Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[Archivist]

I noticed you overlooked all the Scripture I gave. But I guess that's because the Bible isn't taught at your church. That explains everything.

Perhaps the Bible is taught at her church, just not your interpretation of it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Archivist,

Perhaps the Bible is taught at her church, just not your interpretation of it.

Perhaps he hasnt interpreted it at all but just cited and quoted it, perhaps they simply dont believe the Bible ate her church. All evidence shows the latter.

 

[Andreusz]

the Bible ate her church.

Sounds like the sequel to "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". Where's it showing?

 

[KCKID]

the Bible ate her church.

Sounds like the sequel to "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". Where's it showing?

Darn it ...you beat me to it!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Andreusz,

Sounds like the sequel to "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". Where's it showing?

 

[Archivist]

Sounds like the sequel to "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". Where's it showing?

 

[Texas Lynn]

This is my first vist to the thread, and because it's much to large to plow through I haven't bothered to read it all, so please forgive me if this has been posted before.

Public opinion on California Proposition 8 (2008)

.....................for....against...undecided
23 May 2008 ...54%.... 35%.......11%
28 May 2008 ...42%.....51%........ 7%
17 July 2008.... 42%.... 51%........ 7%
27 Aug 2008.... 40%.....54%........ 6%
14 Sep 2008.... 38%.....55%........ 7%

source

Thanks, Friend. We have discussed it but not with the figures IIRC.

The downward trend for support for the porposition is a strong indication it will not pass barring any "Bradley Effect".

The failure to pass this unfortunate proposition will certainly be a milestone in the annals of human progress, if such comes to pass.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Sounds like the sequel to "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". Where's it showing?

In the pursuit of justice humor works wonders. Thanks.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

This thread is generating quite a few reports. For the moment I am simply going to ask those participating here to stick to the topic and stop the polemics. If the polemics continue then this thread will be closed.​

 

[Dogbean]

Bump, for Texas Lynn to answer the Scripture in post #359

 

[Texas Lynn]

Bump, for Texas Lynn to answer the Scripture in post #359

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dogbean, I just went back and had a look at post 359...

What exactly in either of the cited Bible verses makes you think that civil adoption has anything to do with your version of Christianity?

Should Hindu couples not be allowed to adopt? Atheist couples?

Seems to me we're targeting homosexuals for discrimnation and trying to justify it after the fact again. If your concern was REALLY about the "Christian" upbringing of adoptees, you'd want to make it illegal for anyone who isn't your particular brand of Christian to adopt... yet its just homosexuals you have a problem with. Curious...

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Thanks but no thanks.

Quoting Sarah Palin?????

 

[Dogbean]

Dogbean, I just went back and had a look at post 359...

What exactly in either of the cited Bible verses makes you think that civil adoption has anything to do with your version of Christianity?

Should Hindu couples not be allowed to adopt? Atheist couples?

Seems to me we're targeting homosexuals for discrimnation and trying to justify it after the fact again. If your concern was REALLY about the "Christian" upbringing of adoptees, you'd want to make it illegal for anyone who isn't your particular brand of Christian to adopt... yet its just homosexuals you have a problem with. Curious...

My friend......you're bordering on misquoting me again.

I never said homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. I simply recognized that it's not the best environment to raise kids because it's not "bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

But I will give you this: there are many horrible situations out there that kids are in, and a loving homosexual couple would be better for them than a lot of what's out there.

I'm not targetting homosexuals for discrimination at all. I want to clarify my position but Big Bad Wolf still dodges my questions and does not seem interested in what I have to say. A clarification on my position fits with the topic of this post, so I am asking you again, Big Bad Wolf are you interested in hearing my position? I think it will clear things up in your mind and maybe it will help you stop misquoting me.

I'm going to do it anyway, later on, but I want to see that you are interested. The fact that you keep avoiding my questions just tells me that you are not interested, and just want to keep slinging mud my way.

Just remember, he who slings mud gets his hands dirty.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Quoting Sarah Palin?????

Yeah, but I wasn't lying.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dogbean, I just went back and had a look at post 359...

What exactly in either of the cited Bible verses makes you think that civil adoption has anything to do with your version of Christianity?

Should Hindu couples not be allowed to adopt? Atheist couples?

Seems to me we're targeting homosexuals for discrimnation and trying to justify it after the fact again. If your concern was REALLY about the "Christian" upbringing of adoptees, you'd want to make it illegal for anyone who isn't your particular brand of Christian to adopt... yet its just homosexuals you have a problem with. Curious...

You hit that nail right on the head. If you are going to advocate discrimination then it should apply to all

 

[Texas Lynn]

Here's a statement in opposition to Prop 8 from a conservative business group, Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA):

The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) voted overwhelming today to oppose Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, citing its potential impact on business and the economy. "VICA carefully considered the consequences of passing Prop. 8 and discovered that its passage could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue," said VICA Chairman Greg Lippe. "In the current economic conditions, it is necessary to keep all potential revenue streams flowing."

The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) voted overwhelming today to oppose Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, citing its potential impact on business and the economy. "VICA carefully considered the consequences of passing Prop. 8 and discovered that its passage could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue," said VICA Chairman Greg Lippe. "In the current economic conditions, it is necessary to keep all potential revenue streams flowing."

The members of the VICA board also noted that current labor laws regarding domestic partnerships increase administration costs and liability for organizations. Allowing the choice of marriage to be available to all couples has the potential to simplify the benefits process for employers. "Domestic partnership rules increase paperwork and create extra steps in the human resources process," said VICA President Stuart Waldman. "VICA has a history of working to make labor laws less onerous for employers, and our opposition to Prop. 8 is consistent with that stance."
​

 

[Brennin]

Here's a statement in opposition to Prop 8 from a conservative business group, Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA):

The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) voted overwhelming today to oppose Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, citing its potential impact on business and the economy. "VICA carefully considered the consequences of passing Prop. 8 and discovered that its passage could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue," said VICA Chairman Greg Lippe. "In the current economic conditions, it is necessary to keep all potential revenue streams flowing."

The board of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) voted overwhelming today to oppose Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, citing its potential impact on business and the economy. "VICA carefully considered the consequences of passing Prop. 8 and discovered that its passage could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue," said VICA Chairman Greg Lippe. "In the current economic conditions, it is necessary to keep all potential revenue streams flowing."

The members of the VICA board also noted that current labor laws regarding domestic partnerships increase administration costs and liability for organizations. Allowing the choice of marriage to be available to all couples has the potential to simplify the benefits process for employers. "Domestic partnership rules increase paperwork and create extra steps in the human resources process," said VICA President Stuart Waldman. "VICA has a history of working to make labor laws less onerous for employers, and our opposition to Prop. 8 is consistent with that stance."
​

Make it easier on employers by getting rid of domestic partnerships too.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

VICA carefully considered the consequences of passing Prop. 8 and discovered that its passage could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue

Because married homosexuals don't shop? Or what?

 

[OllieFranz]

EPII--

According to the excepts that Texas Lynn posted, VICA came out against the proposition and in favor of full marriage rights. They say California's business will lose money if the proposition passes. They are saying that, for example, keeping separate records for marriages and domestic partnerships with different levels of eligibility for benefits wastes a company's time and money.