View Poll Results: prop 8
yes



19
28.79%
no



47
71.21%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll
OK... NO or Yes On Prop 8
Forester Specialist
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,985
From: Sonoma County
Car Info: '98/'04 Foresters (S & XT)
Are you telling us that there are NO Christian people in the world who happen to be homosexual? I'll simply point to the Catholic religion, and shouldn't have to say a word to make my point there.
By saying "include themselves (the LGBT's) in someone elses' (Church/Christians) tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradition itself?" you're completely excluding the possibility that they can be members of BOTH groups.
If I read this correctly, the statement you made is meant to say:
If gays wish to alter a tradition of the chuch (marriage) to include themselves in it, should they be allowed to do so?
In my opinion, this should be a church issue, and each individual church as a whole should be the ones to issue a decree which is binding upon their members regarding this. Why is it a political issue? That's because the Christians, in an effort to FORCE their beliefs on other people, have made it an issue, and wish to DISCRIMINATE against those whose (intimate) lives they're absolutely no part of.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
^ on the topic of the catholic church... i think they handle marriage PERFECTLY in regards to religious ceremony. if you want to be married in a catholic church, both parties have to be catholic (or convert). i don't see this being voted on or debated.
a catholic and a non catholic can still be married, just not in a catholic church.
a catholic and a non catholic can still be married, just not in a catholic church.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,970
From: Upper North Bay
Car Info: '15 LE STI, '06 WRX White Wheeled Wagon, '06 B9
I was reading through some of the post and the bible got brought up. Too far back to quote. Anyway. This is my thought on this
SO the bible was written a long ****ing time ago right. Some of the books are 1000's of years. my point is this. Who knows what is in the bible is right. No one these days. The bible was written by scholars of the time. Written by people who were educated. That being said Education was not top priority for everyone. Only the rich benefit from a education. So when the bible was written who was to argue with anything it said. Most of the population could not even read. SO whatever some guy wanted the bible to say non could read or write to retort any of it.
And on another topic. SOme people say not to let gays get married, let them have their domestic partnerships they get all the same rights. THIS IS NOT TRUE. My wife and I were together for a long time before we got married. Her benefits through her job were way cheaper than mine. SO we were listed as Domestic Partners so I could get benefits. We each paid 50% of the cost of living and had been together for X amount of time so we could be considered domestic partners.
However that is still not the same as it is now that we are married. The benefits are even cheaper now cuz I am considered a spouse. If something happens to me my wife has the ability to decide if they pull the plug or keep me alive.
If you are just in a domestic partnership, regardless how long for. If something happens to your partner, you have no say over what is best for them. Lets say there is a couple been together for 20 years. Guy/Chick #1 is in a horrible accident and is put on life support Guy/Chick #2 have mno rights or say whether to leave the love of their life on it or not becuase Guy/CHick#2's family has 100% say in what happens to that persons life. Even if that was me and my wife before we were married, we are common law marriage if were were together for that long but I have no legal standing with what happens to her in that case.
I think that is bull**** and thats why they should be able to get married. Wo are we to decide who can and cant be married. I think Lboogie put it best.
Vote No, gays have just as much right to be miserable in marriage as us breeders.
AND, it opens up a whole new angle on 'Wedding Crashers'. Hell, as much dispoable income as two upper middle class guys/gals would have....the parties are bound to be expensive, and that's good for the economy.
AND, it opens up a whole new angle on 'Wedding Crashers'. Hell, as much dispoable income as two upper middle class guys/gals would have....the parties are bound to be expensive, and that's good for the economy.
I cant wait for this ****ING election to be over.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,970
From: Upper North Bay
Car Info: '15 LE STI, '06 WRX White Wheeled Wagon, '06 B9
^ on the topic of the catholic church... i think they handle marriage PERFECTLY in regards to religious ceremony. if you want to be married in a catholic church, both parties have to be catholic (or convert). i don't see this being voted on or debated.
a catholic and a non catholic can still be married, just not in a catholic church.
a catholic and a non catholic can still be married, just not in a catholic church.
Man I never knew so many people in the bay area sucked the bibles **** so hard. Seriously.......
I think gays are about 1000X better than mormons. And frankly I don't think much of the Christian religion, I don't agree with it but I'm not trying to ban it...
Look at most of the **** change everybody else mentality, it's all pushed my Christians...
well shove it up your *** nobody wants to read you quoting scripture seriously WTF.
It's funny, religion is just a place for people to dwell in once they have totally ****ed their lives up and need someone to blame so they don't have to hate themselves.
Personally I have more interesting, real stuff to do.........not made up garbage that isn't even interesting.
I think gays are about 1000X better than mormons. And frankly I don't think much of the Christian religion, I don't agree with it but I'm not trying to ban it...
Look at most of the **** change everybody else mentality, it's all pushed my Christians...
well shove it up your *** nobody wants to read you quoting scripture seriously WTF.
It's funny, religion is just a place for people to dwell in once they have totally ****ed their lives up and need someone to blame so they don't have to hate themselves.
Personally I have more interesting, real stuff to do.........not made up garbage that isn't even interesting.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,461
From: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
As long as they acknowledge homosexuality as a birth defect I'm ok with them getting married. It's the least we can do. It's a scientific fact that nobody wants to talk about, caused by the mother.
The thing that is odd to me is that many who support gay marriage do not support gay adoption... how's that for a double-standard? That is so gay!
The thing that is odd to me is that many who support gay marriage do not support gay adoption... how's that for a double-standard? That is so gay!
Last edited by HellaDumb; Oct 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Although I do not agree with most of the against arguments I do get sick and tired of the elitist "So, you're a bigot then?" remarks. What about one's right to be completely appalled and disgusted with the idea? They have a voice too and shouldn't be chastised for their votable position on the measure.
Although I do not agree with most of the against arguments I do get sick and tired of the elitist "So, you're a bigot then?" remarks. What about one's right to be completely appalled and disgusted with the idea? They have a voice too and shouldn't be chastised for their votable position on the measure.
no really your argument was great............as long as you are making it to a fellow retard.
Although I do not agree with most of the against arguments I do get sick and tired of the elitist "So, you're a bigot then?" remarks. What about one's right to be completely appalled and disgusted with the idea? They have a voice too and shouldn't be chastised for their votable position on the measure.
As long as they acknowledge homosexuality as a birth defect I'm ok with them getting married. It's the least we can do. It's a scientific fact that nobody wants to talk about, caused by the mother.
The thing that is odd to me is that many who support gay marriage do not support gay adoption... how's that for a double-standard? That is so gay!
The thing that is odd to me is that many who support gay marriage do not support gay adoption... how's that for a double-standard? That is so gay!
I'd LOVE to see the medical journals on that study!
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
The people do...and they voted Yes on Prop 22.
Liberal judges nullified the people's vote.
Historically, the people have said no to polygamy, so why not No to homosexual marriages?
His beliefs =/= your beliefs, so he's got a problem?
I dunno....maybe get the State Supreme Court to over turn the vote?
Oh, wai......
BTW, why are you so ANGRY in your posts?
Liberal judges nullified the people's vote.
Historically, the people have said no to polygamy, so why not No to homosexual marriages?
His beliefs =/= your beliefs, so he's got a problem?
I dunno....maybe get the State Supreme Court to over turn the vote?
Oh, wai......
BTW, why are you so ANGRY in your posts?
i do think that people who are not religious should be allowed to get married if they wish to do so.
if mankind did everything the way it was done 2000 years ago, we'd all still be living in huts and not having this discussion on the internets.
your christian religion did the exact same thing with most of their holidays.
if mankind did everything the way it was done 2000 years ago, we'd all still be living in huts and not having this discussion on the internets.
your christian religion did the exact same thing with most of their holidays.
Still dodged my question
so I'm waiting for an answer that has to do with what I asked. So here it is again. I will only reply to straight answers.
Originally Posted by medicSTi
Should people be able to include themselves in someone elses' tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradtion itself?
Should people be able to include themselves in someone elses' tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradtion itself?
What about the rights of those that started something? Are their rights not equal to those that want to alter the tradition to include themselves instead of make their own?
Growing up as a kid, was there ever a situation in which you and your friends were playing a game and some kids mom came out and made you change how or what you were playing so that her kid could play?
Here's a question for you:
Are you telling us that there are NO Christian people in the world who happen to be homosexual? I'll simply point to the Catholic religion, and shouldn't have to say a word to make my point there.
By saying "include themselves (the LGBT's) in someone elses' (Church/Christians) tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradition itself?" you're completely excluding the possibility that they can be members of BOTH groups.
If I read this correctly, the statement you made is meant to say:
If gays wish to alter a tradition of the chuch (marriage) to include themselves in it, should they be allowed to do so?
In my opinion, this should be a church issue, and each individual church as a whole should be the ones to issue a decree which is binding upon their members regarding this. Why is it a political issue? That's because the Christians, in an effort to FORCE their beliefs on other people, have made it an issue, and wish to DISCRIMINATE against those whose (intimate) lives they're absolutely no part of.
Are you telling us that there are NO Christian people in the world who happen to be homosexual? I'll simply point to the Catholic religion, and shouldn't have to say a word to make my point there.
By saying "include themselves (the LGBT's) in someone elses' (Church/Christians) tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradition itself?" you're completely excluding the possibility that they can be members of BOTH groups.
If I read this correctly, the statement you made is meant to say:
If gays wish to alter a tradition of the chuch (marriage) to include themselves in it, should they be allowed to do so?
In my opinion, this should be a church issue, and each individual church as a whole should be the ones to issue a decree which is binding upon their members regarding this. Why is it a political issue? That's because the Christians, in an effort to FORCE their beliefs on other people, have made it an issue, and wish to DISCRIMINATE against those whose (intimate) lives they're absolutely no part of.
No, I didn't tell you anything. I asked a question and am still waiting for a straight answer.
Originally Posted by medicSTi
Should people be able to include themselves in someone elses' tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradtion itself?
Should people be able to include themselves in someone elses' tradition to include themselves if it alters the tradtion itself?

