OT: The Propositions on the ballot in CA

[92024]

Your post says that (PROP 8) eliminates the right to same sex marriage? Would you clarify what you mean by “right”. I am not sure what rights are being taken away? Perhaps I am misunderstanding?

Okay: I answered my own question: See Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]
I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.[/quote]

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That’s what you call a “family value”. It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who’s 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don’t treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it’s always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don’t feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way – any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT’s where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don’t go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It’s his personal business.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]
I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.[/quote]

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That’s what you call a “family value”. It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who’s 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don’t treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it’s always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don’t feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way – any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT’s where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don’t go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It’s his personal business.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]
I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.[/quote]

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That’s what you call a “family value”. It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who’s 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don’t treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it’s always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don’t feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way – any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT’s where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don’t go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It’s his personal business.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]
I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.[/quote]

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That’s what you call a “family value”. It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who’s 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don’t treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it’s always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don’t feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way – any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT’s where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don’t go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It’s his personal business.

[Eugene]

[quote=cooprider]
I do. Because marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with religion. Thou shalt not murder – is that “religious” too?

Just because something is supported by people who also happen to go to church doesn’t mean it’s exclusively a religious value being shoved down atheistic throats. It’s a family value, and there are plenty of non-religious married men and women who value marriage too.

When marriage laws were written they probably never even thought to specify only between a man and a woman. They didn’t need to back then.

You prove my point. You can’t fathom the law allowing 3 people to be married, but at the time the marrige laws were written they couldn’t fathom it being anything but a man and a woman.[/quote]

Most marriages that take place in the United States are between a man and a woman of the same race, both under 45, with the groom no more than 5 years younger than the bride. That’s what you call a “family value”. It has nothing to do with religion, just social customs and human preferences.

But once in a while there is a guy who wants to marry a woman who’s 15 years older than him (Ashton Kutcher & Demi Moore), or a white guy who wants to marry an Asian girl, or a guy who wants to have two wives, or a guy who wants to marry another guy. Whatever their personal quirk is. And our laws don’t treat these cases equally. Marrying an older woman is OK and it’s always been OK. Bans on interracial marriages were declared inconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967. Gays are fighting for their rights now, and polygamists are still waiting their turn.

Marriage is not a religious value. I am not religious, but I am married. I don’t feel that letting gays marry each other threatens my marriage in any way – any more than letting Ashton Kutcher marry Demi Moore does.

Religion plays a role in trying to _restrict_ the definition of marriage. Right-wingers seem to be saying that, their church does not recognize the marriage between gays (because gays are seen as sinful and perverted) and therefore our government should not recognize it, either. THAT’s where religious values are being shoved down atheistic throats. I may think that Ashton Kutcher is sinful and perverted, too, but I don’t go around demanding that he should not be allowed to marry whoever he wants. He can go and marry Seann William Scott, for all I care. It’s his personal business.

[temeculaguy]

I hate the political threads but I’m jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren’t good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn’t be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn’t have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that’s what they want, have at at, you’ll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I’d love to switch with them, let’s have heterosexual civil unions, I’d love to say that to my girlfriend “hey babe, I’d love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff.”

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I’m against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

[temeculaguy]

I hate the political threads but I’m jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren’t good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn’t be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn’t have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that’s what they want, have at at, you’ll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I’d love to switch with them, let’s have heterosexual civil unions, I’d love to say that to my girlfriend “hey babe, I’d love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff.”

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I’m against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

[temeculaguy]

I hate the political threads but I’m jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren’t good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn’t be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn’t have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that’s what they want, have at at, you’ll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I’d love to switch with them, let’s have heterosexual civil unions, I’d love to say that to my girlfriend “hey babe, I’d love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff.”

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I’m against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

[temeculaguy]

I hate the political threads but I’m jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren’t good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn’t be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn’t have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that’s what they want, have at at, you’ll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I’d love to switch with them, let’s have heterosexual civil unions, I’d love to say that to my girlfriend “hey babe, I’d love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff.”

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I’m against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

[temeculaguy]

I hate the political threads but I’m jumping in at my own peril because I have decided that prop 8 bothers me on a few levels.

This is just about telling people that they aren’t good enough, that pisses people off. If it was an option and had been one for years, it probably wouldn’t be that prevalent. There was a time that the voters wouldn’t have approved of interacial marriage, times change, most people change, some church people are the last to change.

For the most part, marriage is horrible institution, why should gays be spared the pleasures of divorce, alimony and legal fees. If that’s what they want, have at at, you’ll be sorry but in this country we all have the right to ruin our own lives, who am I to stand in their way. In fact, I’d love to switch with them, let’s have heterosexual civil unions, I’d love to say that to my girlfriend “hey babe, I’d love to marry you, but it is illegal, so until the law changes, we have sex and you get none of my stuff.”

All of the threats from the yes 8 commercial are faulty, the cases of being sued or losing tax exempt status were exceptions. One case in particular was a pavillion, affiliated with a church, that was available for rent to the public for any function except for gay weddings. That example is being used to scare churches. Actual churches can make whatever rules they want but once you rent to the public (outside the church members) you cannot discriminate, with or without this prop. That misleading ad is the biggest reason I’m against it, I hate the lies.

I do have to give credit to the mormons, even though they have supplied more than a third of the funding for yes on 8, they have been vocal about how some of the ads and e-mails are false. This website, mormons for marriage desribes some of the lies being spewed, kudos to them for being honest.

http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

[temeculaguy]

actually that last site ended up being from a group of mormons who oppose 8, so now it has to be taken with a grain of salt, see this is why I hate politics.

[temeculaguy]

actually that last site ended up being from a group of mormons who oppose 8, so now it has to be taken with a grain of salt, see this is why I hate politics.

[temeculaguy]

actually that last site ended up being from a group of mormons who oppose 8, so now it has to be taken with a grain of salt, see this is why I hate politics.

[temeculaguy]

actually that last site ended up being from a group of mormons who oppose 8, so now it has to be taken with a grain of salt, see this is why I hate politics.

[Author]

Posts