Proposition 8

[ajentjbobclinton]

So if you don't understand the constitution you shouldn't take part in this vote?

Ideally, every voting citizen should understand their constitution before taking part in a vote that amends it, but that's why the United States is a republic, and not a strict democracy. The CA Constitution is cluttered and ridiculous, but at the very least, voters should understand the basics of the federal constitution, and how it's supposed to prevent institutionalized discrimination against suspect classes.

It's nice that the initiative process puts more democratic power into the people's hands, but that becomes incredibly dangerous if the people use it unwisely and without restraint (as it is, it's entirely possible to decriminalize murder through the initiative process).

The initiative process seems a lot like any voting system though, just much more direct. I do agree changing a constitution is pretty extreme so people should understand what they're doing before voting.

[MongoTheMad]

Unlike most here, I am glad Prop 8 remained intact. The majority of citizens in California wanted it that way. To even impose that our laws and government should be entrusted to legislature and not determined through the citizens' vote would be catastrophic. For example, what would have happened if we gave George W Bush absolute control? Our checks and balanced system is quite solid though I do see more government control taking place which worries me. When the constitution was written, it did not say, "We the government herein do impose these rules..." No, it said, "We the people..." That tells me it was a collective force moving toward one goal.

This gay marriage ordeal, from my perspective, is more of a movement to force positive approval in other people's eyes. For instance, Gov. Schwartzenegger said that the 18,000 that did get married will retain their status. This boggles my mind! I thought there were at least a million voted for gay marriage. How come the number was so low? If they wanted it so much why didn't we see higher numbers in the time period? (From my assumption, they were getting married from 2004-2009 source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.s ... index.html The begin point I referenced came from San Fran allowing it.)

Even if it was allowed, do we really want to increase the divorce rate? Even if they are the same gender, it does not mean that they will live happily ever after.

I side with the religious group on this one - it is more logical. Hopefully a religious person believes the Bible. (I mean, if they did not believe the Bible, then they really aren't religious, now are they?) The Bible states that God is the Creator of all things. Because He is the Creator, He can set up the rules for His creation. (It's like saying joe has the authority to create the rules of this community because it is his community.) God made marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2) and furthermore condemns same-sex activity (Lev 18:22). If you get farther in your Bible reading, you may come across Romans 1 where in the latter portion of that chapter, it describes homosexual activity as sub-normal. The way it is described appears to me that it is among the lowest of lifestyles.

Whether or not you disagree with the ban on gay marriage does not remove the fact that it has been confirmed and upheld by the supreme court. It seems to me that there is no loop hole for this one.

[stabbyclaus]

Unlike most here, I am glad Prop 8 remained intact. The majority of citizens in California wanted it that way. To even impose that our laws and government should be entrusted to legislature and not determined through the citizens' vote would be catastrophic. For example, what would have happened if we gave George W Bush absolute control? Our checks and balanced system is quite solid though I do see more government control taking place which worries me. When the constitution was written, it did not say, "We the government herein do impose these rules..." No, it said, "We the people..." That tells me it was a collective force moving toward one goal.

This gay marriage ordeal, from my perspective, is more of a movement to force positive approval in other people's eyes. For instance, Gov. Schwartzenegger said that the 18,000 that did get married will retain their status. This boggles my mind! I thought there were at least a million voted for gay marriage. How come the number was so low? If they wanted it so much why didn't we see higher numbers in the time period? (From my assumption, they were getting married from 2004-2009 source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.s ... index.html The begin point I referenced came from San Fran allowing it.)

Even if it was allowed, do we really want to increase the divorce rate? Even if they are the same gender, it does not mean that they will live happily ever after.

I side with the religious group on this one - it is more logical. Hopefully a religious person believes the Bible. (I mean, if they did not believe the Bible, then they really aren't religious, now are they?) The Bible states that God is the Creator of all things. Because He is the Creator, He can set up the rules for His creation. (It's like saying joe has the authority to create the rules of this community because it is his community.) God made marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2) and furthermore condemns same-sex activity (Lev 18:22). If you get farther in your Bible reading, you may come across Romans 1 where in the latter portion of that chapter, it describes homosexual activity as sub-normal. The way it is described appears to me that it is among the lowest of lifestyles.

Whether or not you disagree with the ban on gay marriage does not remove the fact that it has been confirmed and upheld by the supreme court. It seems to me that there is no loop hole for this one.

So was segregation, luckily we have legislation to provide rights to minorities. I don't think gay people care much about "approval" of the religious lunatics but rather to just be happy. Your argument is just bigotry.

[joe]

Unlike most here, I am glad Prop 8 remained intact. The majority of citizens in California wanted it that way. To even impose that our laws and government should be entrusted to legislature and not determined through the citizens' vote would be catastrophic. For example, what would have happened if we gave George W Bush absolute control? Our checks and balanced system is quite solid though I do see more government control taking place which worries me. When the constitution was written, it did not say, "We the government herein do impose these rules..." No, it said, "We the people..." That tells me it was a collective force moving toward one goal.

This gay marriage ordeal, from my perspective, is more of a movement to force positive approval in other people's eyes. For instance, Gov. Schwartzenegger said that the 18,000 that did get married will retain their status. This boggles my mind! I thought there were at least a million voted for gay marriage. How come the number was so low? If they wanted it so much why didn't we see higher numbers in the time period? (From my assumption, they were getting married from 2004-2009 source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.s ... index.html The begin point I referenced came from San Fran allowing it.)

Even if it was allowed, do we really want to increase the divorce rate? Even if they are the same gender, it does not mean that they will live happily ever after.

I side with the religious group on this one - it is more logical. Hopefully a religious person believes the Bible. (I mean, if they did not believe the Bible, then they really aren't religious, now are they?) The Bible states that God is the Creator of all things. Because He is the Creator, He can set up the rules for His creation. (It's like saying joe has the authority to create the rules of this community because it is his community.) God made marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2) and furthermore condemns same-sex activity (Lev 18:22). If you get farther in your Bible reading, you may come across Romans 1 where in the latter portion of that chapter, it describes homosexual activity as sub-normal. The way it is described appears to me that it is among the lowest of lifestyles.

Whether or not you disagree with the ban on gay marriage does not remove the fact that it has been confirmed and upheld by the supreme court. It seems to me that there is no loop hole for this one.

i don't even know where to begin with this. i could write 20 pages on what you got wrong. but because no one will bother to read my post much less actually have an open mind about it i won't bother and i'll just throw out a couple things:

1. who gives a shit what the bible says? this country does not refer to the bible for any aspect of the legal system

2. ok let's say the bible mattered. you better start stoning all the adulterers to death as well as anyone who ate shellfish and any man who sat in a chair previously sat in by a menstruating woman. that's silly, you say? well you can't say the bible is your holy law and then pick and choose from it. so it's either all or nothing.

3. i'm not sure but i think the 18,000 marriages were just in the few months gay marriage was legal in 2008

4. the majority of citizens don't want it that way - the majority of VOTERS wanted it that way, and the outcome was paid for with tens of millions of dollars spent by the Mormon fucking lunatic church. if it was a straight up election, it would have failed in a landslide (early polling showed it behind more than 2 to 1, before the massive advertising started).

5. as a very eloquent post from earlier in the thread pointed out, every argument against gay marriage is stupid, specious, silly and spurious. typical of right-wing viewpoints, a clear-thinking 8-year-old can demolish anything the anti-gay marriage people say.

6. your opening paragraph talking about checks and balances is exactly why prop 8 SHOULD have failed. the constitution, which is the highest law in the country and supersedes every little state proposition, says all people have equal protections under the law. that's why blacks stopped having separate bathrooms in the 60s. this is the same and we will eventually see a supreme court decision that settles this shit once and for all. the only way to change the constitution is of course to add an amendment saying gays are NOT equal under the law and that will never happen.

7. "This gay marriage ordeal, from my perspective, is more of a movement to force positive approval in other people's eyes." as has happened often in the past, sometimes the government has to act first to force people to act in a manner that the honor of the nation demands. the most recent and obvious example is civil rights. does it boggle your mind to contemplate the federal govt forcing states to integrate schools even though there were very popular state laws saying they should not be integrated?

8. "Even if it was allowed, do we really want to increase the divorce rate?" rather than actually address this incredibly absurd comment i'm just going to let you think about it and realize what's wrong with it on your own.

9. "I side with the religious group on this one - it is more logical." what's logical? punishing people because they are different from you? i don't see anything logical about that at all.

10. "if they did not believe the Bible, then they really aren't religious, now are they?" oh my goodness. 5 billion people would like to have a word with you.

eh it's a waste to write this for the reasons i stated above but i couldn't ignore your incredible post.

[CaptainTripps]

I'll have to agree with joe

Who cares what the Bible says when it comes to making laws? It has quite a few rules in it that are blatantly ignored by pretty much everyone all the time, because they no longer make sense (most religious proscriptions against certain types of food for example. Today we know exactly why certain meats and seafood cause illness (undercooked, badly preserved). Back then they were just considered "unclean". Not really any underlying reason you shouldn't eat pork or shrimp anymore, and most people kind of forget that's written in the Book.

and this is from a Christian. Jesus was quite explicit, love your neighbor, and keep your judgments to yourself. Homosexual marriage hurts no one, nor lessens anyone else's rights or privileges. I say the more people getting married and divorced the better, why should we be the only ones getting screwed out of half our stuff?

[MongoTheMad]

Joe, I like what you write. If you took the time to create 20 pages supporting your views, I would take the time and read it all - every word of it.


Responding to your post:
1. There are some laws that appear to be taken from the Bible and reworded, but I know what you are implying - that when the laws are made nobody models the law according to what the Bible says. I wish we would see some process of it though. Think about this, the Bible claims to be the very words of a perfect God. If laws came from a Bible from a perfect God, the end result would be perfect laws.

2. The Bible has different dispensations. There are a few thoughts on how many dispensations there are actually in the Bible, but many would agree to the following: Creation (Gen 1) to the fall of man (Gen 3), The fall of man (Gen 3) to the flood (Gen 10), The flood (Gen 10) to the Law (Ex 20), the Law to the Cross (After the resurrection in the gospels), The Cross (AKA age of grace) to the Rapture (Rev 4), Tribulation (Rev 4-20), Eternity future (Rev 21+)

Truth remains the same in every dispensation, but reactions are different. For instance, CaptainTripps mentioned about meat which should not be eaten (Introduced during the Law to the Cross dispensation); however, in Acts 10:9-18, God tells Peter to kill certain animals which were contrary to the Law and to eat them. This is why most of the stuff found in the Old Testament is not observed today. We are in a different dispensational period. Chronologically, we are nearing the end of Rev 3.

3. Even I am unsure about the dates. All I know is that in the time it were legal, 18,000 couples were married.

4. I fail to see the difference between citizens and voters. All citizens (18+) have the right to vote. Many people today vote by not voting at all. We can have all the opinions we want, but if they are not exercised when they are needed, then those opinions really didn't matter to us at all.

5. Then are you equating yourself with a 8 year old? If you do not, are you calling yourself an expert on the subject?

6. Sexual preferences is not protected by the law. The ignorance opens the way up for state to state legislation which is applicable in this case. I think it is generally preferred that these matters are handled state by state rather than have one big vote.

7. Concerning civil rights, the people had a protected position in the law, and I am very glad that the government enforced it. There is a new bill (HR 1913?) that, if passed, will give the protected status, but I think it will not because it would give the protected status to pedophiles as well.

8. 1 out of every 2 marriages will end up in divorce. If more people get married, the only assumption is that the divorce rate will go up.

9. It is logical in that if God is the Creator of the world, He has the right to set up the rules that govern it.

10. Perhaps I worded that statement wrong. I was kinda referring to religion in America - particularly, the Catholic church. Did you know that they teach about a middle place between heaven and hell (called purgatory) and its not even found in the pages of the Bible? Perhaps even you might like this one - the Mormon church teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers, but the Bible states that Satan is a created being and Jesus has no beginning.

I choose to believe that God is the Creator of this world. As the Creator, He has the right to set up the rules for His creation. Those rules are found written in the Bible. I will therefore base my beliefs upon that which is written therein.

[Bogey]

I choose to believe that God is the Creator of this world. As the Creator, He has the right to set up the rules for His creation. Those rules are found written in the Bible. I will therefore base my beliefs upon that which is written therein.

There is no reason why your beliefs, especially your religious beliefs, should interfere with the lives of others.
If you think gay marriage is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
It's none of your god damned business if other people do it.
It's not your place to deny them that bit of happiness.
If your apparently absent god is so almighty, then why don't you just let him worry about it, and not vote to take away something that has made so many gay couples happy?
I'm sure an all powerful being can handle it if it was a problem.

In this country we have a separation of church and state.
Religion should never influence our laws.

[MrBlip]

Fuck god. What kind of 'nice guy' makes us worship him and believe in him and makes us follow all of these bullshit rules just in order to be allowed in this not-torture place when we die? Sounds like a dictator to me.

Should just be nice to yourself and those around you, and you're cool.

[stabbyclaus]

(this is not a plot outline of ideas, this is a list of stuff you have to realize Mongo)

1. There is no point in nitpicking the bible, it isn't (and shouldn't) be a part of the legal system in any right. the sheer fact you keep referencing it means you don't understand the separation of church and state, and by all means Joe is an all American server that follows it. there is nothing wrong with people within government believing in god, but it cannot jade the judgment of that person to blatantly contradict our DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE. Gay people deserve to be happy together.

2. There aren't only a "couple" contradictions in the bible, it is held together by them. The bible has been rewritten & edited throughout history to cater the current ruler/government/whatever, its not a history book. Even history books are wrong a couple times, but no where near what any religious text states. I am only scratching the surface and I really don't want to get into because I already have in past threads.

3. there is nothing logical about believing in god. there is nothing wrong with that, but its a faith after all. To call it logical is beyond laughable, even my Christian friends know that. Where can logic stem from something by all means invisible, & non-existent? Here is the definition of faith because you need to read it again.

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

also, you spelled straight wrong in your signature. bigot.

[Pentagram.J2]

Joe, I like what you write. If you took the time to create 20 pages supporting your views, I would take the time and read it all - every word of it.


Responding to your post:
1. There are some laws that appear to be taken from the Bible and reworded, but I know what you are implying - that when the laws are made nobody models the law according to what the Bible says. I wish we would see some process of it though. Think about this, the Bible claims to be the very words of a perfect God. If laws came from a Bible from a perfect God, the end result would be perfect laws.

2. The Bible has different dispensations. There are a few thoughts on how many dispensations there are actually in the Bible, but many would agree to the following: Creation (Gen 1) to the fall of man (Gen 3), The fall of man (Gen 3) to the flood (Gen 10), The flood (Gen 10) to the Law (Ex 20), the Law to the Cross (After the resurrection in the gospels), The Cross (AKA age of grace) to the Rapture (Rev 4), Tribulation (Rev 4-20), Eternity future (Rev 21+)

Truth remains the same in every dispensation, but reactions are different. For instance, CaptainTripps mentioned about meat which should not be eaten (Introduced during the Law to the Cross dispensation); however, in Acts 10:9-18, God tells Peter to kill certain animals which were contrary to the Law and to eat them. This is why most of the stuff found in the Old Testament is not observed today. We are in a different dispensational period. Chronologically, we are nearing the end of Rev 3.

3. Even I am unsure about the dates. All I know is that in the time it were legal, 18,000 couples were married.

4. I fail to see the difference between citizens and voters. All citizens (18+) have the right to vote. Many people today vote by not voting at all. We can have all the opinions we want, but if they are not exercised when they are needed, then those opinions really didn't matter to us at all.

5. Then are you equating yourself with a 8 year old? If you do not, are you calling yourself an expert on the subject?

6. Sexual preferences is not protected by the law. The ignorance opens the way up for state to state legislation which is applicable in this case. I think it is generally preferred that these matters are handled state by state rather than have one big vote.

7. Concerning civil rights, the people had a protected position in the law, and I am very glad that the government enforced it. There is a new bill (HR 1913?) that, if passed, will give the protected status, but I think it will not because it would give the protected status to pedophiles as well.

8. 1 out of every 2 marriages will end up in divorce. If more people get married, the only assumption is that the divorce rate will go up.

9. It is logical in that if God is the Creator of the world, He has the right to set up the rules that govern it.

10. Perhaps I worded that statement wrong. I was kinda referring to religion in America - particularly, the Catholic church. Did you know that they teach about a middle place between heaven and hell (called purgatory) and its not even found in the pages of the Bible? Perhaps even you might like this one - the Mormon church teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers, but the Bible states that Satan is a created being and Jesus has no beginning.

I choose to believe that God is the Creator of this world. As the Creator, He has the right to set up the rules for His creation. Those rules are found written in the Bible. I will therefore base my beliefs upon that which is written therein.

You claim to believe God is the creator of the world. I can honestly say that I do as well as I am a Catholic. I was raised by a Latin Catholic church, had to read the bible numerous times over and all the like. But here's the thing about the bible... IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD OR JESUS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WHO LIVED IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND HAD A VAGUE IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. The fact that so many people claim to believe every single word of it is just retarded. God will take care of things in his own time. He's got a major war to fight with Satan in Heaven and I don't think he will care about gay marriage when fucking LUCIFER is at the door with a legion of the damned. Anyway what I'm getting at is that to let your religion dictate your thoughts of right and wron g is just preposterous. God would not want us to have a life SOLELY devoted to him, he wants us to make our own choices.

[AMMO]

[NTbacteria]

IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD OR JESUS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WHO LIVED IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND HAD A VAGUE IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. The fact that so many people claim to believe every single word of it is just retarded.

QFT

[Bogey]

IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD OR JESUS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WHO LIVED IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND HAD A VAGUE IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. The fact that so many people claim to believe every single word of it is just retarded.

QFT

[Neelpos]

IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY GOD OR JESUS, IT WAS WRITTEN BY MEN WHO LIVED IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND HAD A VAGUE IDEA OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. The fact that so many people claim to believe every single word of it is just retarded.

QFT

QFT
+ I heard somewhere the mountain "Moses descended from holding the ten commandments" is a prime location to find wild shrooms

[joe]

ok let's not start a quote train. pls refrain from posting unless you want to add something substantive