Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='judyjudyjudy']You wouldn't like if you had to hear it during every commercial break during the last two months. Ugh. The good thing about this being over is that I don't have to hear all those damn "Yes on Prop 8" commercials 20 times an hour. I swear I've got those things memorized.

"Mommy! Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today!"[/QUOTE]

SYCLICKS! GAR-GOLES!
 
alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk and we were watching the election. i was telling my friend that were going to see 3 major parties in the next 10 years. the reason why? the republican party will split first because traditional conservatives and neocons just dont get along. so youll have the conservative party, the neocons, and the democrats. but it wont stay 50% dems, 25% neocons and 25% conservatives. the democratic party will split as a result too. many people will go to the neocon party, my backing for this is huge amount of people that voted for obama but for prop 8. obama received 6.2 million votes in california, but only 4.8 million people voted against prop 8. thats roughly 15% difference. so in the end well end up with the 3 parties roughly split evenly is my guess. now i just have to figure out what to the call the 3 parties, democrats will stay the same. not sure if the neocons or conservatives would want to keep the name republican, but one of them will. so yeah, there you have it, by the 2020 election well have 3 major parties.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Marriage certificates from the state do not require any religious aspect. If you want one, cool, you can, but it's not required for straight people, I don't see why it's suddenly all about religion when gay people do it.[/QUOTE]

I am with you 100% then. I really had not dug into that proposition too much at all.

And thanks Myke for the answer.
 
I'm going to sound ignorant, but I have to ask: What is it EXACTLY that people are against when it comes to gay marriage? From what I've seen, the controversy surrounds the word "marriage" itself. Is it seriously nothing more than a semantics argument?
 
Reality's Fringe;5073796 said:
I'm going to sound ignorant, but I have to ask: What is it EXACTLY that people are against when it comes to gay marriage? From what I've seen, the controversy surrounds the word "marriage" itself. Is it seriously nothing more than a semantics argument?
Click to expand...

It's for a few reasons that I can name. But I need everyone to understand I DO NOT SUPPORT THESE. This is a "don't kill the messenger" moment.

1) Because of religious overtones. Which I pointed out earlier in this thread is total bullshit because marriage was originally a business transaction. It had no basis in religion at all, until there came a day when the priests literally decided they were bored and didn't have enough to do.

2) Because gay marriage is argued as being a gateway toward all kinds of scurry marriages. First it's the gays, then it's incest, then it's pedophilia, then it's object-o-philia (whatever that is actually called), then it's beastiality, etc etc etc.

Alternatively this is called a slippery slope, but the religious types won't be stopped by that, no sir.

3) Probably a jealousy thing. Let's face it - I wish I could have all the sex I wanted without fear of the possibility of having children. Endless off-getting without any of the consequences! It's like a chocolate cake that actually makes your thighs look nice instead of like flubbery rubbery tubbery blubbery. This has to seriously piss off that Puritan twinge of America, who already is suffering from immense frustration and repression.

There's probably more but I'll leave it to others.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk and we were watching the election. i was telling my friend that were going to see 3 major parties in the next 10 years. the reason why? the republican party will split first because traditional conservatives and neocons just dont get along. so youll have the conservative party, the neocons, and the democrats. but it wont stay 50% dems, 25% neocons and 25% conservatives. the democratic party will split as a result too. many people will go to the neocon party, my backing for this is huge amount of people that voted for obama but for prop 8. obama received 6.2 million votes in california, but only 4.8 million people voted against prop 8. thats roughly 15% difference. so in the end well end up with the 3 parties roughly split evenly is my guess. now i just have to figure out what to the call the 3 parties, democrats will stay the same. not sure if the neocons or conservatives would want to keep the name republican, but one of them will. so yeah, there you have it, by the 2020 election well have 3 major parties.[/quote]

alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk
Click to expand...

i was drunk
Click to expand...

Yep.

:D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']According to the Latter-Day Saints, you couldn't marry a black woman.

...for your first wife!
[/QUOTE]

Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.[/quote]Take this as you will.

On the against-you side, however, there's Jerry Falwell.
 
Again I ask - isn't Cali considered extrememly liberal? What with Hollywood and all those homo-cities?

Or was that all just the rabid usual bullshit from conservatives who have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about shit they don't like?

Falwell was pretty sure 9/11 was caused by Feminists. If that isn't proof the man was psychotic, I don't know what else is.
 
[quote name='Strell']Again I ask - isn't Cali considered extrememly liberal? What with Hollywood and all those homo-cities?[/QUOTE]All the homo-cities in NorCal did their part (SF was like 77% no). As for SoCal, apparently there's quite a few church-going folk down there. At least that's my impression. The exit polls are somewhat telling:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#CAI01map

Honestly, I'm surprised myself. I don't have a single friend who voted Yes. But I do know several parents who did. The young people rocked the vote, but I think the older folks rocked harder.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm still waiting for someone to show me evidence of any *major religion ever saying inter-racial marriage was a sin, taking disciplinary action for it, or in any way taking it as serious as they do homosexuality.

Until then, it's a leftist myth.

*Major religion will be defined by a congregation of several million members. Backwoods so-called Christian sects of 50 people don't count. If you want to equate the two issues, then it needs to be proven that the same major religions against gay marriage now were against inter-racial marriage then. [/QUOTE]


It boils down to people taking the protestant bible to the extreme or twisting what is actually said. The bible clearly forbids "inter-racial" marriage on religious grounds and nationality, not based on race. It would be akin to forbidding marriage of a Christian to Buddhist. The language is stronger due to nations having strong religious ties back in those days so a nation was usually associated with a particular religion.

I doubt any real church who legitimately follows the bible would outlaw inter-racial marriage, but that's beside the point...
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']It boils down to people taking the protestant bible to the extreme or twisting what is actually said. The bible clearly forbids "inter-racial" marriage on religious grounds and nationality, not based on race. It would be akin to forbidding marriage of a Christian to Buddhist. The language is stronger due to nations having strong religious ties back in those days so a nation was usually associated with a particular religion.

I doubt any real church who legitimately follows the bible would outlaw inter-racial marriage, but that's beside the point...[/QUOTE]

Thanks for adding something thought provoking to the subject.

Lucky for us, most Christian denominations have matured over the years, and don't take a lot of the bible so literal.

I think you are right for the most part. I just don't think any major modern religious sect of the past 200 years has made nearly as big a deal out of inter-racial marriage as they do/have gay marriage.
 
California is STILL granting same-sex marriage licenses, and there are groups protesting at the courthouse in Santa Ana. This thing is going to go through a lengthy appeal process and will likely be recounted. I've heard talks about the ACLU getting involved.
 
[quote name='JJSP']California is STILL granting same-sex marriage licenses, and there are groups protesting at the courthouse in Santa Ana. This thing is going to go through a lengthy appeal process and will likely be recounted. I've heard talks about the ACLU getting involved.[/QUOTE]

Good I just wish I was in California so I could do something.
 
Well, there's always the option of travel. Plenty of Obama supporters (and probably McCain, though I've heard nothing of them) traveled around the country to do work in battleground states.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.[/QUOTE]

Well, I was being sarcastic (did you read the spoiler?).
 
We got a notice from the National Notary Association that the issue lies with the amendment itself. At this point, California wants to still recognize the 18,000 gay marriages that were performed since June (when it was overturned). In doing so, California has painted itself into a corner in that creating an amendment that would recognize certain gay marriages and not others is potentially federally unconstitutional. This is why the ACLU has lawyers ready to fight for the potential 18,000 couples who could potentially have their licenses revoked.
 
This.. this is turning out to be pretty fukken fascinating. I can't wait to see what happens, JJSP.

Nice job opening up a can of worms with this proposition, California. :D
 
One benefit of having a very litigious society, you don't wind up in situations where there are laws against things officially, but they're ignored in practice. I mean, that would be nice for other things, but in terms of unequal treatment tending to make things unconstitutional, it's kinda useful.
 
[quote name='JJSP']We got a notice from the National Notary Association that the issue lies with the amendment itself. At this point, California wants to still recognize the 18,000 gay marriages that were performed since June (when it was overturned). In doing so, California has painted itself into a corner in that creating an amendment that would recognize certain gay marriages and not others is potentially federally unconstitutional. This is why the ACLU has lawyers ready to fight for the potential 18,000 couples who could potentially have their licenses revoked.[/quote]

Wow, I didn't know things actually could look decent after prop 8 passed.

Sounds like licenses will still be granted during appeals, fucking score one for the good guys/gals.
 
Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. fucking win.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. fucking win.[/quote]

Exactly. I would personally kiss the loser who introduced prop 8 if this goes Federal and the entire country allows equal marriage.
 
I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.[/QUOTE]

I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."

Maybe we can get a federal amendment to the constitution to freely spend every other Saturday morning kicking Michigan assholes in their nutsacks? Hey, if the majority of the people will it, right?

Better buy a cup, hombre. I'm enlisting the LDS on this 'un.
 
[quote name='nathansu']Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. fucking win.[/quote]

Wouldn't happen in a million years. This is a very conservative court, with what is it now, 3 Bush Appointees? Not happening.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.[/QUOTE]

When it's a civil right, well, yeah.

Ya know on this subject I was talking to some girl today at work about this. She was black (yes, theres a reason why I said this). I was saying how it sucks and it's pretty crappy, however, seeing the USA bring in a black dude as president gives ME hope that one day I too will have rights. We agreed. I said, "Ya know, I don't see what the big deal is. A Civil Union is the same thing AS marriage, just not so much in a religious aspect.." and she said "No they aren't. Civil Unions mean shit and it's just a way of 'separate but equal' bullshit they pulled on blacks back in the day."

I ask "What do you mean?"
(I am gonna bold this, because this really opened up my eyes and I do truly see a difference now, IMO)

"A good example is this: Blacks were allowed to take the bus like any white person--they were even allowed on the same bus as white people. The problem is that, and I know you know this, we had to sit in the back of the bus. Their reasoning behind this is so that they can say 'Oh well we ARE allowing blacks on the bus...just, in the back rows'. See what I mean boo?"

I'm kinda pissed, because I never really thought about it like that. And fuck you if you don't agree with it--it makes sense and you're just dumb & ugly if you disagree :nottalking:
 
[quote name='Strell']

1) Because of religious overtones. Which I pointed out earlier in this thread is total bullshit because marriage was originally a business transaction. It had no basis in religion at all, until there came a day when the priests literally decided they were bored and didn't have enough to do.
[/quote]

Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."

Maybe we can get a federal amendment to the constitution to freely spend every other Saturday morning kicking Michigan assholes in their nutsacks? Hey, if the majority of the people will it, right?
[/QUOTE]

Is your thinking device securely fastened? Constitutionally protected, individual freedom was the point of my comment. It's much too late to start pretending you believe in that, myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."[/quote]

This, a million times.

This is why we had to send military troops to escort nine black students to school.

This is one of the reasons the constitution is as it is-- to prevent minorities from being at the mercy of the majority.

Majority rule can never overrule civil liberties. Frankly, this is pretty much exactly the same as if people passed an amendment in their state constitution making atheism illegal. It's in direct violation of the first amendment of the United States constitution, namely the separation of church and state. This is effectively using religion to define the state's constitution.

Alternatively, you can think of it as a majority vote to make it so you can't voice your opinion. I'm going to assume you're talking about democrats when you talk about when you say 'most of you'-- in any case, you are talking about the majority of people. How would you like it if those people decided they didn't like your criticism, and they passed a majority vote saying that you no longer get free speech? It's a direct violation of the first amendment.
 
[quote name='lilboo']]
I'm kinda pissed, because I never really thought about it like that. And fuck you if you don't agree with it--it makes sense and you're just dumb & ugly if you disagree :nottalking:[/quote]

If you're not willing to have a reasonable discussion and just continue with the outlandish statements and ad hominem attacks, please leave this thread.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Is your thinking device securely fastened? Constitutionally protected, individual freedom was the point of my comment. It's much too late to start pretending you believe in that, myke.[/QUOTE]

That's right, komrade.

If you want to be taken seriously, give up the red-baiting. You're fucking boring. And lazy, too.

But no, seriously. Get a cup. I'm emailing Sherrod Brown as we speak. We're going to give it one of those clever black-is-white-and-up-is-down Bush proposal names, like "No Child Left Behind," the "Clean Air Act," or the "Healthy Forests Initiative."

I think we'll call it the "Isn't Michigan Great? Act."
 
[quote name='von551']Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.[/quote]

Ok, then! Let's have gay marriage legalized. God will continue to ignore them, and back in reality humans who love each other can be happy.

The state can recognize them, the people who think god hates it don't have to get gay marriages for themselves, the people who think that the government shouldn't go around deciding what god the people should follow and what that god thinks can legalize it and things'll be just peachy.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Our founding fathers clearly said separation of CHURCH and STATE. What part of that do you not understand. Overlooking that...you might as well throw the constitution and articles in the trash.[/quote]

have you ever READ the constitution? do you know the true meaning of "seperation of church and state"? It was created to protect the people from the government telling them they couldn't publicly express their faith. It kept the government from controlling what the people could and couldn't do. It's not protecting the state from the church. In 1947 the constitution was re-interpreted to take the church out of the state (schools, courts, etc.) We're the only generation that's know seperation of church and state as protecting the state. kinda weird, right? And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?
 
[quote name='von551']Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.[/quote]

God hates you.

:D
 
[quote name='lilboo']:rofl: Please. I actually make sense. I don't spew hate and ignorance. Therefore, +1 for me, honey.[/quote]

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.
 
[quote name='gaxur']Ok, then! Let's have gay marriage legalized. God will continue to ignore them, and back in reality humans who love each other can be happy.

The state can recognize them, the people who think god hates it don't have to get gay marriages for themselves, the people who think that the government shouldn't go around deciding what god the people should follow and what that god thinks can legalize it and things'll be just peachy.[/QUOTE]

-YEAH, but that that means MORE and MORE people WILL be gay!! :whee:
-HIV rates will go sky high! 1 out of every 1 person WILL. HAVE. AIDS. :whee:
-Children of gay parents will be MOLESTERED----EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. They will ALSO turn out gay!!! :whee:
-WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?! :whee:
-My Dad might leave my mom and marry the PEPPER GARDEN :whee:

WE CAN NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!
 
[quote name='lilboo']-YEAH, but that that means MORE and MORE people WILL be gay!! :whee:
-HIV rates will go sky high! 1 out of every 1 person WILL. HAVE. AIDS. :whee:
-Children of gay parents will be MOLESTERED----EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. They will ALSO turn out gay!!! :whee:
-WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?! :whee:
-My Dad might leave my mom and marry the PEPPER GARDEN :whee:

WE CAN NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!![/quote]

Yeah....if I was gay, I would feel the same way about people like you the same way people like me feel about Fred Phelps and David Duke. You're not helping the cause, you're making it worse.
 
[quote name='spmahn']No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.[/quote]

Traditional values like blacks being slaves, women not voting and child labour?
 
[quote name='spmahn']No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.[/QUOTE]

You never read "The Way We Never Were," did you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top