Prop 8 debate

[deonchan]

Have you guys seen the map of the counties that voted on Prop 8? The Bay Area up and down the coast was NO....while the rest of California was YES.

Truth. All bay area counties shot it down except for one (Soloano county)

[deonchan]

I've a new level of respect for Jun and Pyron. Not to mention Chun. Well said, all of you.

Mizuki, also glad you caught the troll doing exactly that after getting hammered on for 4 pages.

Utterly ridiculous.

Maybe that petition will get the numbers it needs and this will all become moot.

Here's to hoping.

Troll? Where?

[Mizuki]

So it seems the op has no intention of answering open questions. Thread locked.

Thread unlocked. Continue as you please, the OP won't be here to answer any questions you ask, but I encourage to still talk on the topic, as it seems to be still ongoing.

[XpHoBiaX]

Okay, I wanted to point some things out that I learned when I was in government courses in school, and seem to have been forgotten.


I learned that the 2nd and 11th amendments are very important. For some reason I was told to never forget these two. If one is violated so is the other.
(the 11th is your unenumerated rights, btw)

I feel that prop 8 has violated these 2 amendments and the Government has violated these 2 very important amendments. That being said, I feel that my personal rights are at risk of being taken away. Regardless of the mess having to do homosexual marriage.

Seperation of Church and State.  Another very important matter at hand.
Religious people are usually the ones who push censorship, and influence government decisions. The government should not be making biased decisions based personal religious views. (yet they do, and anyone who disagrees they cry persecution and yell that their rights are violated. (2nd amendment and 11th, btw)

Did you know that marriage isnt religous at all? It's more ancient then the bible.
People where getting married all over the world, and in some places there is a Third Race. In short, transgenders. In countries where being born a male or female is optional. The show Taboo really got into that a while back, and so did the History Channel.

Most of the crap people shove down your throat is from Catholic Persecution of other religions. (The whole reason why people fled Eroupe to come to America)
I am not saying that Catholicism is bad, I am just pointing out things that are over looked until you really delve into the whole picture.

Anyways, this was what I was thinking and mulling over today...and I hope I am not beating a dead horse. It was hard to keep up with all that other stuff.
Also, does anyone else think what I am thinking?

[sysadmin]

Sar'kazm, meybi?

(User was locked out for this post)

This earns you a month vacation from Serious Business.  You may continue to view and read, but may not post or reply here.

Rest of everyone, please carry on.  I'll lay low.

[sysadmin]

I learned that the 2nd and 11th amendments are very important. For some reason I was told to never forget these two. If one is violated so is the other.
(the 11th is your unenumerated rights, btw)

Are you sure on those numbers?

2nd is Right to Bear Arms.
11th is "States can't be directly sued in federal courts."
9th is unenumerated rights, but that's not really a strong one.
14th is "equal protection", which is probably what will get bandied about.

To be quite honest, most of these have been limited (arguably gutted) over the years, 10, 9, and maybe 2.  [debates on 2 should be in a different topic].  But 1 and 14 are still pretty strong, so we'll see.

[K&K4ever]

If not to for your own personal reasons, do it for the kids! >:(

This is all I have to say to that:

[Steve.Young]

I'd like to hear someone's opinion who voted "YES" for Prop 8 that was somewhat knowledgeable of the topic and ACTUALLY READ THE BALLOT MEASURE.

Whether it be personal reasons, religious reasons, whatever. I'd like to understand the reasons behind it. Sometimes in the mist of all the drama, we make assumptions on why people do certain things. I don't like assumptions, it makes you look like an ass.

[Chun]

I'd like to hear someone's opinion who voted "YES" for Prop 8 that was somewhat knowledgeable of the topic and ACTUALLY READ THE BALLOT MEASURE.

A discussion from my friend playing devil's advocate told me one of the key points behind the proponent was simply this; in the Christian faith you are taught from the beginning that the existance of homosexuality, and just the existance, is offensive/affronting to your morals. So YES supporters feel that homosexuality was something that never existed in the first place, made as a choice, and the very thought/exposure to them infringes their rights as Christians.

Personally, I think this kind of logic is preposterous as it still forces "my religion says you're horrible", but the expanded strings of thought deviate into faith of a possible higher being and the proponent of faith and why people feel how they feel.

More than enough politics for me for the next two years.

~Chun

[Mister_E]

Here's one of the protest videos on Prop 8

Link

I really find it sad that it passed.

Awhile back my Godfather's (who is Gay) partner died of Stomach Cancer (It was a fast acting Cancer killed him in 2 weeks) and we was born into money and my Godfather couldn't get the money from his Will because of these laws not seeing him as a couple (Not that he was greedy and times where tough).

[K&K4ever]

Whether it be personal reasons, religious reasons, whatever.

If they voted yes for religious reasons, then they are forcing they're religion down other peoples throats.  That's why Barack Obama was against it (HE WAS!)  He may not believe in gay marriage, but he was against a CONSTITUTIONAL ban on gay marriage, because it would be forcing his beliefs down other peoples throats.

[sysadmin]

I'm going to do a dodge, before this turns into another "religion = bad" thread.

So, I'll ask a question:

A straight man and a straight woman decide to get married solely for benefits.  They wouldn't have sex with each other.  They wouldn't be chaste; in fact, they'd probably sleep with other people on the side.  They are good friends with each other.  Just not "in love".  But they just want all the normal benefits of marriage.
Should this be legal or not?  Why or why not?  Does the answer change if it's two straight men or two gay men?

NB1: I do not consider true gay marriage directly analogous to this example.  This example as presented solely as a thought example.
NB2: I won't disclose how I voted in this election.

[deonchan]

I'd like to hear someone's opinion who voted "YES" for Prop 8 that was somewhat knowledgeable of the topic and ACTUALLY READ THE BALLOT MEASURE.

Whether it be personal reasons, religious reasons, whatever. I'd like to understand the reasons behind it. Sometimes in the mist of all the drama, we make assumptions on why people do certain things. I don't like assumptions, it makes you look like an ass.

Ok to play Devil's Advocate (remember Steve you love me mang), here is a post from the owner of another board I frequent. (FWIW he's also a retired *I think* High School teacher from So Cal)

Nope!

The voters of California have chosen to drive certain animal based agribusinesses out of the state or out of business. If given the choice of investing millions to update their operations and increasing their overhead costs or moving out of state to someplace cheaper to operate that also wants their business, can you guess what they will chose? Be prepared to pay more for some food comodities. Starting in 2015 California stores will be selling eggs from out-of-state and veal will disapear from the supermarket shelves. New Mexico and Texas based agriculture will grow even larger as they are already getting the dairy farms that are being pushed out of California. California's loss (which will be hundreds of millions in revenues) is their gain. 

There has been a concerted effort to rid California of all these dirty agriculture businesses that use up all the states precious water supplies. The people behind this move don't seem to understand that if they succeed there will be no food in the stores, unless you like buying all your food from South America. In other word, forget ever eating any fresh produce again.

The voters of California also choose to protect the sanctity of the family. I don't see it as a vote against homosexual partnerships, but instead protecting what is seen as traditional role of the family. The institution of "marriage" was designed to be a man/women relationship with the idea of procreation and raising a family. If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken. I believe the voters would pass this idea overwhelmingly!

I seems to me that those that do not want to honor the will of the people don't really want to live in a democracy. The voters have spoken many times only to have their will overturned on some small technicality.

_________________
Dave S******
Pageantry Webmaster
[\quote]

[deonchan]

hmm in fact there are some decent arguments on both side on said forum. Rather and copy paste em all here's a link. Do as you will.

http://tinyurl.com/63xv9z

[K&K4ever]

I'm going to do a dodge, before this turns into another "religion = bad" thread.

I'm not saying Religion is bad! Hell, I'm a Methodist Christian.  Anyway, I AM saying, that the Bible AND the constitution in general dose NOT say, "take you your personal beliefs and shove it down everyones throats"

[PyronIkari]

I'm going to do a dodge, before this turns into another "religion = bad" thread.

So, I'll ask a question:

A straight man and a straight woman decide to get married solely for benefits.  They wouldn't have sex with each other.  They wouldn't be chaste; in fact, they'd probably sleep with other people on the side.  They are good friends with each other.  Just not "in love".  But they just want all the normal benefits of marriage.
Should this be legal or not?  Why or why not?  Does the answer change if it's two straight men or two gay men?

NB1: I do not consider true gay marriage directly analogous to this example.  This example as presented solely as a thought example.
NB2: I won't disclose how I voted in this election.

This was on Family Guy.

Why is it legal for two people that don't love each other to be married, but two gay people who completely love each other are not allowed to be married?

Those two that don't love each other being married, destroy the sanctity of marriage in every way shape and form that gays supposedly destroy it. Simply it goes against the basis of what Christianity states as being what marriage is about.

I do hate religion, but I don't think people that follow a religion are stupid. But as others said, it's when people force their religion on others; that bothers me.

Honestly, I think marriage is a joke, in many different ways. But if people want to get married, whether they be gay, ot straight, or religious or not... that's their choice as people to do so. If they want to do a silly little ceremony that supposedly means they love each other(go go go divorce rate) then that's their business. Just like if people want to waste their time at church listening to things that are either common sense, or religious preachings that don't mean anything... that's their choice to. I'm not going to try and convince people not to go to church, or that god doesn't exist... well unless they go out of their way to harass me to try and prove god does exist. Then it just becomes me doing it to disprove them.

Now I'm straying. The end result of this is simple. I feel horrible. I feel genuinely sad that my gay friends cannot get married. I feel genuinely sad that their rights as human beings to marry someone they love has been stripped from them. I feel genuinely sad...

...That the majority of voters happily stripped this right away from them.

There were 3 base points as to why most of the yes on prop 8 voters voted how they did. The first was religious reasonings. Even though California is blue as any state can be... it doesn't change that religion is still a huge part of this state. Catholicism, Judaism, and Christians are all taught that homosexuality is bad and it should be banned.

The second, was viral media. Plastering how if prop8 doesn't pass, kids will be taught about homosexuality in 2nd grade. This was actually a huge major point, and this was the deciding factor for a lot of people. The photos of 2nd grade kids in a homosexual situation.

I've already explained the origins of this, but I wanted to mention why this was such a big deal. 2nd graders know that mommy and daddy loved each other and got married. Or Mommy and her boyfriend. Or daddy and his girlfriend.

What ran through the mind of many parents was that "They're going to teach my kid that it's okay to kiss other kids of the same sex, and homosexuality is natural". Kids at that age are usually scared of the opposite sex. Girls have cooties and boys are icky. But if boys are with other boys, and if girls are with other girls... and then they learn that they can love each other like mommy and daddy... WHAT WILL COME OF THIS?!?!??!!?!?

And much like the mentality of the general parental populace. LET'S BLAME SOMETHING ELSE FOR WHAT WE SHOULD BE TEACHING OUR KIDS. It's not that much different than blaming rap music for killing kids, video games for causing kids to kill other kids, and TV for causing kids to be stupid.

Is that all stupid? Of course it is, but thinking from their perspective, it makes sense. It's still stupid regardless though.

But as I said before. This whole thing was baseless. Marriage isn't taught in schools, and this 2nd grade issue was about a teacher that got married. It's sad though when you step-back for a second. Realizing, that something as happy as that teacher's marriage, is a huge reason why prop 8 passed. Photos commemorating one of the happiest moments of that teacher's life is what caused gay marriages to be banned... all because someone took the pictures and completely twisted it around.

The third factor, was simple fear. Sorry, but a good amount of people are still homophobic. Even a lot of my close friends, despite stating that they are okay with homosexuals, they'd never get naked around a homosexual person. They'd never let them hug them. And it's that little fear that is finding a reason to hate them more. So it's easy to lay blame on something else when the simple answer is fear and hatred. 

[sysadmin]

This was on Family Guy.  

This was on Dr. Katz when it came out.  The question itself, of course, is far older.

Why is it legal for two people that don't love each other to be married, but two gay people who completely love each other are not allowed to be married?

This wasn't the question I asked, but it leads to an interesting point.

How would you define marriage?  Assuming there are no laws or other factors to the contrary, what would you define it as?
Corollary: how would define the terms "husband" and "wife" under the definition?


Yes, I know Prop 8 passed for various reasons.  I felt that the TV commercials on both sides were disingenuous.
I agree that the commercials created fear and that the commercials were misleading. 
That said, most people already made up their minds before the proposition was put on the ballot.

There's a non-trivial portion of the population that chose to define marriage as between "a man and a woman," excluding all other forms.
So, again, I'll ask:  How do you guys define it?   Is marriage important at all?  Should it be?

I'm not saying Religion is bad! Hell, I'm a Methodist Christian.  Anyway, I AM saying, that the Bible AND the constitution in general dose NOT say, "take you your personal beliefs and shove it down everyones throats"

This is fine, and I respect that too.   I respect those who openly dislike religion.

I only hope that there is the same respect for those who are openly religious.

And no, I have no intention of trying to debate religion on the internet.  So I'm just recasting some of the prop 8 debate as a marriage one.

[SOawesomeness]

I find marriage pointless. Unless someone can seriously honestly think that they will be together for as long as they live and are willing to keep the marriage going, I'd stand for it. I haven't met anyone like that, aside for those people who are so filled with dopamine that they think they can or that they might have that chance.

Marriage to me (in this system) is just the legal grouping of a man and woman who decide to call each other "husband" and "wife" for any number of reasons so they can take their relationship to the next level.

I've seen so many marriages fail and so many that screw up the kids that I find it totally not worth marriage. Calling each other "husband" and "wife" is fine to me, though the only thing I think marriage does for the common couple is to guilt or obligate each other to stick in the relationship because of the right to the titles, legal bindings and as such, the repercussions esp. divorce and all that unfun jazz.

I can't say if marriage is important because it does serve many purposes in the social world, but... in all honesty, I think it shouldn't be taken so seriously.
[/personal tangent]

Um, just to ask something though, I'd been told when I was uber small that if someone lived with a roommate of the opposite sex lives with that person for a number of years, they're granted the same tax rights as a married couple or something...?

[G.I.R]

Um, just to ask something though, I'd been told when I was uber small that if someone lived with a roommate of the opposite sex lives with that person for a number of years, they're granted the same tax rights as a married couple or something...?

I believe it's called a "Common Law Marriage".

[soakrates`]

I'm going to do a dodge, before this turns into another "religion = bad" thread.

So, I'll ask a question:

A straight man and a straight woman decide to get married solely for benefits.  They wouldn't have sex with each other.  They wouldn't be chaste; in fact, they'd probably sleep with other people on the side.  They are good friends with each other.  Just not "in love".  But they just want all the normal benefits of marriage.
Should this be legal or not?  Why or why not?  Does the answer change if it's two straight men or two gay men?

Yes, it should be legal. Love was not a big factor in pre-modern marriage to begin with. Historically, the one common thread uniting the different concepts of marriage over time has been the securing of property rights. It's still like that, in many ways.