Prop 8

[Maria Caliban]

I personally couldn

[Gorgon]

ohh

 

Wonderwoman is silly.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

And.. I

[Walsingham]

I hope you realise you're all making me cry.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why would Leviticus be discussing Christians, as it was written approx 1500 years before Christianity? Also I'm not aware of stoning people of other religions to death, in fact the Bible often repeats the injunction of treating the "stranger among you" well. Also I'm not aware of killing people for eating shellfish. Lev 18:22 "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them."

 

Edit: Never mind, Maria was talking about Acts of the New Testament, not Liviticus.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...in fact the Bible often repeats the injunction of treating the "stranger among you" well.

 

[Krookie]

So this is about gay marriage right? I don't get how anyone can say "You cannot marry this person", I mean, it's not hurting anybody else, is it? The argument that a lot of people throw back is "Well should I be able to marry my dog or a turkey sandwich if I wanted to!?" To be honest, yeah, you should. At least in America, you're guaranteed your right of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (so long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else), my question is who does a dude marrying another dude effect ANYBODY. If you don't think gay marriage is right, and that you will burn in hell for it, THEN DON'T DO IT

 

And for the argument about "kids who grow up in a gay house will be gay", so long as it is a loving, caring house - it doesn't matter who the parents are.

[samm]

Krookie, let's get married. You've just written exactly my opinion (Even if I think my opinion isn't controversial in this matter, it's still good to read that)

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The argument that a lot of people throw back is "Well should I be able to marry my dog or a turkey sandwich if I wanted to!?" To be honest, yeah, you should.

 

Actually, you should not be allowed to marry, say, an animal or an inanimate object as neither of those things could give their consent and thus it could be considered a form of cruelty and abuse – well, in the case of the animal, I am not so sure about the turkey sandwich.

[Krookie]

The argument that a lot of people throw back is "Well should I be able to marry my dog or a turkey sandwich if I wanted to!?" To be honest, yeah, you should.

 

Actually, you should not be allowed to marry, say, an animal or an inanimate object as neither of those things could give their consent and thus it could be considered a form of cruelty and abuse

[Kelverin]

I don't really see how you're abusing an animal by marrying it though

Never been married eh?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Christian nutjobs pisses me off and Prop 8 is just an expression of Christian hate and bigotry. Way to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor! WAY TO GO!

Edited May 30, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I don't think anyone is going to be dumb enough to marry a dog or a cold meat sandwich.

 

I was pointing out why the cases you addressed were different from homosexual marriage - different enough that the latter would have no effect on the legality of the former.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...inanimate objects cannot give their consent when you eat them either so are you saying we shouldn't do that either?

 

No, but eating a sandwich is not equal to marrying a sandwich – the latter is an actual contract between two persons while the former is the act of eating.

[Krookie]

...inanimate objects cannot give their consent when you eat them either so are you saying we shouldn't do that either?

 

No, but eating a sandwich is not equal to marrying a sandwich

[Aristes]

I think you're using bad example, Krookie. Most folks don't use turkey sandwiches as a reason to oppose gay marriage. Sure, some yutz will, but effective arguments don't. Instead, people usually cite Polygamy. ...And they use it as a slippery slope argument. All well and good, although I think that's the wrong slope to cite. Personally, I don't really care if folks can marry more than one person any more than I care if two people of the same sex marry each other. Hell, for all I care, multiple same sex partners could marry each other, combining into one big same sex polygamy soup. On the other hand, I think there is far more potential for mischief as regards polygamy. That's because of inheritance laws, power of attorney, and child welfare. The case against homosexual marriages based on these issues is virtually non-existant and certainly doesn't seem any more complex than heterosexual marriages. ...At least on its face. So, the "if you let gays marry then why not allow this other group marry" argument is pretty bad.

 

However, the more potent slippery slope argument is that, by equating homosexuality with race, you pave the way for homosexual marriage to be used as a weapon to attack religion. Folks kept saying that this slippery slope argument regarding religion was a "lie," but it is undoubtedly something that swayed votes for the propositions both times. There is a simple way address this issue, however. Instead of fighting against a ban on gay marriage, craft your own proposal that explicitly states that religions will neither be punished or fined for refusing to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony nor will they lose their tax exempt status. Problem solved. I think you'd win in a landslide.

 

The fact is, some religious folks are against homosexual marriages because of powerful religious conviction, but a lot of religious people have no problem with homosexual marriages per se, but they feel under siege. They are afraid that this issue could be used to attack their religion. ...And they are right. It would be. If it could be used to attack religion, an anti-religion group will probably use it.

 

So, give explicit assurance to religious folks, as part of the proposition, that homosexual marriages will not harm their expression of faith, and you've got this issue. I'll personally vote for the proposition. I voted against the first gay marriage ban. Of course, because of the way it panned out, the new proposal will need to be a constitutional ammendment, but that's not so tough to swing in a 50+1 state like Cali. Once you've coopted religious folks, and reaffirmed the legislative process, and won the day based on popular vote, you will have crushed any opposition to gay marriage.

[Krookie]

You guys are clearly missing the point of the argument. Whatever, gay marriage = okay with me

[Aristes]

Well, to be fair, I think you and DN agree on the essential issue. I'm putting words in his mouth, but he's always been willing to correct me in the past, so I expect he will this time if I'm wrong.

 

I also got what you were saying. Folks say that gay marriage is the equivalent of this other stupid crap. You're making fun of them. I get it and I agree. Especially the ham sandwich thing. If you're going to marry a sandwich, make it roast beef at least.

[Krookie]

Well, to be fair, I think you and DN agree on the essential issue. I'm putting words in his mouth, but he's always been willing to correct me in the past, so I expect he will this time if I'm wrong.

 

I also got what you were saying. Folks say that gay marriage is the equivalent of this other stupid crap. You're making fun of them. I get it and I agree. Especially the ham sandwich thing. If you're going to marry a sandwich, make it roast beef at least.

 

Yeah, I don't see why people think they need to argue when they're obviously in agreement. Guess some people just like to be argumentative.

[Humodour]

Well, to be fair, I think you and DN agree on the essential issue. I'm putting words in his mouth, but he's always been willing to correct me in the past, so I expect he will this time if I'm wrong.

 

I also got what you were saying. Folks say that gay marriage is the equivalent of this other stupid crap. You're making fun of them. I get it and I agree. Especially the ham sandwich thing. If you're going to marry a sandwich, make it roast beef at least.

 

Yeah, I don't see why people think they need to argue when they're obviously in agreement. Guess some people just like to be argumentative.

 

Why do I get the feeling that it doesn't matter WHAT I say to you, because I'm a woman?

[Krookie]

Well, to be fair, I think you and DN agree on the essential issue. I'm putting words in his mouth, but he's always been willing to correct me in the past, so I expect he will this time if I'm wrong.

 

I also got what you were saying. Folks say that gay marriage is the equivalent of this other stupid crap. You're making fun of them. I get it and I agree. Especially the ham sandwich thing. If you're going to marry a sandwich, make it roast beef at least.

 

Yeah, I don't see why people think they need to argue when they're obviously in agreement. Guess some people just like to be argumentative.

 

Why do I get the feeling that it doesn't matter WHAT I say to you, because I'm a woman?

 

Why do I get the feeling it doesn't matter WHAT I say to you, because I'm a turkey sandwich?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Why do I get the feeling it doesn't matter WHAT I say to you, because I'm a turkey sandwich?

 

If a turkey sandwich began talking to me I think it would be time to throw it out and check the tupperware seals.

[Calax]

The argument that a lot of people throw back is "Well should I be able to marry my dog or a turkey sandwich if I wanted to!?" To be honest, yeah, you should.

 

Actually, you should not be allowed to marry, say, an animal or an inanimate object as neither of those things could give their consent and thus it could be considered a form of cruelty and abuse

[Aristes]

Oh yeah, the school curriculum. That's another one. I think both sides poured a lot of money into the campaign and some of the ads were questionable on both sides. For example, I actually saw the commercial where Mormon missionaries forcibly enter a home to accost a same sex couple and deny them their rights. At the end, the Mormon missionaries say something to the effect of "what rights can we deny them next?" You might think the pro prop 8 ads are evil. You might think that the anti prop 8 ads are perfectly legit. ...But that scare tactic cuts both ways. It scares some folks to think that religious zealots will steal your rights. News Flash! Zealots of every stripe want to steal someone's rights. However, to look at it from a different perspective, if you're, say, Catholic, and you see the prop 8 opponents depicting Mormons in this manner, you probably ask yourself when you'll be receiving the same treatment. Probably the most effective ads for Prop 8 weren't based on the line about education. They were ads containing the tape of Newsome's speech in which he said it didn't matter what the people of California wanted, the Courts had overturned their will. Yeah, it made some folks angry, but it made even more people scared.

[Calax]

Oh yeah, the school curriculum. That's another one. I think both sides poured a lot of money into the campaign and some of the ads were questionable on both sides. For example, I actually saw the commercial where Mormon missionaries forcibly enter a home to accost a same sex couple and deny them their rights. At the end, the Mormon missionaries say something to the effect of "what rights can we deny them next?" You might think the pro prop 8 ads are evil. You might think that the anti prop 8 ads are perfectly legit. ...But that scare tactic cuts both ways. It scares some folks to think that religious zealots will steal your rights. News Flash! Zealots of every stripe want to steal someone's rights. However, to look at it from a different perspective, if you're, say, Catholic, and you see the prop 8 opponents depicting Mormons in this manner, you probably ask yourself when you'll be receiving the same treatment. Probably the most effective ads for Prop 8 weren't based on the line about education. They were ads containing the tape of Newsome's speech in which he said it didn't matter what the people of California wanted, the Courts had overturned their will. Yeah, it made some folks angry, but it made even more people scared.

I didn't see any of the prop 8 adds on tv (don't watch local stations) I only heard ones on the radio and saw the "protect the family" signs pro prop 8 people posted.