate. Your tone never accomplishes any higher level of understanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #55 November 4, 2008 QuoteI am not so sure it is about hate. I think it is more likely this: A complete and total lack of empathy from both sides of the argument. Watching this play out is like watching a dog trying to play with a cat that is telling it to back off. The religious people don't understand what they are trying to take away from the gays, and the gays don't understand at all what marriage means to the religious. A little empathy from both sides would go a long way to finding an amicable solution, but instead we are going to end up with one very pissed off group of people regardless of who wins. ... What I think the people on the "pro" side are missing is that this is not a religious issue. It is a LEGAL issue about what kinds of partnership contracts will be recognized by the government and what kinds will not. It has nothing to do with religion, with schools, or with free speech. Churches will not be forced to perform marriages they oppose, any more than they are forced to perform marriages they oppose now. A church can refuse to marry anybody they wish, and in fact, they do it all the time. They're not going to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to marry someone anymore than the boy scouts will lose their tax exempt status for refusing to allow gay scoutmasters. Schools are not forced to teach about gay marriage. Curriculum, beyond the state standards is not dictated by the state, but by the school board, the district, the principal, and by the classroom teacher, in that order. Got a problem with what's being taught in the classroom, take your gripe to the teacher first, and work your way up the chain. The only reference to marriage is in the Education Code, which provides a general guideline. "The code only instructs schools to “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” as part of health and sex education curriculum. The code allows districts to decide against teaching health and sex education, and allows parents to pull their children from those classes or others dealing with sensitive subject matters." Schools do NOT have to teach the definition of marriage, mention that people of the same sex can get married, or allow discussion of such marriages in the classroom. (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marriage-gay-prop-2201297-school-education) As for "prop 8 equals free speech", I'm not even sure where the heck that argument is coming from, so I can't even begin to rebut it beyond "huh?". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr_music11 0 #56 November 4, 2008 Ok... cant hold back any longer.. here's my .02 Prop 8 is all about the $$ Insurance companies dont want to have to pay out. the money that then "gay couples" would be entitled to. Religious zealots are making it out to be something more than it is. And dont get me wrong.. I am religious. And if you were to ask me if gay marriage were FOR ME???... then, no. But if you think for one moment that man can take away or solidify that which is defined by God, you are sorely mistaken. Man can call the sky green if they want... write a law that says the sky is green and will always be called green. But does that actually change the color of the sky? NO!! This prop is only a divisive law, aimed at taking away the rights of persons who should be entitled to make decisions about their loved ones. Wake up people. Realize the consequences of your actions. You "yes on 8" ers might wake up one day to find your rights stripped from you just because a majority wanted to now say "green skies" skydivers.If flying is piloting a plane.. then swimming is driving a boat. I know why birds sing.. I skydive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 November 4, 2008 Quote Prop 8 is all about the $$ Insurance companies dont want to have to pay out. the money that then "gay couples" would be entitled to. Though occasionally cited by dumber supporters (hard to justify sponging off the gays), it's not a significant factor in the fundraising. Not unless the LDS is in bed with insurance. The bulk of the money has come from Mormons and other Christians, not industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 292 #58 November 4, 2008 QuoteProp 8 is all about the $$ Insurance companies dont want to have to pay out. the money that then "gay couples" would be entitled to. The insurance companies will not be losing any money on that -- the employers will be funding that insurance. In cases where there is a non-working, or low paid, spouse, the married couple will pay less income tax than the unmarried couple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 292 #59 November 4, 2008 Hey, I see "yes on prop 8" banner ads on DZ.com. Assuming that they are paying per click, let's all click them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #60 November 4, 2008 >I thought it sounded whiney, too. You're right. Perhaps there's a lesson there. Next time someone is tempted to get out there and do something, perhaps remaining on the couch and posting on the Internet would be a better idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shermanator 3 #61 November 4, 2008 looked up in the sky today, and there were 5 planes, stacked I asume, working together, skywriting, 'vote yes on prop 8' and 'save traditional marriage' . I was surprised at the number of times they were writing it in the sky, and each one only lasted for about 3 minutes. they plastered the sky. It was entertaining. ... .. and I am FOR prop 8, and thought it was rediculous.CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08 CSA #720 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #62 November 4, 2008 it's not a significant factor in the fundraising. Not unless the LDS is in bed with insurance. LSD Church Corporation of the First Presidency owns Beneficial Life Insurance in addition to five different broadcast networks in California. Not only do they have eclesiastical interests, they have financial interests and the means by which to get their opinion heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 November 4, 2008 Quoteit's not a significant factor in the fundraising. Not unless the LDS is in bed with insurance. LSD Church Corporation of the First Presidency owns Beneficial Life Insurance in addition to five different broadcast networks in California. Not only do they have eclesiastical interests, they have financial interests and the means by which to get their opinion heard. life insurance pays out to beneficiaries - gay marriage doesn't change that. But gay marriage does mean more people get covered by work policies, which seems like a positive, not a negative, if you're the seller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #64 November 4, 2008 QuoteNext time someone is tempted to get out there and do something, perhaps remaining on the couch and posting on the Internet would be a better idea. Like you did when your signs were "stolen". SO defeatist. Nobody puts signs out for anything expecting they'll remain there--much less get them back--unless that person has never put out signs for anything before. Those "in the know" might bring a step stool, a hammer and nail, and position the sign out of arm's reach on a wooden utility pole located near almost every major intersection and McDonald's. You've already admitted to putting signs in medians anyways.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #65 November 4, 2008 Quote... really don't understand how they think it effects any of their rights at all, but it certainly does effect the rights of others. That's just wrong. Depends on your viewpoint on what constitutes a "right". Some people think they have a "right" to shit in your foodbowl. You may not agree with that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #66 November 4, 2008 >Those "in the know" might bring a step stool, a hammer and nail, and >position the sign out of arm's reach on a wooden utility pole located near >almost every major intersection and McDonald's. . . . . which is illegal. >Nobody puts signs out for anything expecting they'll remain there--much >less get them back--unless that person has never put out signs for >anything before. I had no expectations that I would get them back. I did hope that some would remain for a week or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #67 November 4, 2008 Quote. . . . which is illegal. So is putting them in medians.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #68 November 4, 2008 >So is putting them in medians. Not around here, as far as I can tell. You can't put them on private property, you can't put them where they obstruct the view of oncoming traffic, and you can't leave them up more than a month before or a week after the election - but there's nothing explicitly against putting them on a median. You also need a permit if they are over a certain size, go in a right of way or are in a 'designated scenic corridor.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #69 November 4, 2008 Fair enough. In many (most?) cities, medians are considered a right-of-way (like that little grassy space between the road and the sidewalk--also a no-no for signs) and even in cities that have rather lax restrictions on advertisement & campaign signs, medians are still a no-no. I suspect most people don't know or care since no-one knows anyone who has ever been charged with the crime of posting a sign in a median. In any event--if it meant that much to me--I'd be more inclined to get creative and have a little fun with the sign-stealers than I would complain about their tactics. Come on, Bill, it's kinda funny they used your same frame. Get downright hilarious on their asses.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #70 November 4, 2008 speaking of tactics...anyone else's banner ad on this site a "Yes on Prop 8" ad? LMAO. get it off!!!!! gah! Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 292 #71 November 4, 2008 Quote speaking of tactics...anyone else's banner ad on this site a "Yes on Prop 8" ad? LMAO. get it off!!!!! gah! Click on it, and click through the next level. Gotta raise some revenue around here. All the better, if it costs "yes on 8." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #72 November 4, 2008 Quote speaking of tactics...anyone else's banner ad on this site a "Yes on Prop 8" ad? Story here; http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5082577.ecequade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyjunkySean 0 #73 November 4, 2008 well said, as a "former" bible thumper, the thing that has ALways bothered me about the secular world is this. They, you, whomever, preach tolerance, tolerance, tolerance, yet get violently offended when the "religious" right takes offense at having a different belief shoved down their throat. It all makes very little sense to me. Again I say "former" bible thumper, I still have my beliefs, yet I have no need to expuse them to, or at any particular group, or person. This mainly due to the Hypocrisy I saw first hand in the church, don't get me wrong the reason for this post is to also point out the hypocrisy NOT acknowledged by the other side as well. Point is I will vote NO on prop 8 because, for one, I feel we have too damn many laws already, And for two, who am I to tell another person how they are to live there life. I would urge those who are casting there vote AFTER reading these forums to always remeber how our nation was founded. WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST NATION. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyjunkySean 0 #74 November 4, 2008 man my typing sucks !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 November 4, 2008 Quote I would urge those who are casting there vote AFTER reading these forums to always remeber how our nation was founded. WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST NATION. It was founded by Puritans, but we're hardly that uptight now. Tolerance doesn't really require tolerating others' refusal to leave you alone. Let's remember who put prop 8 on the ballot. It wasn't the seculars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)