Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='Hex']Some people I used to know were going to have a wedding that was a pagan celebration. One was pagan, one was agnostic.

And yet, pagan celebrations aren't christian, yet I'm pretty sure they're recognized. Along with common law marriage.

How
about
that.[/QUOTE]

That's kind of interesting....

Y'all do realize that marriage is the ONLY legally binding institution/ceremony that the government actually has guidelines for who can preform that includes religious authorities? If it were secular, anyone could perform the ceremony.

Kind of strange.... the little bit of mixing going on between church and state marriage entails and most are ok with.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's kind of interesting....

Y'all do realize that marriage is the ONLY legally binding institution/ceremony that the government actually has guidelines for who can preform that includes religious authorities? If it were secular, anyone could perform the ceremony.

Kind of strange.... the little bit of mixing going on between church and state marriage entails and most are ok with.[/quote]

That's basically the point I've been making. You don't hear people rallying against common law marriages (despite the name marriage being in the title, yet the occurrence is seular) or non-judeochristian ceremonies.

So, basically, it's not about religion. It's about whether or not your partner is the same gender as you are. Then it matters whether you use the term marriage or not. But then again I think we established that fact a dozen pages back. ;)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.[/quote]

But he's a politician. And that's his stated belief because it has to be. Obama can't say he's for universal health care, either.

Would he like to be? No idea. Doesn't really matter, does it?

2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.
Click to expand...

This is true for some people, maybe even most, but is not true about the people trying to get these laws and amendments passed. The evidence is pretty clear about this:

The Florida amendment, passed yesterday, says "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid." This covers everything that is like marriage that is not called marriage. So, not just the word there.

I'll remind you of Michigan, where the marriage ban did exactly the same thing. It removed marriage. And civil unions. And domestic partnerships. And all forms of legal recognition, past and future. Not just the word there, either.

Of course that was intentional.

Or Arkansas, yesterday. Now in Arkansas, you can't adopt if you're not married. And, of course, gay people can't get married. What a coincidence!

So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?
Click to expand...

It's about the legal rights that go with the word, and probably will never be truly equal across the United States without the word, barring a complete (and therefore unlikely) overhaul of marriage law.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think you are up against two big issues here, that you have to find a way around:

1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.[/quote]

Most all cultures (not all, but most) have forms of monogamous relationships, beginning as early as some of the first post-hunter/gatherer agrarian societies. To say that one group has dominion over the "usage rights" (as if life had its own "EULA") is folly. It's akin to saying that one group has control over the appropriation of gender roles. Those have similar consistencies from culture to culture - even those who did not come into contact with each other, even indirectly, for thousands of years.

I don't buy the "christians own marriage" concept. It's narcissistic and incorrect. They have "Christmas," too, don't they? Well, the origins of even that holiday aren't purely Biblical in origin - like Halloween, another Christian holy day. Hell, Jesus wasn't even born in December, let alone the 25th (though I know a handsome and smart CAG who is). So its revisionist history to act like marriage as an institution would have never happened if Christianity never did.

None of that even gets into the fact that marriage for love is an invention of the recent past (relatively recent compared to the entire history of mankind). As Strell points out, marriage was a way of passing down wealth and ownership, or acquiring wealth. We weren't marrying our high school crushes in the days that predated high schools. ;)

2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.

So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?
Click to expand...

If you feel that compromise is necessary. I don't. Moreover, I'd like someone who is a biblical scholar to show me that the word "marriage" was a Christian invention. That the ancient texts used the word marriage, untranslated. If that can be proven, fine. Let them have their semantic win. But if that can't be proven, then I refuse to permit them dominion over a word they have no dominion over. Moreover, I still feel this is a fallacious argument overall. If people agree with the principle of same-sex marriages, then they shouldn't be so selfish so as to align with bigots and hatemongers, hoping that they'll be able to vote on a "civil union" ballot issue in the future. That's not the proper technique.

I have no time for toying with the civil rights of American citizens for the purpose of a slight semantic shift. I have more respect for individual liberties than that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] I have more respect for individual liberties than that.[/quote]

Bullshit. You're a commie.

AND you have a liberal bias.

Bmulls told me so. :oops:

Everyone knows you're a champion of freedom and liberty when you let capitalisms run rampant!
 
Sadly it passed and now they are taking away basic rights to gay people. We can elect a black man as president, but because its not what you believe marriage should be voters took away the benefits of people? The only reason it passes is because they lied and said it would be taught in schools(which is absolute bullshit) and scarred parents into voting yes. This is just as bad as telling people blacks cant marry whites and such. The same shit just with a new mask. I myself am not gay. Im trying to understand the backwards minds of some people though but there is no understanding intolerance.
 
Proposition 8 has a liberal bias.

Oh jesus. I need to get off of CAG.. except radiology is boring as a motherfucker.
 
I am late to the discussion but I really don't get why so much time and money is wasted on this. I may be missing something completely but no matter how I look at it I cannot see how this is different from banning race/interracial/favorite food preference marriages. It not like the previous law forced priests/whatever to do the marriage.

I don't care if other states already have this in place. This reaks of equal but separate and it seems the majority still have the mindset from 50 years ago.


On the other side of things, I am wondering why homosexuals would want... say marriage in a religion that says you cannot be gay. By definition, you cannot be that religion and gay unless you are aiming to go to that religion's hell. Belief in god/certain ideals does not have to be tied to any specific religion.

I am going to go out on a limb and say everyone is just confused. I wonder how this would go over in MA.
 
Before the election some California county clerks announced that because it usually takes a month for election results to be certified as final, they did not plan to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they were directed by the state health department, which oversees marriage records.[141] However, many counties, including Los Angeles, Yolo, Kern, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Tuolumne, stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on November 5, 2008, the day after the election. [142][143][144][145]

On the day after the election, the results remain uncertified, and with 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes.[146] However, as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted.[147] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued an e-mail about 20 hours after the polls closed which stated, "we will not issue the ultimate call on this election until we have more information (24-48 hours)."[148]

Three lawsuits were filed the day after the election, challenging the validity of Proposition 8, on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature. Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the county of Santa Clara.[20][31] Claims made on similar grounds with respect to other constitutional changes have in some cases taken years to be adjudicated, and all have failed.[20]
Another pending issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he would defend the measure against challenges, but also took the position that existing same-sex marriages were unaffected.
Click to expand...
It's from Wikipedia, but it pretty much explains what's going on in CA right now.
 
[quote name='Hex']Clusterfuck. Thanks, BigoT. :)

So when will we know about these fucking THREE MILLION other votes?![/QUOTE]
Who knows. Possibly in the next few days.

Just a little something for BigT about his buddy Gavin Newsom. For as much shit as the guy gets as Mayor of San Francisco and for legalizing and supporting gay rights, Mayor Newsom is a born, baptized, raised, and practicing Catholic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wait. Like "I am Governor Gerry Brown/I always smile and never frown/soon I'll be your Pres-uh-DENT/" Jerry Brown? Like the Governor from 1980?[/QUOTE]
Yessir.
 
The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he would defend the measure against challenges
Click to expand...
Oh great, we have Former "Governor Moonbeam" on our side... I'm sure he'll do a great job protecting Prop 8 :roll:


Oh and that thing about Gavin Newsom. As a fellow Catholic, I would like to congratulate him on being the MVP and most influential Catholic in the Yes on 8 campaign. Without his obnoxious sound bite and without him marrying a gay couple in front of 1st graders, I seriously believe that Prop 8 would have easily been defeated. Maybe he's working undercover for our Pope after all! :applause:
 
[quote name='Smallville123']Sadly it passed and now they are taking away basic rights to gay people. We can elect a black man as president, but because its not what you believe marriage should be voters took away the benefits of people? The only reason it passes is because they lied and said it would be taught in schools(which is absolute bullshit) and scarred parents into voting yes. This is just as bad as telling people blacks cant marry whites and such. The same shit just with a new mask. I myself am not gay. Im trying to understand the backwards minds of some people though but there is no understanding intolerance.[/QUOTE]

I said the same thing to my fiancee yesterday. It is fitting that the same night obama became President gays had their rights stripped from them. It shows that while America has come far we are not the nation we like to think we are yet.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Holy fucking shit, myke, I didn't see that.

MELLOW OUT OR YOU WILL PAY![/quote]

This is completely off topic, but DK fucking rule.

I saw Jello with the Melvins a few years back and it was fucking insane.
 
I'd kill to see Jello with DOA some time.

Wall Street or Crack Dealer Avenue - only one road leads to this neighbourhood! Little kids wanna sell drugs when they grow up!
 
To put the religious chicanery in perspective, I got a comment from a friend on Facebook this morning, who's Christian friend said thus:

""Depriving two people who truly love each other of the right to engage in the sacrament and covenant of marriage before the eyes of the Lord their God, simply because they have the same sexual organs, is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG AND AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT GOD STANDS FOR.
Forbidding people to engage in this amazing holy union, to love this person and no other, is anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-love, and just plain evil."

:|

Knowing that there are Christians out there that aren't like nintendokid or spmahn gives me hope that the world will be okay.
 
[quote name='Hex']To put the religious chicanery in perspective, I got a comment from a friend on Facebook this morning, who's Christian friend said thus:

""Depriving two people who truly love each other of the right to engage in the sacrament and covenant of marriage before the eyes of the Lord their God, simply because they have the same sexual organs, is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG AND AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT GOD STANDS FOR.
Forbidding people to engage in this amazing holy union, to love this person and no other, is anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-love, and just plain evil."

:|

Knowing that there are Christians out there that aren't like nintendokid or spmahn gives me hope that the world will be okay.[/quote]

This.

Some people actually understand the bible. Some people have read certain excerpts, and are mostly ignorant about the books send.

Besides that, why are Christians getting uppity about Old Testament material? Jesus' whole point was that "shit guys - we've been doing it wrong up till this point, ignore all that other shit".

Meh, facts distorting the truth again I guess.
 
Jesus also said that churches and clergy aren't needed to receive God's Word but it's not like Christians are following that either.

Some of these megachurches are expensive enough to feed a city for a month but hey, don't ask no questions.
 
The same exfriend who was okay with telling me he's okay with designating me a second-class citizen also said he liked his church because it "has a starbucks, projection TVs and a band".

Big-church evangelists make me laugh, especially the ones with coffee shops. As I recall, their boi Jeebus originally threw the merchants out of the church. Oopsies. :oops:
 
[quote name='Hex']sThe same exfriend who was okay with telling me he's okay with designating me a second-class citizen also said he liked his church because it "has a starbucks, projection TVs and a band".

Big-church evangelists make me laugh, especially the ones with coffee shops. As I recall, their boi Jeebus originally threw the merchants out of the church. Oopsies. :oops:[/quote]

Here's what I like to tell uninformed extremists : "Every time you mischaracterize Jesus' message, he takes one in the butt".
 
[quote name='nathansu']
Besides that, why are Christians getting uppity about Old Testament material? Jesus' whole point was that "shit guys - we've been doing it wrong up till this point, ignore all that other shit".
[/QUOTE]

A few comments on this, again filed under the "don't kill the messenger" header.

1) The NT supercedes the OT to an extent, and yes, technically it should be considered a total replacement, but most people don't think that. Yeah you can joke about how God changes immensely in the NT and becomes more like Buddy Christ and so on, but the point is that most religious persons consider the entire book as a unified structure. This is why you get the "you can't pick and choose what you want to follow" mantra, which is why most would have problems with, say, gay churchgoers, since "How could they not know they are sinning in the House of Our Most Holy Father?"

2) The OT - I believe Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy...I think just Leviticus but I'm trying to cover all the bases here - is where you find a lot of the really bizarre laws that God said would send a person to hell. This includes all those wacky things when people say "Technically, we can't even go to the bathroom." And yes, that's where you'll find a bevy of sexual deviances listed as sins, including homosexuality. I do want to point out, though, that the NT does contain a few passages on the subject of homosexuality, but I couldn't tell you where they are found. I really want to say it was 1st Corinthians, but I can't prove that and I'm not in any mood to look it up. This was a letter written by Paul, who - as we all know - actually suggests at some point that no one should marry, since he thought that would impede one's Christian path. Oddly enough right that he does mention that a wife could help bring one closer to Christ, but again, some of this stuff was personal opinion.

The whole point is that homosexuality is mentioned in the NT, but it's from the words of another mortal man. I don't think Jesus or God actually comments about it in the NT. But it is there - clearly not as expounded upon with quite the intensity of the OT.

3) As Lewis Black famously says, the OT was written by his people, who are the Jews. So if you want clarification on that, you should go ask them. I know he's a comedian and all but he's pretty strong on this point, and it might be worth it to track down a rabbi and ask them all about such things.

4) @Hex/depascal: Megachurches make me want to puke. There's at least two bigguns 'round here, and I simply can't imagine how much cash was involved.
 
[quote name='Strell']
The whole point is that homosexuality is mentioned in the NT, but it's from the words of another man. I don't think Jesus or God actually comments about it in the NT.[/quote]

Yeah, that was basically my point.

It's funny to ask a Christian (who is opposed to all things homosexual) to point out where Jesus comments on the issue of homosexuality.
 
[quote name='Hex']http://thepaincomics.com/Jesus vs. Jeezus.jpg

Republican Jeebus is the only true jeebus.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm.

Won't really raise any objections there, but I will say that having a lot of money isn't a sin - it's more a call to not idolizing it, and then having it replace any kind of spirituality in one's life.

This is one of the most bastardized ideas out of Christianity, both by believers and those against it.

Still doesn't make me like megachurches though. Those monstrosities are like some kind of weird idolatry in and of themselves if I really think about it hard enough.

[quote name='nathansu']Yeah, that was basically my point.

It's funny to ask a Christian (who is opposed to all things homosexual) to point out where Jesus comments on the issue of homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

Technically they'd argue about 1) the sanctity of the Bible as a whole, and 2) that Jesus' prophets were essentially mouthpieces for him, and thus their interpretations are "mostly" words from Jesus himself.

But again, that doesn't make me feel better about anything either way.

Let's make it really easy - most Christians want sex to be defined as nothing more than something used for procreation. And that's nonsense because even the Bible says otherwise. But I know that this misguided ideal is easily the most widely accepted by the religious community.
 
Jesus would've been just as happy for people to set up benches in a circle. That way, normal people can share stories and give each other moral support. No pastor, priest, deacon, padre, or bishop in between to tell us what the Word is. We all have the book, why do we need a translator? He set everything up and didn't really use double or hidden meaning with His sermons. Treat everyone fairly and take care of the meek. It's pretty simple.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Jesus would've been just as happy for people to set up benches in a circle. That way, normal people can share stories and give each other moral support. No pastor, priest, deacon, padre, or bishop in between to tell us what the Word is. We all have the book, why do we need a translator? He set everything up and didn't really use double or hidden meaning with His sermons. Treat everyone fairly and take care of the meek. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE]

Hoo boy, you aint Catholic, or were at some point, eh?
 
:rofl:
Nah, even I'm not gay enough to be an alter boy.
My friend, who I first started to fool around with :cool:, was an alter boy and in choir.

He recently got engaged.
To a female. :rofl: :rofl:

Sanctity of marriage my ball hair. :wall:
 
My first m/m experience is engaged to a chick too. :lol:

A mormon girl. They live in Salt Lake.

I can only imagine how that fun we had weighs in on that mormon head of his. :rofl:
 
I'm going to take a step out here in the open.

I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act. The main ideology of "man and woman" comes from Genesis 2. Paul also repeats the same ideals several times in the NT. I can not follow the bible and state otherwise as it would be going against my very beliefs. However, it is not my place to call it out except it be done within the confines of the Church or against another Christian. The NT is pretty clear on this.

How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.

But you know what? I can still get along and be friends with a person even if I might disagree, and that is what I think is the most important thing.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act.[/quote]

I'm going to be a tit and focus on this. What exactly is "the act"? The act of copulating with someone of the same gender?

'Cause if so, that's not what being non-hetero is about, it's just a fun perk.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']
How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.[/quote]

There are sane people who are religious, unfortunately the ones who are not ruin it for the rest.

Cheers to Blue for being a sane Christian.
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm going to be a tit and focus on this. What exactly is "the act"? The act of copulating with someone of the same gender?

'Cause if so, that's not what being non-hetero is about, it's just a fun perk.[/quote]

I think he meant to say "prop 8". "prop 8 = act", in this case.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']I'm going to take a step out here in the open.

I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act. The main ideology of "man and woman" comes from Genesis 2. Paul also repeats the same ideals several times in the NT. I can not follow the bible and state otherwise as it would be going against my very beliefs. However, it is not my place to call it out except it be done within the confines of the Church or against another Christian. The NT is pretty clear on this.

How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.

But you know what? I can still get along and be friends with a person even if I might disagree, and that is what I think is the most important thing.[/quote]

I'd also like to mention that I do think that anyone who believes in a God described in the Old/New testament should be locked up in an insane asylum.

Does that permit me to try to pass laws against your beliefs and actions based upon your beliefs? Of course not!
 
[quote name='lilboo']Sanctity of marriage my ball hair. :wall:[/quote]


I can't remember who it was, but someone said, "If marriage is so sacred, why allow divorce?"

Also, Chris Rock said marriage isn't sacred in a country with "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "The Bachelor". Then he said even Michael Jackson got married, how sacred is that shit? :lol:

All kidding aside, anyone trying to used sanctity of marriage as an argument against gay marriage is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top