Prop 8 results

[jgb]

And before someone is dumb enough to say something like "we do not want our children indoctrinated or brain washed into being gay by gay foster parents and gay adoptive parents".

I will remind you of this, If gays can't foster care and can't adopt to brain wash those children, then where have all the present day gays come from? Oh wait, they are being born to and raised by HETEROSEXUAL couples.

So much for THAT argument.

 

[Tacoma]

To look at it another way:

If homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it is a genetic aberration.





/potstir

 

[jgb]

Let me ask you this, why would any person choose a life style that could get him/her beat up and possibly killed? Why would any person choose a life style full of ridicule and harrasment? Why would any person choose a life style where that person lost "rights" and "privileges"? Why would any person choose a life style where his/her family would disown him/her? Why would any person choose a life style that would be the brunt of jokes?

In closing, it was inevitable to see a some what personal attack in this thread either directed to a poster or a group of people.

Thank you for proving me right with calling a whole group of people aberations.

I wonder if you would feel the same if your future or present son or daughter confided in you that they were gay.

 

[RockMonkey]

Some good discussion in here. The institution of marriage spans most (all?) cultures, religions, denominations, and countries. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and other generally non-religious people practice marriage. I don't see how it could be considered a religious institution at all. Plenty of things are in the bible that are not inherently 'religious'. Is flooding a religious institution? Is murder a religious institution? I think marriage is the social manifestation of the human species' uniquely long period of 'helplessness' during gestation and youth. Since it takes multiple years for a human baby to be able to fend for itself, parents have no choice but to stay together to care for the baby for the species to continue. In a sense, marriage is a biological process. Without marriage, we have a bunch of dead mothers and babies and an extinct species. In modern times I think marriage has become more of a legal institution than anything else.

I don't see what the big deal is either. Today we everyone has a sense of entitlement. Everyone thinks they deserve to have what anyone else has, and our culture of political correctness does not allow us to deny anyone anything.

 

[Tacoma]

Thanks for missing the point. Note /potstir.

As for the rest, people choose lifestyles that open them up to ridicule EVERY DAY. Big deal. And yeah, in 2008, being gay is super dangerous, thousands are being beaten and killed every minute!!

The discussion was about a proposition and the reasons for/against support of it.

Let me ask you this, why would any person choose a life style that could get him/her beat up and possibly killed? Why would any person choose a life style full of ridicule and harrasment? Why would any person choose a life style where that person lost "rights" and "privileges"? Why would any person choose a life style where his/her family would disown him/her? Why would any person choose a life style that would be the brunt of jokes?

In closing, it was inevitable to see a some what personal attack in this thread either directed to a poster or a group of people.

Thank you for proving me right with calling a whole group of people aberations.

I wonder if you would feel the same if your future or present son or daughter confided in you that they were gay.

 

[Tacoma]

that's a good point. I agree.

There is therefore no reason, religious, natural, biological etc, for homosexual marriage EXCEPT as a social stance, namely-- normalizing it.

I think that's the interesting facet of all this, the consternation over "marriage" on the homosexual side.

Some good discussion in here. The institution of marriage spans most (all?) cultures, religions, denominations, and countries. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and other generally non-religious people practice marriage. I don't see how it could be considered a religious institution at all. Plenty of things are in the bible that are not inherently 'religious'. Is flooding a religious institution? Is murder a religious institution? I think marriage is the social manifestation of the human species' uniquely long period of 'helplessness' during gestation and youth. Since it takes multiple years for a human baby to be able to fend for itself, parents have no choice but to stay together to care for the baby for the species to continue. In a sense, marriage is a biological process. Without marriage, we have a bunch of dead mothers and babies and an extinct species. In modern times I think marriage has become more of a legal institution than anything else.

I don't see what the big deal is either. Today we everyone has a sense of entitlement. Everyone thinks they deserve to have what anyone else has, and our culture of political correctness does not allow us to deny anyone anything.

 

[RockMonkey]

Let me ask you this, why would any person choose a life style that could get him/her beat up and possibly killed? Why would any person choose a life style full of ridicule and harrasment? Why would any person choose a life style where that person lost "rights" and "privileges"? Why would any person choose a life style where his/her family would disown him/her? Why would any person choose a life style that would be the brunt of jokes?

Plenty of people choose lifestyles that open them to ridicule, physical harm/death, harassment, and reduced rights and freedoms. Emo kids make this choice. Monks and nuns make this choice. To some extent Mormons make this choice. Ever hear a Mormon joke? I have. Suicide bombers make a very conscious choice of a lifestyle that will lead to their death.

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between the 'nature' and 'nurture' theories. People are complex creatures, and life experiences can flip switches in our heads that cause us to behave in different ways. Basically I think a person could be 'born' straight and end up gay through life experiences while never making a conscious decision. That doesn't mean they are not inherently gay, or that they can make a decision to be straight. Ever listen to the radio show Love Line, with Dr. Drew? Every time someone gay called in, he asked "what happened to you?", and there was nearly always some traumatic sexual experience in their youth. There seems to be some clear evidence that at least some percentage of the gay population became that way through life experiences.

No one has ever found a 'gay gene'.

 

[Tacoma]

Well put.

 

[ace]

I'm against Prop 8. I believe everyone has the right to miserable.

 

[jgb]

For the sake of the below discussion I will take the stance that homosexuality is a combination of genetics and conscious and/or unconscious choice.

Obesity is also a combination of genetics and conscious and/or unconscious choice.

Imagine an ammendment stating that only thin people below a certain weight and certain body mass index could "marry".

I do not think that would fly too well.

The arguments against it would be that you would be discriminating against an entire class of people based on some would say genetics, choice, or a combination of both and depriving them of equal rights and privileges that all others share. That is not the American way.

The religious could argue for it stating that your body is a temple and that being overweight is sacrilegious and being thin is Godly. And since marriage is a religious institution you being overweight shows you have no respect for God and his teachings and doctrines.

The biased could argue for it stating that they are essentially gluttons and since some of obesity can be based on genetics we do not need more gluttons eating their over share of food. All the while they and their obese gluttonous offspring with their obundance of medical issues become a burden on society. Cut it off at the source and add an additional amendment to it not allowing obese people to have children too.
And, while we are at it, let us not allow them to become foster parents and adopt since some of the behaviors associated with obesity (over eating) could be unconsiously mimicked by their charges.


I hope I made my point.

 

[jgb]

In closing:

1. John and Jane go to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.

1A. John and Jim, and Jane and Jill goes to the court house, do what they need to do, a Justice of the Peace does what he needs to do.

In #1 they are "married"
In #1A they have a "civil union".

If John and Jane are "married" in #1, then John and Jim, and Jane and Jill must also be "married" in #1A.

If John and Jim, and Jane and Jill have a civil union in #1A, then John and Jill must also have a "civil union" in #1.

The anti's want it both ways, the hypocrisy is laughable.

I do not know nor will I ever understand why the anti's are so against the word "marriage" for gays.


On a side note, a "spouse", which is a product of "marriage", is responsible for their other spouses debts in case of death.

If you own a business, I hope you do not deal with those "civil union" gay couples, if one dies the other is not responsible for the others debts. He or she would not be a "spouse" under law because they would not be legally "married".

Again showing that a civil union does not equal marriage.

 

[RockMonkey]

On a side note, a "spouse", which is a product of "marriage", is responsible for their other spouses debts in case of death.

In general, this is not true. What you stated above is only true in "community property" states, of which Utah is not. I'll list the community property states below:

* Arizona
* California
* Idaho
* Louisiana
* Nevada
* New Mexico
* Texas
* Washington
* Wisconsin

In all the other states (including Utah), an individual's estate is responsible for their debt. The debt will be payed by the estate, and the remaining amount will be payed to the heirs (spouse, civil union, or anyone else named in the will). Alternatively, the heirs can pay the debts and receive the entire estate. If the estate does not bring enough to pay the debt, the debt is forgiven. It is not transferred to the heirs, regardless of their legal status.

 

[jgb]

Irony:

On the same night voted by the same "people":

CA voters passed an ammendment not allowing gays to get "married"

YET

CA voters rejected a proposition to require doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor

 

[jgb]

In general, this is not true. What you stated above is only true in "community property" states, of which Utah is not. I'll list the community property states below

Then I stand corrected.

 

[Cody]

One of the big issues i heard about from my wifes family out in Cali was that if prop 8 didnt pass, public schools would now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.

I know. That is almost as controversial as 50-60 years ago when schools began teaching that black and white people are equal and can use the same drinking fountain as each other.

If marriage is indeed an institution created by and for religion, then I don't think it has any place being taught in public schools anyway. It can be taught by the parents along with other issues of morality.

But, since it's not, it's a moot point.

 

[jgb]

I think that's the interesting facet of all this, the consternation over "marriage" on the homosexual side.

I think this is the interesting facet of all this, the consternation over "marriage" on the anti side. They want it both ways (recap post #31)

 

[Seth]

A far more civil discussion then I thought would result from my question, that was nice to see.

I honestly don't care who "marries" who. I was just appalled that the LDS members chose to spend "tens of millions of dollars" toward this effort. I just think it is sad that we argue these moral issues and let people all over the world starve and die. What a waste IMHO. Let the gay's do there thing and donate toward cancer research. That seems like a better use of the money.

 

[Greg]

A far more civil discussion then I thought would result from my question, that was nice to see.

I honestly don't care who "marries" who. I was just appalled that the LDS members chose to spend "tens of millions of dollars" toward this effort. I just think it is sad that we argue these moral issues and let people all over the world starve and die. What a waste IMHO. Let the gay's do there thing and donate toward cancer research. That seems like a better use of the money.

So what about the over 1 Billion spent or the presidential campaign? Apparently you can buy anything these days.

 

[Caleb]

Churches and individuals are granted the right to perform binding marriages by the state. Do your research.

They may be granted the right to perform the ceremonies but that does not mean they have to marry anyone that walks through the door...this isn't Vegas we're talking about.

It is true.

Actually, far from it. Take the tinfoil hat off and relax a little.

 

[RockMonkey]

So what about the over 1 Billion spent or the presidential campaign? Apparently you can buy anything these days.

Think about that money and where it comes from, and where it goes though. Most of that money comes from wealthy contributors. It gets spent on television, radio, print, internet, and more ads. It gets spent on airlines, restaurants, clothing stores (in at least one case), etc.

Basically, that money got taken out off the coffers of wealthy individuals (and unions, etc.) and gets put back into circulation in the economy. It seems like a really positive process to me.