vote yes on proposition 8

Polycarp_fan said:

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?

Please enlighten me?

Click to expand...

America is a constitutional republic. What that means is that there are many rights of the individual that are protected from the will (and beliefs) of the majority. Those rights include the right to engage in consensual sex acts with the consenting adult of your choice, and the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. They also include the right to practice the religion of your choice.

Polycarp_fan said:

So, religious people are not part of a democracy?

So preferred personal sex acts, is a more important belief system than basing ones life and morals on a religion?

Please enlighten me?

Click to expand...

And remind me again why sex acts are anyones business but those involved? Do you really care if I have sex with someone in a different position?

Dennis Miller said:

I don't care if you need a platypus to get off. Just don't come knocking on my door asking to borrow my platypus.

Click to expand...

'Nuff said.

Vote no and stay out of other peoples business.

Separation of church and state pl0x

Religion has nothing to do with the legal benefits concerning married persons.

Big Fat NO on prop 8 cali people. I'm glad I live in MA. The anti-marriage folk have finally started to hush it.

Holy Roller said:

Why is it that when we identify a human activity that is clearly abnormal we are called homophobes? Can't we just be called the people who identify abnormal human behavior?

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is NOT abnormal, merely a minority trait, like left handedness or red hair.

EnemyPartyII said:

Homosexuality is NOT abnormal, merely a minority trait, like left handedness or red hair.

Click to expand...

Technically, he's right: it is abnormal, insofar as it's not the norm. The problem comes when people equate abnormality with undesirable.

Wiccan_Child said:

Technically, he's right: it is abnormal, insofar as it's not the norm. The problem comes when people equate abnormality with undesirable.

Click to expand...

Given the context, I'm assuming that "abnormal" is carrying a heavy burden of implied negative conotation. Since abnormal is regularly used as a perjorative, even though this is not technically implicit, I think there are better terms available, that convey that while homosexuality is not the norm, it is not inherently negative, and that it is in fact a stable trait that regularly occurs in 10% of the population in any population.

Wiccan_Child said:

Technically, he's right: it is abnormal, insofar as it's not the norm. The problem comes when people equate abnormality with undesirable.

Click to expand...

Well said and I am sure no one here is "normal" we all have quirks that make us individual and abnormal, I just have more than most.

I'm against gay marriage, but AGAINST Prop. 8.

Christians need to realize that we don't live in a theocracy, America was built on the foundation of freedom for all, not just straights. There is a very BIG difference between theocracy and democracy. I wouldn't be surprised if some here didn't know what that was, but the point is:

Under the Constitution of the United States put forth under Americas Founding Fathers, gay marriage is legal.

I don't like it, but I ain't gonna be a hypocrite and reference the Constitution when it's only beneficial to me.

S53 said:

I'm against gay marriage, but for Prop. 8. ...

Under the Constitution of the United States put forth under Americas Founding Fathers, gay marriage is legal.

I don't like it, but I ain't gonna be a hypocrite and reference the Constitution when it's only beneficial to me.

Click to expand...

Just make sure you're aware that being "for" Prop 8 (voting Yes) is the opposite of what you want. You should vote No if you want to keep same-sex marriage legal.

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. *Edits post*

Holy Roller said:

The ideal is a legally married man and woman raising a child as part of a family. The non-ideal would be a single mom, a gay couple or two hippopotamus's raising that child.
When we write laws, we have to take the ideal into account. Since there is no biological difference between the races of man, an interracial couple may also be a part of the ideal.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here. You seem to be arguing that only the ideal should be codified in law; in this case, as you say, only a married non-same-sex couple is the ideal and all other forms of marriage should not have legal backing.

I get that and agree with you regarding the two hippos raising a child (although probably for different reasons than you do), but how do you want to address the case of the single mom? The only way I can think of of not legally backing that would be to outlaw divorce. Do you support that?

Also I'd be curious why you think that your ideal should become law. What makes your opinion worth more that the opinion of someone else?

lilakuh said:

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here. You seem to be arguing that only the ideal should be codified in law; in this case, as you say, only a married non-same-sex couple is the ideal and all other forms of marriage should not have legal backing.

I get that and agree with you regarding the two hippos raising a child (although probably for different reasons than you do), but how do you want to address the case of the single mom? The only way I can think of of not legally backing that would be to outlaw divorce. Do you support that?

Also I'd be curious why you think that your ideal should become law. What makes your opinion worth more that the opinion of someone else?

Click to expand...

I think what he meant was that it's not ideal for two animals (chimps; hippos, etc.) to get married, nor is the single parent an ideal model of marriage (after all, who would the single parent marry? Herself?), but the man and a woman, since the ideal is also the biological norm.
Marriage laws should be codified around the norm; all others should not be taken under consideration because there is no legal, moral or constitutional justification for doing so.
The gay marriage/union dilemma rests on the gay community on finding a manner of union that best fits their orientation; since our marriage clearly rests on the male/female orientation, it would be the gay community's task to find their own manner of union and not adopt ours.

Thus, we establish freedom and equality (concepts the gay community is looking for in adopting a means of marriage) in the gay marriage dilemma after they find their solution.

Marriage laws should be codified around the norm; all others should not be taken under consideration because there is no legal, moral or constitutional justification for doing so.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. What you are saying here is that only the majority needs to be considered, and there is no legal, moral or constitutional reason to give a rat's about anyone else. People in wheel chairs disagree with you.

it would be the gay community's task to find their own manner of union and not adopt ours.

Click to expand...

I'm in a long term, committed, monogomous intimate relationship with a homosexual partner, with whom I share my finances. This is the manner of union that suits us. Sound like any other model you can think of?

That sounds an awfully lot like separate but equal, which is just separate and not equal. There is no such thing as our marriage. It's not a possession we own. And it's been my experience that my fellow heterosexuals don't exactly "protect the sanctity of marriage." If we don't bat an eye when people get flippantly married and divorced left and right but so OH NO no marriage for teh geys! That is the worst sort of hypocracy.

My fellow Americas who are gay deserve all the rights of this country, you know that whole....all men are created equal idea....not all straight men are created equal.

HappyHealthyHolyRoller said:

Marriage laws should be codified around the norm; all others should not be taken under consideration because there is no legal, moral or constitutional justification for doing so.

Click to expand...

If we passed laws based upon what "the norm" is interracial marriage would still be illegal.

Teachers would also still be wrapping students on the hand who "dare" to write left handed.

I went to a gay marriage here in Toronto. It was very beautiful. It was at a Quaker Meeting, it was approached in seriousness and reverence. There was no fashion show of gowns, but rather, the two women, who have been together for 17 years, wore nice clothes that they already had. They didn't ask for presents, but for one's presence.

And it was beautiful. It wasn't about the pageantry, the cheesy playing Dress Up Barbie for a $30,000 price tag, but simple, about their love, their commitment, and their friends and God to share in the experience.

So, I still don't understand why the States are still so far behind the rest of the world in this issue, that is about commitment of two people, and legal rights that accompany it.

Beanieboy said:

And it was beautiful. It wasn't about the pageantry, the cheesy playing Dress Up Barbie for a $30,000 price tag, but simple, about their love, their commitment, and their friends and God to share in the experience.

Click to expand...

What?! You mean no one barged in and demanded that the officiant marry them and their goat? No one came in wanting to marry their daughter? A straight couple didn't show up and realize they needed to get a divorce because of this same-sex wedding? I can't believe it!