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
Point being you don't get kids with missing/additional chromosomes when you have m/m and f/f sex cause there isn't a way to procreate... which is awesome, cause we already have too many people on earth if ask me.
****, I've just been reading for like an hour. 
Look, ultimately, I think that government should really not be in the business of denying rights.
The analogy (like 78 pages back) of people not having the right to interject themselves into other people's traditions is silly. Who are any of us to say that "this particular thing is mine and not yours". America is the world's melting pot.
Just as an example, I grew up American, so I celebrate Christmas even though I am not christian. I think we can all agree that Christmas is not just a celebration of Christ's birth anymore. It is a cultural celebration. American culture. People in other countries also celebrate Christmas in other ways. Are they doing it wrong? If your Christmas is centered around celebrating Christ's birth, then more power to you. But don't try to tell me that I can't celebrate Christmas because I am not christian. I can't call it Christmas? What should I call it then, "the holidays"? Ridiculous.
Look, I'm not trying to bash on christianity, either.
There are plenty of homosexuals that are devoutly religious. You can't tell them that their relationship with God is any less that yours because they are gay. That is between God and them. Ultimately, in my beliefs, that is what it comes down to. It is not my place to judge or force my beliefs on anyone else. Please tell me any one of you haven't "sinned".
And also (like 7,158 pages back) this is not the same as trying to say that you are Asian or Native American when you are not. That also, is a ridiculous analogy.
This has no affect on your life. Just admit it. So what? Now you are going to have to tell your kids you don't believe in this. Then take responsibility for educating your own children. Don't blame schools.
If you say they will be getting mixed signals/will turn gay/whatever, then you didn't teach your children well enough to make the right decisions on their own. Take responsibility for that. You should be able to tell them what your beliefs are and give them a foundation to make good choices. And trust that they will make the right choice. At least that is how I was raised, and I think my parents did a pretty good job.
That last part came out sounding a little wrong. I don't think that being gay is a decision. I meant that your children should be able to decide for themselves how they feel about homosexuality in general, not their orientation.
That is no excuse for denying someone a right. (I know, I know, Paul )
The fact of the matter is, here in CA, marriage is a legally binding contract. It is not a religious ceremony. And as such, equal rights should be afforded to all. That is not to say that people should marry animals.
Consenting adults not hurting anyone... this prop is stupid.
bleh, I hate this voting cycle.
Look, ultimately, I think that government should really not be in the business of denying rights.
The analogy (like 78 pages back) of people not having the right to interject themselves into other people's traditions is silly. Who are any of us to say that "this particular thing is mine and not yours". America is the world's melting pot.
Just as an example, I grew up American, so I celebrate Christmas even though I am not christian. I think we can all agree that Christmas is not just a celebration of Christ's birth anymore. It is a cultural celebration. American culture. People in other countries also celebrate Christmas in other ways. Are they doing it wrong? If your Christmas is centered around celebrating Christ's birth, then more power to you. But don't try to tell me that I can't celebrate Christmas because I am not christian. I can't call it Christmas? What should I call it then, "the holidays"? Ridiculous.
Look, I'm not trying to bash on christianity, either.
There are plenty of homosexuals that are devoutly religious. You can't tell them that their relationship with God is any less that yours because they are gay. That is between God and them. Ultimately, in my beliefs, that is what it comes down to. It is not my place to judge or force my beliefs on anyone else. Please tell me any one of you haven't "sinned".
And also (like 7,158 pages back) this is not the same as trying to say that you are Asian or Native American when you are not. That also, is a ridiculous analogy.
This has no affect on your life. Just admit it. So what? Now you are going to have to tell your kids you don't believe in this. Then take responsibility for educating your own children. Don't blame schools.
If you say they will be getting mixed signals/will turn gay/whatever, then you didn't teach your children well enough to make the right decisions on their own. Take responsibility for that. You should be able to tell them what your beliefs are and give them a foundation to make good choices. And trust that they will make the right choice. At least that is how I was raised, and I think my parents did a pretty good job.
That last part came out sounding a little wrong. I don't think that being gay is a decision. I meant that your children should be able to decide for themselves how they feel about homosexuality in general, not their orientation.
That is no excuse for denying someone a right. (I know, I know, Paul
) The fact of the matter is, here in CA, marriage is a legally binding contract. It is not a religious ceremony. And as such, equal rights should be afforded to all. That is not to say that people should marry animals.
Consenting adults not hurting anyone... this prop is stupid.
bleh, I hate this voting cycle.
I understand that America is the world's melting pot, and I'm all for melting cultures, but it's not right for a minority to dilude the meaning for a majority. They can have their own ceremony for their own beliefs. They don't need traditional couples.
And it will effect EVERYONE's lives. It's a social acceptance of a personal choice that a majority of Americans see as distasteful and immoral. California's liberals are not the majority of the country.
I'm not worried about my children. I'm worried about society's children, my future children's peers. My kids will be brought up how I see moral.
And if you think kids are born gay, how is that any different than being born with a gene leading to alcoholism? If you want to give in to it, you can. If you don't you can fight it.
And please answer the polygomy and incestous relationships question. I assume you are for it based on your belief that everone should be able to choose who they want to marry.
Everyone should be able to get "married" if they want. There shouldn't be a separate institution. I am MARRIED to my wife. I am not civil unioned to her.
If homosexuals want the same, who are we to deny them. It is my impression that they want "until death do us part". They want "in sickness and in health". Like I said before, it is not my place to dictate their relationship with God... or not... relationship. :P
Not just that, but all the legal stuff, too. Inheritance, tax status, plug pulling decisions, hospital stuff.
They don't want to be excluded and they shouldn't be.
If homosexuals want the same, who are we to deny them. It is my impression that they want "until death do us part". They want "in sickness and in health". Like I said before, it is not my place to dictate their relationship with God... or not... relationship. :P
Not just that, but all the legal stuff, too. Inheritance, tax status, plug pulling decisions, hospital stuff.
They don't want to be excluded and they shouldn't be.
I'm all for it, and then all for equal unions.
They aren't for equal squat... They want to be the ones with it all, and others with less.
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
I dont know if I can go that far, its unnatural, and potentially extremely unhealthy to offspring.
How many times do I need to answer this before you are satisifed? I have said several times in this thread already that incestous relationships are a violation of nature and science, that is a scientific fact, and if a man has several wives and they are all consenting adults and they all consent to the polygomous relationship I have no problem with that either.
Both can adopt. If they don't reproduce, then there is no issue. And who are you to tell them that can't if they want to. Because of your belief in science. They might like what it does to their gene pool.
Answer please.
YES!
If that's what they want to do who the **** are we to say they can't! It's a couple (or more) people wanting to get married.
how about YOU answer my question about why YOU guys don't get out and get the govt to release marriage back to a religious ceremony and not something that has to do with legal standing. How the **** about that?
Religions can keep marriage to themselves and govt's can have their civil unions to all couples (or more) no matter the orientation.
Now how bout it??
If that's what they want to do who the **** are we to say they can't! It's a couple (or more) people wanting to get married.
how about YOU answer my question about why YOU guys don't get out and get the govt to release marriage back to a religious ceremony and not something that has to do with legal standing. How the **** about that?
Religions can keep marriage to themselves and govt's can have their civil unions to all couples (or more) no matter the orientation.
Now how bout it??
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
So if at Mt. Hammy (an all Subaru meet) if we had say, 100 Hondas show up and want to be apart of our Subaru meet, would you say it diludes the Subaru meet?
I understand that America is the world's melting pot, and I'm all for melting cultures, but it's not right for a minority to dilude the meaning for a majority. They can have their own ceremony for their own beliefs. They don't need traditional couples.
And it will effect EVERYONE's lives. It's a social acceptance of a personal choice that a majority of Americans see as distasteful and immoral. California's liberals are not the majority of the country.
I'm not worried about my children. I'm worried about society's children, my future children's peers. My kids will be brought up how I see moral.
And if you think kids are born gay, how is that any different than being born with a gene leading to alcoholism? If you want to give in to it, you can. If you don't you can fight it.
And please answer the polygomy and incestous relationships question. I assume you are for it based on your belief that everone should be able to choose who they want to marry.
I understand that America is the world's melting pot, and I'm all for melting cultures, but it's not right for a minority to dilude the meaning for a majority. They can have their own ceremony for their own beliefs. They don't need traditional couples.
And it will effect EVERYONE's lives. It's a social acceptance of a personal choice that a majority of Americans see as distasteful and immoral. California's liberals are not the majority of the country.
I'm not worried about my children. I'm worried about society's children, my future children's peers. My kids will be brought up how I see moral.
And if you think kids are born gay, how is that any different than being born with a gene leading to alcoholism? If you want to give in to it, you can. If you don't you can fight it.
And please answer the polygomy and incestous relationships question. I assume you are for it based on your belief that everone should be able to choose who they want to marry.
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
What is the scientific difference between homosexuality and incestuous relationships?
Both can adopt. If they don't reproduce, then there is no issue. And who are you to tell them that can't if they want to. Because of your belief in science. They might like what it does to their gene pool.
Answer please.
Both can adopt. If they don't reproduce, then there is no issue. And who are you to tell them that can't if they want to. Because of your belief in science. They might like what it does to their gene pool.
Answer please.
Just like the right-wingers who claim that we are a "Christian nation" founded entirely on Christian values, your response goes too far. The majority of the founders did believe that religion had some place in government. While Jefferson and Madison are often quoted by modern secularists, the fact remains that they were in the minority. Furthermore, while they were strict separationalists they were also quite "spiritual" men.
The fact is that the founders themselves were not at all in agreement about where the line between church and state should be. On the state level, they were even more divided. Adams argued fervently for the state sponsorship of religion in his home state of Massachusetts, while Madison spent many of his younger years fighting the entanglement of Church and State in Virginia.
Issues like Gay marriage therefore must be decided on the cultural perceptions and values of the times. IMHO, to outlaw gay marriage through a constitutional amendment would be a massive step backwards in the continuing fight to give everyone - regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity - equal rights. While the founders themselves probably wouldn't even understand the concept of homosexual marriage, stepping backwards would not be in the progressive spirit our country was founded on.
If it was up to me, the only unions recognized by the government should be civil unions. The institution of "marriage" should be up to the church. Period.
-Jeff
The fact is that the founders themselves were not at all in agreement about where the line between church and state should be. On the state level, they were even more divided. Adams argued fervently for the state sponsorship of religion in his home state of Massachusetts, while Madison spent many of his younger years fighting the entanglement of Church and State in Virginia.
Issues like Gay marriage therefore must be decided on the cultural perceptions and values of the times. IMHO, to outlaw gay marriage through a constitutional amendment would be a massive step backwards in the continuing fight to give everyone - regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity - equal rights. While the founders themselves probably wouldn't even understand the concept of homosexual marriage, stepping backwards would not be in the progressive spirit our country was founded on.
If it was up to me, the only unions recognized by the government should be civil unions. The institution of "marriage" should be up to the church. Period.
-Jeff
+1 Good Post
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,203
From: Equally as important as Walter
Car Info: E82
I don't impose my views on others, i wouldn't have a 2nd wife nor a goat for a concubine... What people want to do with their partners is up to them, non of my business.
Study up? Please, I am 2 courses short of a political science degree. I know about government and that statement is not fact. Seperation of Church and state, not no church in the federal government but if the states want it thats cool. Please stop spewing crap out of your mouth, use facts in your arguments and actually read what I write so you can stop asking me the same questions over and over and over and over again.
Last I checked, in terms of presenting evidence conclusive to our arguments...:
medicSTi: a bunch
jewpac42: very few
Just to remind you amigo
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 193
From: boulder creek/vacaville
Car Info: DGM 14 BRZ
What do you mean the dont need traditional couples? Who are you to tell them what they can and cannot have. They have every right that you and I have and if they want to get married I dont see how it dilutes anything, especially marriage when there is something like a 50% divorce rate, that dilutes the sanctity of marriage more than anything if you ask me, and further, you are a gigantic hypocrite if you think divorce is OK and gay marriage is not. I dont see what a car meet has to do with anything here, that is a stupid and irresponsible argument. And if people think homosexuality, a natural act, is distateful and immoral that is their problem and it doesn't make it right to enact legislation denying people rights that all humans should have.
this.