- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
OC residents give $6.2 million to support Prop. 8
October 22nd, 2008, 8:00 am · 500 Comments · posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent
Orange County residents have contributed more than $6.2 million to support Proposition 8, according to new data I gathered.
We knew area residents strongly supported the gay marriage ban back in September, when we first looked at the campaign finance records. Well, I just updated the numbers through Oct. 9 and found that support remains incredibly strong. (To search an updated database of campaign contributions both for and against the measure, click here.)
Orange County money accounts for nearly a quarter of of the $26.8 million raised in support of Prop. 8, which would amend the state constitution to specify that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
However, $1.4 million of Orange County’s money comes from the Santa Ana office of the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit organized for the sole purpose of fighting same-sex marriage. If you remove NOM’s contributions, Orange County’s share of the Yes money goes down to about 18 percent.
Whatever the case, only about $175,000 in local money went towards the no campaign, which took in about $20 million during the period.
The updated figures don’t include the most recent developments, such as Hollywood producer Steve Bing’s announcement that he’s contributing $500,000 to the no campaign or the $1 million contributed by the California Teachers’ Association to the no side. But campaigns are expected to submit new, comprehensive reports by the end of this week, when we’ll update the figures again.
But in the meantime, check out our database (click on link below) and see who’s giving. I recommend looking for Hollywood actors — Brad Pitt gave $100,00 to the no campaign — or checking out Orange County’s biggest contributors.
They include Fieldstead & Co. ($900,000), the personal foundation of Home Savings heir Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson; Former state senator Robert Hurtt Jr. ($275,000); the Evangelical Christian Credit Union (ECCU) in Brea ($100,000); healthcare executives Donald G. Laws and Steve Samuelian ($100,000 each); and MHI Real Company (oil mining) president Larry Smith ($75,646.18). All of them support Prop. 8.
RELATED PROP.8 COVERAGE
- Prop. 8 friends, foes now even in money race
- Rick Warren supports Prop. 8
- Prop. 8: Why bother?
- Prop. 8 failure would be followed by thousands of gay nuptials
- Tide turning on gay marriage measure?
- Field Poll finds opposition to gay marriage ban
MORE ELECTION COVERAGE (complete coverage here)
TOPICS: President | Congress | Ballot measures | Prop. 8
LOCAL RACES: North County | Central County | South County | Schools
MORE: Recent election videos | Voter guide
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
I support prop 8. I will give more if need be. Its important we protect marriage. never in the history of the world has their been gay marriage. not a time to experiment now with the future generation
I don’t understand why prop 8 even exists, let people live life however they want to, how is it going to hurt you? Is your make-believe man in the sky going to say it’s the right thing to do?
Notice its mostly the movie stars who support no on 8. I don’t want movie stars telling be what to do
Brad pitt he’s a beacon of light? walking out on aniston. I guess he can tell us what to do. It a joke people listen to these stars
No on 8. How same-sex marriage going to affect YOUR marriage? It doesn’t make your marriage any less significant. The sanctity, for lack of a better word, of a couple’s marriage is how much they treasure their own marriage and love each other.
If it was about protecting marriage and not blatant homophobia, you’d be trying to abolish divorce, would you not? That’s actually something that literally destroys marriages. I think Prop 8 is just hateful bull.
It’s not gonna win anyways, so there’s not much of a point. Orange County’ll probably be the only county that votes in favor of it, which I’m ashamed of.
some call it hateful. but please have tolerance for a view different than yours
The bigger picture……
God has warned about relaxing morals. Look at his warnings to the churches in Revelation. Support of this will land you in one place…. H&LL!!!!!!!
Good luck
Never? There are six countries where it’s legal right now and I’m thinking that the world hasn’t ended. Live and let live.
YES ON *! It’s much more then giving an equal “choice” for people who practice a homosexual lifestyle. By allowing same sex marriages, it will become the “norm” to have your children taught this in the public school system. It will become illegal for you to disagree with this. You may not mind if gay marriages happen, but do you mind if your first-grader is repeatedly told that they can marry either a girl or a boy when they grow up? Can you imagine what this may create in the next generation? We are protecting the family. The family is the infastructure of our society. Most people have NO idea the implications of this. VOTE YES, PROTECT OUR FAMILIES.
G-d does not judge so why would anyone go to hell for voting NO on Prop. 8. It is wrong for people to think they can decide who one can be with, weither it be Man and Woman or Man and Man or Woman and Woman. It should be to each there own.
tjhooker,
the only problem with your argument is that there is no god and there are no gods. grow up, stop believing in fantasies and fairy tales ,and start living a more relaxed and happy life.
This is a civil rights issue and should not be up for a vote. What would the Mormons think if we got a proposition on the ballot to ban their religion? Or take the right to vote away from women? Or make slavery of people with red hair legal? Civil rights morally should not be up to a public vote–period. And gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The previous comment is very true. If people are so darn worried about protecting marriage, they should be trying to ban divorce and they should be happy that gays want to marry.
Why is the public school teacher’s union involved in this non-educational issue? Are the proponents of proposition 8 correct in stating how marriage will be taught in the public schools? Use your brains people !
The problem as I keep hearing it, is those in favor of Prop 8 simply won’t admit they support discrimination. Instead the defense is “The Bible.” When reminded this *isn’t* about the Bible, but government. That’s usually when they get mad.
Then comes the sputtering, “But government *should* support the Bible, it’s “In God we Trust.” and yet God isn’t trusted to deal with their so called issues, they just want to say time and pass judgment themselves.
The Yes on 8 people don’t realize the people who began this country did so so they wouldn’t have to practice a certain religion, or any religion. As in Freedom of Religious Persecution. Instead, we have a bunch of moralists with their knickers in a twist because they truly do want a religious state. Opposite of the Constitution. Meaning, Un-American.
Remember now, women only recently got the vote.
I’m sure the Bible toters and quoters then weren’t happy then, either.
Those fighting for YES on Prop 8 are fighting for the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a institution that was given by God. The same people fighting for YES on Prop 8 are also people that fight for the family unit to be strengthened in a society that perpetually tries to diminish it.
Society does not get to redefine the definition of marriage anymore than calling my tape dispenser a stapler makes it a stapler. Marriage is between a man and a woman, a fundamental definition from the beginning of time.
Voting Yes on Prop 8 will not take away any civil rights or liberties of those that are in a domestic partnership. Everyone does NOW and WILL have the same rights with the passing of Prop 8 and Yes on Prop 8 supporters uphold the premise that all should have the same rights under the correct definitions.
VOTE YES on Prop 8!
Why all the fuss about Prop. 8? All the people are trying to do is to take back what a group of social activist judges disregarded as the choice of a majority of California voters.
20 years ago, homosexuality was not acceptable, in fact frowned upon. Now people are tolerating it. Children will grow up and think it is ok to do this…Bare in mind that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…
Same sex marriage exists already for years in European countries, it’s not like this has never existed in history. It changes absolutely nothing for us or for future generations, but it changes the world for same sex couples. Changing the constitution for something that does not even affect us, is most definitely not what the constitution stands for.
Scott, I find it interesting that asked “What would the Mormons think if we got a proposition on the ballot to ban their religion?” If you look at the history of the Mormons, you will see that they were persecuted because of their beliefs and exterminated from the state of Missouri and also kicked out of the state of Illinois stripped of property and rights as Americans. Even after all of that, they still sent soldiers to serve their country and stayed true patriots.
To make an educated conclusion about what the mormons believe about Prop 8 as well as their basic beliefs, truly research it first before making such claims.
It’s important to understand a group to understand their motivation - http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8.
http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/ explains what the Mormon church believes, which is so different than what mainstream would have us to believe about it.
Actually, Luke, gay marriage has been allowed in our recent history. The Netherlands, as only one example, legalized it in 2001 and has since also legalized polygamy and pedophilia.
YES ON 8.
If you ask me a no vote on prop 8 is saying yes to AIDS, social failure as a whole, and no to the bible. I for one will pull my child out of public school if this passes…..did NOT the state vote OVERWHELMINGLY to keep this exact measure as it stands ? Should we vote on such laws as child molestation again as well ?
Jennifer,
I don’t care what Mormons believe or don’t believe. I just know that they are bankrolling the hate and discrimination against gay people. I was trying to make the point that everyone’s civil rights need to be upheld. Why is this so hard to understand? How on earth does discriminating against gay people protect a family? It’s aburd.
I agree with Bonnie and Evan. No on 8.
I am heterosexual woman who has been married (only once, mind you) to the same man for 20 years. Why would I care if someone of the same gender wants to marry? As long as they are happy and it’s consentual, who cares? I would not want to deny love, and I believe that God would not either.
I am more apalled by straight people who get married more than once or treat their spouses like crap.
I am religious person and find it hard to stomach how so many people who claim to be religious spew hate. Anyway, if God did not approve, isn’t he the final judge?
Mind your own business, look in the mirror, and stop worrying about everyone else.
All told, it is sad that this is even on the ballot. 25 million dollars could have been put to such better use. I believe that God would rather you have put that money to something more useful, instead of perpetuating hate because of your own issues.
All told, this is a shame. All this money and hate for someone to express love.
I BELIEVE THE REASON WE ARE IN THIS DEPRESSION IS BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO LIVES THE GAY LIFESTYLE FORGOT ABOUT GOD AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE HURTING MORE THAN EVER BECAUSE OF GAY PEOPLE BEING IN OFFICE NOW AND OVERRIDING LAWS. MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN! SO THEY CAN LIVE THEIR LIFE STYLE THEY WAY THAT THEY CHOOSE TO BUT DO NOT INCLUDE THE WORLD TO JOIN YOU AND THAT IS WHY GOD IS MAKING US GO THRU THIS BECAUSE NO ONE HAS TRIED TO PUT A STOP TO IT SO WE ARE ALL NOW HURTING BECAUSE OF GAY PEOPLE IN OFFICE TRYING TO OVERPASS ALL THIS MESS.
Audiodude is a disgrace. Please do not procreate anymore…..
If you knew anything about the Mormons you would know hate and discriminination are far from what they stand for and going to the source to find out for yourself would prove it.
Prop 8 will not take away any civil rights, liberties or benefits. Supporters of Yes on Prop 8 simply want to preserve the fundamental definition of marriage as it has been from the beginning of time - between a man and a woman. This does not withhold anything civil liberties from same sex couples.
I don’t understand why that is so hard to understand.
Nice to see all of the usual ignorant bigots from the OC step up and support this homophobic nonsense! Color me unsurprised!
Such stupid people on here voting yes for something that will be overturned if it passes, due to ignorant people. No one protected my parent’s marraige after getting a divorice after 43 years. You never hear about gays in the news raping kids or anything like that. Churches are hypacrites and should seperate church and state, which they don’t . What stupip people on here to promote you views of hate and ignorance!
NO ON 8 NO ON 8 NO ON 8!!!
You are wrong Jenifer. It does indeed take away civil liberties from gay people.
VOTE NO ON 8!
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege and we do have the responsibility of deciding who should participate.
Marriage is primarily for the protection and development of children. The family unit is the corner stone of any society. When it is attacked as it has been through divorce and out of wedlock births, society suffers and our society has suffered.
A child is best served by two parents. Because so many have screwed this up does not mean other models will be better — at best they will be just as bad. We need to aim higher.
Scott, with all respect and pure interest in your point of view - what civil liberties does it take away? The Proposition simply defines marriage between a man and a woman but does not withdraw any rights from any groups.
Yes on Prop 8
Why are we continuously talking about Europe? Go live there if you would like a more liberal society. May I remind you that they just recently accepted Shari’ah (the sacred) law. This is the sacred law of Islam!! Prop 8 will not change anything currently in place in California. You are foolish to believe that this will not be taught in schools. While I believe no one should be stripped of their civil rights, I do not want my children being taught something that belongs behind close doors. Much like I do not want my children being taught that the neighbors are swingers.
Fact: Up until 1948 California banned interracial marriage. People at that time were saying the same things: marriage needs to be protected, interracial marriage is unnatural, downfall of society, etc.
Look at how ludricrous and ignorant that viewpoint seems now.
Fact: California law prohibits teaching children health and family issues against the will of their parents.
If you don’t like what schools are teaching your children, you can do something about it.
Fact: This is not a moral issue but a constitutional rights issue. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle doesn’t mean you can take away their inherit rights.
California’s Supreme Court already overturned the ban on gay marriage.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8 it’s a Christ like vote!
Hate is not a family value!
This we all know in our hearts.
The sanctity of marriage in your churches will not change if gays are allowed to marry. By voting yes, you are voting on a civil issue. Please leave your religious views out of other peoples’ lives.
People like you would have voted against the civil rights legislation back in the 60’s proclaiming religious views too. It was up to the courts and not popular view that got the civil rights laws to be a part of our society.
Prop 8 reminds me alot of the Jim Crow laws of the south.
I still don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand. If you really want to protect marriage, why aren’t you all against divorce????
And it does take away a civil right. Right now, gay people have the right to get married. You want to take that right away. Get it?
Slavery was abolished, women were given the right to vote and inter-racial marriage is now legal. I am sure you’d like to take those rights away too?
When you define “marriage,” there will always be groups left out. Supporting a definition of marriage that is limited to 1 man and 1 woman does not mean you are a hate-mongering bigot even though that definition does exclude same-sex couples. But if you expand the definition of marriage to eliminate the gender restriction (to allow same-sex marriage), you are still keeping certain other limitations. We still limit the number of partners, the degree of relationship (i.e. siblings and first cousins), and age. If we exclude minors and keep the discussion at loving adult relationships, are opponents of Prop. 8 who would still limit the number of marriage partners or the degree of relationship hateful bigots too? If not, can you concede that it is possible to oppose same sex marriage and also not be motivated by hate or fear?
Marriage, at is heart, is a social construct given legal recognition in order to promote relationships that society deems to be beneficial — i.e., families. Of course there are many individual variants from the “ideal,” but we are talking about broad social policies and cumulative effects. I, and others who support Prop. 8, believe that promoting a “traditional” definition of marriage has the best cumulative effects for our children and society at large.
Scott you are a moron. we voted against you rainbows and the idiot judges ignored our votes and let you marry temporarily.
Slavery was abolished by that Nancy boy Lincoln and now look at who might be President.
Summation look at what you rainbows have given us?
Adolph,
Your words have changed me. I shall now vote for prop 8.
Brad Pitt gave $100,000, not $10,000.
Jennifer,
Are you defending Mormons or Muslims? I’m sure there are many wonderful followers of both religions, but they both believe strongly that laws should be based on their religious beliefs.
As for this nonsense about it being taught in the schools, and it being illegal for you to do anything about it, so what? They also teach that women and black people can become doctors and run for president, and you can’t stop them from teaching that even if you don’t agree with it.
In a democracy, the rights of minorities often must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Scott and “Reverend” Steve:
If the Supreme Court allowed people to legally wed their dogs and cats, would that be OK with you too?
nice
Hollywood is against Prop 8 because that industry is one of the few (or only) where being openly gay is comfortable and acceptable,and has been for years. Entertainment industry and media have been very “progressive” in this regard. Many Hollywood big wigs wouldn’t dare take an anti-gay stance — the people they answer to, or finance their projects, are likely gay. Sounds like a great reason to take a certain political stance.
The anti- Prop 8 people have labeled those for Prop 8 as “homophobic”, “bigoted”, “puritanical” etc. etc. We, however, in favor of Prop 8 must be very careful about “labels”. Homosexuality (the real term for this condition, not “gay”) should be tolerated, protected in our society but it should not be PROMOTED. Yes on 8, the gays will survive.
Please vote NO on Prop 8!
In church, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Outside of church, marriage is a legal contract and has nothing to do with religion.
Remember separation of church and state. I do not want others to impose their religious beliefs on me. If two men marry, how does it harm me? I still have not heard an answer that makes any sense.
By the way, I am a straight married female with two children and I do not believe that gay marriage will hurt what we have as a family.
Thank you! PLEASE VOTE NO!
I do not understand why people are trying to preach hatred. If there was a proposition to remove all Mexicans from California and it passed does this mean we should remove all the Mexicans because it is the will of the people? This propostition is all about prejudice and hatred. If everyone just lived by treated everyone how they want to be treated the world would be a wonderful place. Instead we have Mormons and Caltholics teaching hatred. If God believes homosexuality is wrong, let God deal with it. Sham all anyone who supports this proposition. I have wonderful friends who are gay and the thought that there are people out there who believe they are evil is just beyond belief. I believe in God but more and more I am against organized religion!
I am in a dilemma- I am madly in love with two people, which happens to be a male and a female. When is there going to be a law that allows me to marry the two people that I love? You can’t ignore the people who are in love with two people either, thats discriminating my rights as a human being. People who are voting no on prop 8 are saying that people who love each other regardless of their gender should be allowed to marry, well when am I going to have my turn? If we are altering the term “marriage” then why not throw in people who are in polygamy? I want my rights! I’m being violated!!! After I am allowed to marry my two lovers I am thinking about fighting for the right to marry my brother, possibly my sister…. stay tuned
I understand that some of you don’t want to be told what to do by movie stars. That’s fine.
I don’t want to be told what to do by your bronze age sky god.
Ok?
No on 8!
Scott:
If the Supreme Court allowed people to legally wed their dogs and cats, would that be OK with you too? Where, if at all, would YOU draw the line?
Wow Jason - nice comment…..though I don’t understand its relevancy. This country was based on God and religious beliefs from the beginning. Study your American history to understand the spirit in which this country was founded and those that gave their lives so you can have rights and even express your opinions. I’m sure they are tossing in their graves.
Jason:
You cannot “choose” your gender or race. You can control your sexual behavior. Next red herring?
If prop 8 passes what prevents 3 or 4 more clowns in black robes to strike down the prop as ‘unconstitutional’? if history repeats itself it is inevitable. the practice is becoming routine. legislating from the bench has been in vogue since the 90’s. your vote has been eroded to such a point that it is practically meaningless. but at least you will be able to gather with your neighbors at the polling station and share a cup of tea. not a total loss.
Both sides — stop the name calling. It doesn’t help the arguments one bit. Accusing supporters of Prop. 8 of being homophobic bigots, or telling opponents of Prop. 8 that they are going to burn in Hell is inflammatory nonsense.
Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality or gay marriage, Proposition 8 is about one thing and one thing only: Are you as a californian WILLING TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION for the sole purpose of DISCRIMINATING against a select group of individuals? Think carefully before you answer. Today it’s just discrimination against someone you don’t personally like. Tomorrow it could be you. This violates everything we believe in as americans. The fact that it is even on the ballot in this day and age shocks and disturbs me. What’s next? Repeal interracial marriage? Only people of a certain religion can marry? Maybe we should remove the right to vote for gays - and take back that right from african americans and women while were at it. It’s the same mentality. Shame on anyone who would vote yes on this vile proposition.
ocobserver:
They can try, but it’s hard to declare a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment “unconstitutional”. We could always remove them from the bench too.
I agree ocobserver these idiots in black robes did some stupid moves like in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans. The integration of black kids in our schools! Preposterous! They need to go with the right of the majority!
For those of you who are voting yes on prop 8 due to religious beliefs… now aren’t you not suppose to judge? I mean isn’t that God’s job? So I ask… why are you judging? I mean you are suppose to love and care about your fellow man and let God be the judge on whether they lived the right kind of life. So wouldn’t that make you hypocrites to a religion you put so much faith into? Just a thought.
after posting my comment above, about Adolph’s contribution to this discussion, I realized there was another “Jason” out there. While I do agree with the other Jason, I wanted to differentiate myself.
Let me add to the discussion on the “choice” of being gay. I have known plenty of gay men AND women. To them, it is not a choice. Do you really think a high school child would “choose” to put his life at risk by “choosing” to be gay in a world filled with bigots like yourselves? Do you really think that someone would “choose” to put up with the ignorant rantings of intolerant religious fanatics like yourselves? Get real.
All those absurd comments about “marrying dogs and cats” is a complete fallacy in logic. Google “Non Sequitur.”
Right now there is no constitutional definition of marriage or laws banning humans from marrying cats or dogs. So where are all the people carrying Fido or Kitty to the altar?
Heterosexual people do all sorts of kinky things in the privacy of their bedroom and society hasn’t gone to hell. And if you’re one of the Yes-On-Prop8 people that don’t do these kinky things, then maybe that’s why your marriage is so shaky that it needs “protecting.”
JakeD… unless the STATE constitutional amendment violates the FEDERAL constitution, which it clearly would.
http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/petition.php
JakeD…
I am really enjoying reading your comments, good stuff. Completely brainless, but entertaining nonetheless. Marriage is a contract, you draw the line at capacity. Minors cannot get married without their parents’ consent because minors do not have the capacity to enter into a contract. A dog or cat (I cannot believe I have to explain this) cannot sign a contract, therefore, you cannot enter into a marriage contract with a dog, cat, wombat, bicycle, or any other ridiculous hypothetical you may attempt to throw out.
There is a hugh difference between two CONCENTING ADULTS and the myopic believers who try and equate gay marriage with necrophylia or bestiality. If three adult people what to marry and they not cause a montary burden on the people why should I care? Or are the mormons against gay marraige jsut becasue the will of the people stoped misoginistic men from marrying multiple wives?
Open Minded and JasonP:
How about polygamy or incest among consenting adult humans?
Misty:
I am not “judging” whether you are going to Heaven — that is certainly up to God alone — the Bible does say “The Righteous Man JUDGES all Things” including wrong behaviors. Are you saying we shouldn’t have any criminal laws. because that’s “judging” too.
Jessica:
What about three HUNDRED adults marrying each other(s)?
JakeD…
I was hoping you would respond to our comments with an answer, rather than another question, but I guess I cannot expect you to support the unsupportable.
What about polygamy? In many cultures it is perfectly normal. Why, the most ardent supporters of Prop 8 used to practice the hell out of it, and some still do.
With that aside, your question is flawed. Polygamy and Incest between consenting adults are acts which are banned for EVERYBODY. What prop 8 is trying to do, is take an act, and ban a specific group of people from doing it.
Wow, I’ve never seen so many terrified people in my life.
Save the children? Protect marriage?
Oh my stars and garters…the GAYS are coming to get us! To taint us with their sinful lifestyles and - GASP! - maybe turn my children gay!
Every passionate supporter of Prop 8 reminds me of the mom in the movie Carrie. You probably lock your children in the closet and read them scripture through the cracks. You are the exact same people who fled to the suburbs to escape the Blacks and built bomb shelters to protect you from the Russians.
It’s so ironic to see a group of people who think of themselves as “strong Americans” expose themselves as a hilariously huge bunch of wimps.
Grow a pair, America.
Oh, and to all the parents of young children who support Prop 8: your kids are totally going to be gay.
Prop 8 is wrong. It is wrong to eliminate the rights of others. The religious extremists supporting prop 8 are no better than the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. If people are not exactly like them, they attack.
Californians are better than this. Vote NO on Prop 8.
what is wrong with you people? All of you who are against gay marriage..what have gays ever done to you personally? Nothing I’m sure. Just because you’re straight doesn’t make you a better person. (being a hetero myself). Quit being so prejudice against others and let people live their lives the way they want to. They’re not hurting anyone. Straight people get AIDS and STDS and have unprotected sex too you know.
Does anyone have a basis that supports Prop 8 that ISN’T religious-based? Keep religion out of politics!
If you allow gays to get married. You should allow people to marry more than one person, add to that dogs, cats, rocks, cars, or anything else for that matter.
jaked,
thanks for providing the recall ron george link. i’m on board!
Blue:
You don’t believe in Heaven and Hell?
Kimberly:
Shame on you for equating sexual deviance with race or gender. The U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based on that, not homosexual behavior. No State can “repeal interracial marriage” nor “the right to vote for women”. Next canard?
Evan said:
Does anyone have a basis that supports Prop 8 that ISN’T religious-based? Keep religion out of politics!
Um yeah, it’s disgusting. All you Prop 8 supporters should all be thrown on an island and have at it….
JasonP:
What was your question (people keep popping up as the OCRegister allows them to post)?
NoOnProp8 and Evan:
If everyone was in a homosexual marriage, civilization would cease to exist. That’s a “secular” reason right there.
ocobserver:
You’re welcome. i wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a recall petition circulating for all FIVE California Supreme Court Justices who voted for this decision. It worked to stop Rose Bird ; )
Brad Pitt donated “$100,00″? I didn’t realize that he was so powerful that he could invent a number.
There is no God, there was no Adam and Eve and they certainly did not populate the planet. There was no Noah and he didn’t live to 900 years old. you people that believe this stuff are freaking retarded.
If you want to protect marriage, eliminate divorce and the “Who wants to marry a ” game shows.
Remember one thing about the religious. They are racists who believe in slavery, they believe women are worth half a man, they believe disabled people can’t go to church, and if you don’t think like they do, they will wish you to a place filled with demons and fire, or they will kill you.
JakeD…
If Blue doesn’t believe in heaven and hell, are you going to amend the constitution to force that belief on him?
And as for your attack on Kimberly, if the US Constitution (of which you are now, surprisingly, quite a scholar compared to your previous comments) did not prohibit discrimination based on race or gender, would you be as tolerant of those groups as you claim to be? The US constitution was AMENDED to prohibit racial and gender discrimination. I’m sure when it was, there were people, very much like you, who made the argument that “the founding fathers had no such intention of providing equality to coloreds and women folk, for they specifically said all MEN are created equal, and them negroes are only 2/3 of a person.”
mtrain makes a great point….. now the ads and rhetoric on TV and radio want you to believe our kids wouldn’t be forced to learn (or at the very least hear about) this “wonderful”, confusing behavior. ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT? heck no. the indoctrination has already started in at least one school / district as evidenced by that article about the gay teacher up north and her publically funded field trip to get married with her class.
YES YES YES on 8
Johnadams:
I don;t have to resort to “religion” to justify my vote. I gave just one “secular” basis for outlawing homosexual marriage above. There’s plenty more where that came from.
JasonP:
No. Yes. Which “previous comment” of mine was not “scholarly”?
Nice to see that everyone agrees on this issue.
Seriously, this is democracy in action, and is what our form of government was always intended to be. If any lessons should be taught in school, it is this example of our decision-making process, NOT a decision that some “judges” make. And, when this is decided in November, it should be the end of the discussion for both sides.
bpsqwerty:
Have you noticed a marked difference in the appearance and quality of protestors against Prop. 8 vs. proponents out on the street corners lately?
JakeD said “If everyone was in a homosexual marriage, civilization would cease to exist. That’s a “secular” reason right there. ”
Seriously! That’s your best non-religious reason for voting amending the state constitution to define marriage as to being between a man and woman only?
That’s like saying women shouldn’t have been given the vote, because only women would vote.
Anyone that thinks that kids will be taught in school ANYTHING about marriage must not have kids. Do you really think that telling a child who is born straight that they have the option to marry the same sex that will TURN them gay!?!?! Really!?!?! Grow up already. There was a time when women could not vote, blacks sat in the back of the bus and were slaves, lets hope that there will be a day that we can say “can you believe that there was a day that people who G0D created that did not have the same rights as others that G0D created”. If we were all as tolerate and understanding as our kids already are we would not be in this mess. Kids don’t hate gay people until their parents teach them to! Maybe the church’s should focus their money on teaching tolerance and helping the poor instead of pointing fingers at others and saying they are not equal to us. I do believe G0d said love thy neighbor, he did not say love thy neighbor as long as they are the same as you in every way! You people who hide your hatred for others behind your bible make me sick! Its ok to hate as long as you have a bible in your hand! I must have missed that part! All this and I am not even gay, go figure!
Irving:
If Prop. 8 fails, democracy will continue. And, I am going to contribute to the recall petition on those California Supreme Court Justices.
Jake D… the comment about a state constitutional amendment not being able to be held unconstitutional.
JasonP:
Actually, that’s NOTHING like saying “women shouldn’t have been given the vote, because only women would vote.” Obviously, men would still be voting. END OF THE HUMAN CIVILIZATION, however, seems like a fairly important reason (to me, at least). As always, YMMV.
JakeD,
You bring up a good point, but 99.9% of religious people out there are far from righteous. Furthermore, comparing criminal acts such as murder to gay marriage is ridiculous.
Why do I feel so strongly to vote no against 8? Because I have a gay uncle and a gay cousin and I don’t want some person saying no they can not marry the person they truly love and have the same rights as I do in a marriage. They are not hurting you or me, they are not personally attacking anyone, they are just trying to live life in a peaceful manner.
Times are changing, and its about time we open our eyes and move on from having such closed minds. Being hateful won’t get us anywhere.
Yes on Prop 8. There are already domestic partnerships for gay couples that is sufficient. CA voters have already voted on this in the past and now we are having to vote again. Homosexuality is not a right and it is not like your race which you have no control over. Saying that gay people cannot be married is not racism or bigotry it is simply common sense and keeping things as they have always been in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. Again, they have the ability to make medical decisions and inherit property within a domestic partnership. What this proposition is about is indoctrinating our children at a young age that a homosexual relationship is a viable option for their future life. This will be taught in schools and if it passes I may be forced to homeschool my children since I don’t think that this is something that needs to be taught to a 7 year old. Perhaps those free thinking Hollywood types are thinking that if more people become gay they will shrink our population and extend the life of planet earth, I am not sure but these are crazy times we live in when what is right is being called wrong and what is wrong is being called right. Schools can’t give your child an Aspirin without your permission but they can sneak your teenage daughter out of class to have an Abortion which could effect her future fertility or even cause her death from anesthetic or other complications and we are so worried about the comfort of farm animals that if Prop2 passes we will import eggs from Mexico which we know has great health standards and put CA egg farmers out of business and cost the already cash strapped consumer more money. Wake up people our country is being destroyed by nonsense. Forty years ago none of this would be considered, but that’s right back then people still believed in God.
P.S. to JasonP, keep in mind that “Kimberly” Says: ” This violates everything we believe in as americans. The fact that it is even on the ballot in this day and age shocks and disturbs me. What’s next? Repeal interracial marriage? Only people of a certain religion can marry? Maybe we should remove the right to vote for gays - and take back that right from african americans and women while were at it. It’s the same mentality. Shame on anyone who would vote yes on this vile proposition.”
I would like to marry a tree. How will Prop 8 affect me?
I think new legislation needs to be drafted for us who want to marry vegetation. My friend Gary is in love with his lawn. Equal rights!
# JakeD Says:
You cannot “choose” your gender or race. You can control your sexual behavior. Next red herring?
Jake,
you are following the line of “sexual orientation is a choice.” That has been proven wrong. Sexual orientation is programmed during the early stages of fetal brain development by hormonal influence, which can lead to people whose sexual orientation does not conform with their physical sexual characteristics. This has been known for many years and proven in experiments. It is not a red herring. Many people have committed suicide when they were not allowed to express their sexuality during the dark ages (and are today in countries that are stuck in the dark ages.)
What would you do it you were not allowed to marry the woman you love?
As a gay man, why should you have the right to prohibit me from entering a civil marriage contract with another consenting adult male?
I’m not asking your church to perform my marriage or even recognize it’s validity. But as far as our government is concerned, I insist that we all be treated EQUALLY.
So what difference should it make to you?
You certainly have the right to think of me as less than equal to you in your own mind. But you clearly do not have the right to force government to take away a piece of my humanity.
It is EXACTLY the same thing! Your attack on allowing gay men and women to marry each other, is that only gay men and women would be married, and that straight people would not procreate. Which is the exact same thing as saying that if women were allowed to vote, only women would vote!
Misty :
Until Lawrence v. Texas homosexual behavior WAS criminal. I’m sorry for your “gay uncle and gay cousin” but if we can’t tell them “no” then we can’t tell brothers and sisters they can’t marry, polygamists, etc. It’s a slippery slope. That’s not “hate” where I come from.
JakeD… Why should I be concerned with what Kimberly says? We are not the same, I have my views, she has her views, and you obviously have yours. Don’t try and attack my arguments by using those of someone else, just because we have the same goal in mind.
P.S. I forgot to mention that the root cause of homosexuality and other transgender issues is that physical sexual development and brain sexual “programming” happen at different times, so if the hormonal environment in the fetus changes they can diverge. Also the two processes rely of different hormone receptors, one/some of which can be off genetically.
Prop 8 is NOT about “hatred” nor is it “anti-gay”. Those that think it, or the arguments for it, are anti-gay are missing the fine print. It is about preserving an institution that some people (for reasons they have a right to have) hold sacred. The weakness in many anti -Prop 8 arguments is the “defensiveness” that causes them to miss this distinction.
F&E Fan:
Because, the next step is forcing employers, churches, everyone to accept your marriage. Are you saying you DON’T want a church to lose it’s tax-exempt status based on refusal to permit homosexual marriage ceremonies?
JasonP:
Re-read the hypothetical again. I didn’t say that procreation would stop. You cannot deny, however, that if everyone was in a homosexual marriage, civilization would cease to exist. Next to God striking the earth from the universe, that is just the worst case scenario. As I said, there are plenty of lesser-included “secular” reasons too.
JakeD…
Again, your attack on Misty’s argument is flawed. Incest and Polygamy are outlawed to everyone, just as murder, rape, speeding, etc.
What Prop 8 is attempting to do, is prohibit a class of persons from engaging in an act which everyone else is allowed. THAT is the problem. There is no slippery slope, allowing gays to marry will not lead to incest, polygamy, bestiality, or any of the other scary words that are floating around. Why? Because those acts are allowed to EVERYONE, not a select few.
# JakeD Says:
Until Lawrence v. Texas homosexual behavior WAS criminal. I’m sorry for your “gay uncle and gay cousin” but if we can’t tell them “no” then we can’t tell brothers and sisters they can’t marry, polygamists, etc. It’s a slippery slope. That’s not “hate” where I come from.
See? There is progress in keeping the outdated views of religious zealots out of the legal systems. Or are you saying you want to go back?
There is NO G-D people..Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with proof, dna, or a passport..
JakeD… please then, explain how civilization would cease to exist if EVERYONE were in a gay marriage instead of being married to a member of the opposite sex.
And JakeD… if there are plenty of lesser-included secular reasons, why not lay those out as well?
It amazes me to see such hate and contemp for a group of people that simply want to marry. The facts are scary when it comes to the super religious they are the biggest promoters of hate and discrimination.
What is staggering is their lack of Biblical knowledge. Majority of my friends that claim to be Christian have never read the Bible, I assure you if they have read it they certainly would not be christian any longer. The church is dieing and they know it, people are getting to intelligent to believe in bearded men hanging out in the clouds.
Facts are facts and a yes on 8 equals hate. I suggest all you bible thumpers out there get some knowledge about what you believe in find out more at evilbible dot come, you’ll be amazed at what you don’t know.
Irving Says:
Prop 8 is NOT about “hatred” nor is it “anti-gay”. Those that think it, or the arguments for it, are anti-gay are missing the fine print. It is about preserving an institution that some people (for reasons they have a right to have) hold sacred.
I don’t think “sacred” is a legal term these days. Ever heard of separation between church and state?
This is the root cause of the whole discussion. Radical theists think that homosexuality is “bad.” Secular people say “I don’t care.”
End of argument.
Maybe that was some different “JasonP” at 11:11 am who cited to my “attack on Kimberly”? I just wanted the record straight as to who “attacked” whom first.
Before anyone jumps on the typo in my 11:31 post, the last sentence was supposed to read: “Because those acts are prohibited to EVERYONE, not a select few.”
JasonP,
Well said! It seems like JakeD really can’t provide a good argument, just attacks.
The would would NEVER cease to exist if everyone was in a gay marriage. People in a gay marriage not only adopt children, but also have their own biological children of their own. So therefore we would still populate the earth even if we were all gay. End to that argument.
Correction in my last post
*the WORLD would NEVER ….
Sorry about that
Yes, that was me, and if you will look at the message I was responding to, you will see that you wrote
“Shame on you for equating sexual deviance with race or gender. The U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based on that, not homosexual behavior. No State can “repeal interracial marriage” nor “the right to vote for women”. Next canard?”
My message was in response to this quote, not anything that Kimberly said. Seriously… can you stick to the arguments at hand, or are you going to keep trying co confuse the issue with silly comments like who said what when and how?
It’s amazing that people even want to support a measure that enforces bigotry. No church (or church goer) should support treating people differently regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, gender, or for any other reason you can think of. Same sex marriage already exists - so if you voted NO on prop 8 nothing would change! marriage of any kind isn’t “taught” in schools. your church will NOT lose tax exempt status - they are lying to you about that ruling. READ the details and make an INFORMED decision. I know that’s a new concept for most people…but trust me, you can do it. Stop being SHEEPLE!
This is so stupid. Why would gay marriage be a subject taught in school and if it is, then BE A THE PARENT and teach your kids what you think is right and don’t leave all that to the teachers! You want to blame others for your kids turning out a certain way and they are a reflection of the PARENTS. FYI, if you teach your child to be loving and tolerant, then Prop. 8 wouldn’t matter. Do we really need more angry and judgemental people walking around in our world? It sounds like that is what you want to create.
Can a gay man marry a transvestite woman (er, man)? How about if the man goes all the way and becomes a trans-sexual? Or, how about if a lesbian marrys a gay man, but they don’t know it at the time, can they get divorced when each finds out about the other? How about if a lesbian marrys a transexual man (er, woman). is that OK?
Honk if you long for the good ol’ days.
JakeD: LIFE is a slippery slope.
There will always be shades of gray and tough decisions to make. You don’t do a wholesale elimination of a minority group’s civil rights because you’re too lazy to use your brain from time to time.
Will there be other issues that come up because of legalized gay marriage? Probably. But every civil right that has EVER been granted has led to follow-up issues. That’s called progress. And it’s messy and confusing and sometimes a huge hassle. You can either roll with it and mature along the way or you can be a baby and fight it.
You know that gay marriage will eventually be legal, don’t you? Sometimes it takes a war (slavery) and sometimes it just takes a lot of squeaky wheels over a long period of time (women’s suffrage), but civil rights, tolerance, and even acceptance will always prevail in the end. You can delay it - which is all you’re doing - or you can evolve.
Time to move on, my friend.
A perversion, plain and simple. Fact is fact. In nature, this doesnt work, why would we consider ourselves above natrural law? We dont endorse perversion. We already voted. What was our vote worth? You dont hear about gay peversion because the liberal media (run by homsexuals) cannot run that story. You have to read the crime reports here in the register, or go the crime blogs to hear about that. I didnt vote to make drunk driving legal either. Hate the sin (homosexuality) love the sinner. Gay Man/Woman, (child of God). I love all God’s creatures, but I will defend what is right. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I would do the same to a group of Gay bashing skinheads. I dont hate gays, I hate the perversion. So, you are all ok with Gay marriage taught in our schools since first grade curriculum consists of marriage education in California. I wouldnt ask the state to endorse my freaky night time habits!
No on 8… We should make a prop to ban marriages in general. Its a failed institution.. and its not the 1950’s anymore….
“People in a gay marriage not only adopt children, but also have their own biological children of their own”
ok, we all know you are “mentally challenged” now. So you say that gay couples will get “straight” for a minute to produce a fledgling. this gets worse by the second.
JakeD… We’re all on the edge of our seats, waiting to hear your myriad non-religious arguments in favor of Prop 8. Maybe you need more time to Google and see if there are any?
It is o.k. for voters to base their decision on moral grounds. Many of our laws are based on moral values — our whole criminal justice system, consumer protection laws, family and probate legal systems, etc. all contain “moral” elements that are influenced on our collective views of “right” and “wrong.” Claiming that the Yes on 8 crowd is trying to shove religion down people’s throats, or that it is somehow violating separation of church and state principles is totally false. Marriage is one of these areas where our definition is a subjective value-based one. Unless we are going to jettison the definition completely and just allow anybody to marry anybody — regardless of gender, number of partners, etc. — we have to draw the definitional line somewhere. I am voting YES on 8 because I believe that traditional marriage is a fundamental building block of our society that cumulatively provides the maximum benefit for our children and communities.
JasonP:
Not marrying someone of the opposite sex was not “allowed” for everyone too (once upon a time). The same ARGUMENTS you are making will be made by the next “specifal rights” group. As for my hypothetical: Society requires a minimum reproduction rate (Populationt + 1 = Populationt + Naturalincreaset + Netmigrationt ) just to maintain a constant population. If everyone were in a homosexual marriage — accounting for immigration and emmigration, the reproduction rate would be no where near that level (even with IVF, adultery, etc.). I already admitted this was the worst case (secular) scenario. Did you ever see that movie where everyone in the world stopped getting pregnant?
As for the emotional and physical damage homosexual behavior wrecks on individuals, families, and society at large, those are all “secular” reasons too.
**So-called Christians seem to be incapable of keeping their noses out of other people’s business. They insist that even though you don’t believe in their nonsense, you must follow the rules they “think” their God has made. I think their God said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” So all you homosexuals out there who are considering marriage to another homosexual “Don’t be messing with those heterosexual marriages, ya hear?”
JasonP (and Misty):
Sorry I did not post fast enough for you. I did have to look up the minimum reproduction rate (as I haven’t yet memorized that). Next canard?
Blue…
You focus solely on the arguments regarding religion coming from the no on prop 8 camp. The bottom line is that prop 8 perpetuates discrimination. From what I am reading on this board however, it appears that none of the prop 8 proponents believe that homosexuals are worthy of equal protection.
And again, you put forth the “where do we draw the line” argument, and bring up polygamy in your slippery slope scenario. Again, for at least the third time. Polygamy is banned for EVERYONE, prop 8 would ban a select class of persons from engaging in an act that is otherwise open to everyone else.
I think at the heart of the debate is this one question:
Should marriage be defined based on biology or behavior? And why?
The biological definition is the union of a man and a woman with the potential to create children. (Note that the institution has the potential to create children, not necessarily every couple.)
The behavioral definition is the union of two people who love each other and want to commit.
In answering the question, I would consider two more:
Why do you think that for thousands of years the definition has been based biologically?
What justifies the transition from a biological definition to a behavioral definition?
Nice try comparing 8 to slavery. I’m offended. But nice try. Please stop the hate and bigotry against traditionalists: people just trying to live their lives and raise their children in a place where they don’t have to learn about gay sex. Yes on 8!
Zeno:
Thanks for proving we are, indeed, on that slippery slope.
J. Brown:
“Thou Shalt Not Murder” is also in the Bible. You want to get rid of that law too?
JasonP:
“Homosexuals” have the same, exact equal protection rights I have (I can’t marry someone from the opposite sex either)
JakeD… You cannot possibly believe (although I shouldn’t give you this much credit) that by simply allowing gays to marry, that the only marriages from here on out will be gay marriages, can you? Can you look someone in the eye, and with a straight face, say that if gays can marry each other, that no heterosexuals will ever marry again? Or that heterosexual marriage will become so obscure that the reproduction rates will drop below your critical levels? Seriously? Because if that is the type of logic you are employing in your arguments, then I don’t think I can win this argument.
I have yet to hear a cogent response to the question of why it is not o.k. to put a gender limitation on marriage, but that it is o.k. to limit marriage to 2 partners. The purpose of my question is not to say that polygamy should be legalized, but rather to explore the question of why some limitations on “marriage” are o.k., while others are not. Human sexuality is a complex thing, and the gay-straight dichotomy is not nearly as black and white as people on both sides of this debate seem to think. Should individuals be allowed to tailor a “marriage” to suit their personal sexual preferences? And for this question, I will assume we are talking about consenting adults who are in loving sexual relationships that deviate from the current standard who can be married (straight or gay couples not related beyond the first degree of relationship). Why is it o.k. to limit those persons’ so-called “rights” to marry whom they choose, but it is not o.k. to limit a same-sex couples right to marry each other? These are not red herring questions — they go right to the heart of the debate about why it is or is not o.k. to limit marriage to any particular definition.
Hurry up! You aren’t posting fast enough ; )
I said that’s the WORST case scenario.
Someone earlier mentioned about the separation of church and state. This country was founded on the morality of God fearing and God loving people. Look at our currency, it all says “In God We Trust”. Let’s follow that guidance.
And, I don’t think you can win this argument either (at least we agree on soemthing).
Jake D,
“Thou Shalt Not Murder” is also in the Bible. You want to get rid of that law too?
… Seriously? You are going to go forward and compare MURDER with gay marriage? There is something seriously wrong with that. I think at this point think you need to take a good long look at yourself and who you are as a person.
And with that I am done talking to Jake D… I am shocked.
JakeD… I’m pretty sure that cultures that do not follow, or that have never even heard of the bible, have pretty strict laws against killing people. The Bible is not the end all be all of natural law.
Does the Dalai Lama advocate killing people simply because his holy book does not begin with “In the beginning?”
JasonP states: “Polygamy is banned for EVERYONE”
That same argument applies to Prop. 8. Same sex marriage would be banned for EVERYONE. Currently, marriage is defined in such a way that it includes a numerical limitation on numbers of partners. It also used to include a limitation on the genders of those partners. One of those limitations was struck down by the Court; one of those limitations remains. Why the one, but not the other?
JasonP:
Did you ever see that movie where everyone in the world stopped getting pregnant and all children died by age 13?
to all of the people who support this bull. If homosexuality is a religion this would be a different story. If california bring this up, where’s the freedom in that? protect marriage? I believe it’s just a cover up to those that are discriminating against homosexuals.
I support the proposition but I have no problem with same sex marriage -do what you want. To each his own, I don’t care. We ruined the definition of marriage with the airing of “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire” several years back anyway. Problem is, it opens up or forces other funky and alternative marriages (use your imagination). The state shouldn’t even recognize marriage. Why people get hung up on state recognition, I don’t know. What good does it do to get a state marriage license anyway? Domestic partnerships are recognized and if marriage is sacred, it should be left up to your church/faith. I support the prop because I don’t like living in a facist state, being forced to accept something.
Ralf:
I am, indeed, saying I want to “go back”. I also want Roe v. Wade overturned.
Misty:
So much for “JakeD really can’t provide a good argument, just attacks.” Have a nice day.
Wow, I’ve never seen so many terrified people in my life.
Save the children? Protect marriage?
Oh my stars and garters…the GAYS are coming to get us! To taint us with their sinful lifestyles and - GASP! - maybe turn my children gay!
Every passionate supporter of Prop 8 reminds me of the mom in the movie Carrie. You probably lock your children in the closet and read them scripture through the cracks. You are the exact same people who fled to the suburbs to escape the Blacks and built bomb shelters to protect you from the Russians.
It’s so ironic to see a group of people who think of themselves as “strong Americans” expose themselves as a hilariously huge bunch of wimps.
Grow a pair, America.
Oh, and to all the parents of young children who support Prop 8: your kids are totally going to be gay.
To those that put “god” into this, god also said he create the world. god said many things i don’t see god strike me dead when i pray to the flying spaghetti monster. If you put god into this, you might as well saying the earth was made 10,000 years ago.
We should just get rid of marriage and stick to contracts.
Hilary McLean, a spokeswoman for state Superintendent Jack O’Connell, said the decision to teach gay marriage lies with local communities and school boards.
“Schools are not required to talk about marriage at all,” McLean said. “It’s up to local school districts to decide.”
The state Education Code will be unaffected by passage or failure of Prop. 8.
The code only instructs schools to “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” as part of health and sex education curriculum. The code allows districts to decide against teaching health and sex education, and allows parents to pull their children from those classes or others dealing with sensitive subject matters.
So now that your “protect our poor kids theory is out” what else do you have?
mojo:
Beware of the mysterious power of “Threven”!
Blue. Thank you for lending a reasonable voice to the Pro 8 crowd, I appreciate your comments, which are well thought out and actually have some semblance to logical construction, unlike others on this board.
With that said, the difference between placing gender limitations on marriage, and placing other limitations such as number of spouses, on marriage, is this. I believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality is not a choice, any more than being left handed or right handed. That, to me, is why we should not say to a group of people that, yes, you can live together and have all the same “benefits” as heterosexual couples, but you just can’t get married, because your lifestyle does not fit with my perception of “normal” or “traditional.”
That, to me, is discrimination. If someone can show me, or lead me to otherwise believe, that someone is biologically wired to require multiple spouses, then maybe we can call the ban on polygamy discriminatory too. Ultimately, this does boil down to religion. In certain religions, it is expected that a man will have multiple wives. In others, it is not. Is that right or wrong, who am I to judge? But when we pride ourselves, as a nation, that people here are free from persecution for their beliefs, and are “free,” then who are we to tell a class of persons that they can’t play the same game as the rest of us, because they were born different? I’m sure this comment will draw all sorts of nature vs. nurture comments, but so be it.
there are so many religious freaks in the world. the homosexuals people should consider it a religious belief. Then their problems are over. What happen to the people who have multiple wives, WOW marriage values are not in trouble? Please, i heard enough of bull to believe that this is more of discrimination. god is feeding you bull and now your feeding it to the public
JakeD…
I can’t believe you are still on this end of civilization kick! Aside from your doomsday scenario, that you once saw in a movie, where nobody got pregnant, can you provide a serious argument, not based on religion, against allowing gays to marry each other? Or do you seriously believe that once gays are allowed to call civil unions marriages, that everyone will magically turn gay and stop having babies?
for those of you who say that they choose to be gay, when exactly did you choose not to be? When did you find yourself falling for someone of the same sex and then say “no wait, I made the choice not to be gay so i must walk away from these feelings” Seriously, think about that for a minute!
Brad Pitt tells us how to live yet he dosen’t keep his marriage vows. So now he wants to define marriage for us and tell us whats right for us
Denny:
What part of “teaching respect for [homosexual] marriage” don’t you understand?
Tom Parker:
Did you ever see that movie where everyone in the world stopped getting pregnant and all children died by age 13?
lol what marriage has anything to do with the world ending because no one procreate? I just saw someone posted that. Let’s just say ban is in effect. If they are homosexuals, they will still have “sex” with their own genders. By banning same sex marriage it will stop the epidemic of homosexuality, no way.
Denny:
If we are all “A” from birth, we don’t “choose” that. You seem to have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Please don;t even try to read my worst-case scenario posts. Try this one:
Do murderers and [heterosexual] child molesters not CHOOSE that behavior?
Yes I am tired of these hollywood larger than life folks thinking they know whats best for society. I
JakeD…
So being gay is being the same thing as a murderer or a child molester?
I think the funny thing is all of the people who support Prop. 8 are probably closeted homosexuals or married to them. It’s staggering the number of married men who are cheating on their wives with other men. Complete hypocrites.
That being totally off point - this government was founded on the tenants of separation of church and state and so many viewpoints in favor of Prop. 8 are spewing Bible references. Gay marraige is not something that I would choose, but who am I to say that it shouldn’t be a choice? A lot of people say that domestic partnerships are good enough, which is smacking of the “separate but equal” mindset of segregationists.
I also don’t remember learning about marriage in school - I must have missed that week.
Tom Parker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men
JasonP:
No. Care to answer MY question now?
Jake D what part of “The code allows districts to decide against teaching health and sex education, and allows parents to pull their children from those classes or others dealing with sensitive subject matters”
Kids should respect “everyone” and if they were taught that by their parents (gay or not) we would not have this problem to begin with. Kids are not born to hate, WE TEACH THEM TO HATE!
JakeD Says:
I am, indeed, saying I want to “go back”. I also want Roe v. Wade overturned.
How far? 50 years? 100 years? 2000 years?
This is one of the problems here. People are often unable to change their viewpoints. As a result, it takes until a generation dies to move on.
This is the same in science, interestingly enough. It took a generation of physicists to die out until Einstein was taken seriously and accepted across the board. It’s the same with moral views. Racism, slavery and all that were all well argued on moral grounds. Morals are relative, they change over time, and this applies to religious people too. They’re just slower to change. Even Catholic church doctrine accepts evolution now. Some day they’ll accept that homosexuality is a natural variant of behavior. Scientists and secular people have made that step long ago.
I would love to, even though you have not shown the same courtesy in response to most of my questions. Before I can answer your question though, you have to clear something up for me.
You have just admitted to me that being gay is not the same as being a murderer or child molester. Therefore, how can you say that since murderers and child molesters “choose” to murder and molest, gays must certainly “choose” to be gay? I don’t see the connection there.
Am I supposed to “respect” abortionists too? If Strom Thurmond had been elected President, we would not have these problems either. So?
Do murderers and [heterosexual] child molesters not CHOOSE that behavior?
Seriously? You are REALLY saying this? I wish you would be the spokesperson for YES, NO would win in a landslide!
Ralf:
43 years.
JasonP:
I answered EVERY question you asked, up until you stopped answering mine. Why do I have to “clear up” anything before you can answer whether you saw the movie “Children of Men”?
JakeD…
So, in your support for limiting marriage to only men and women, you have thrown out bestiality, incest, polygamy, child molestation, murder, and now abortion.
How do ANY of these things have ANY bearing, whatsoever, on defining marriage as being between a man and woman only?
Yes, Denny, I am really saying that. Now, here are my questions to you:
1) Am I supposed to “respect” abortionists too?
2) If Strom Thurmond had been elected President, we would not have these problems either. So?
I am going to say something some people don’t have tolerance for.
I have gay friends and cousins that I love but I don’t agree with their lifesyle and don’t believe marriage should be redefined
mojo:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Threven
JakeD…
No, I didn’t see the movie, and I think it is hilarious (sad, but hilarious) that you are arguing, based on some movie you saw, that all life as we know it will cease once gays can get married.
I married a mannequin. She’s pretty good looking, can’t talk. She’d be the perfect woman if she owned a liquor store.
Am I suppossed to respect people who use the bible to spread hate?!?! I can respect your right to vote yes, just not your hatred for all things that you do not agree with.
“I also want Roe v. Wade overturned” So do alot of gay and straight people what the hell does that have to do with any of this?
Let’s just go back over the questions and points I have raised, directly to JakeD, that he has not yet felt obliged to respond to, even though he says he has answered all of my questions
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
JakeD… Why should I be concerned with what Kimberly says? We are not the same, I have my views, she has her views, and you obviously have yours. Don’t try and attack my arguments by using those of someone else, just because we have the same goal in mind.
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
JakeD…
Again, your attack on Misty’s argument is flawed. Incest and Polygamy are outlawed to everyone, just as murder, rape, speeding, etc.
What Prop 8 is attempting to do, is prohibit a class of persons from engaging in an act which everyone else is allowed. THAT is the problem. There is no slippery slope, allowing gays to marry will not lead to incest, polygamy, bestiality, or any of the other scary words that are floating around. Why? Because those acts are allowed to EVERYONE, not a select few.
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
And JakeD… if there are plenty of lesser-included secular reasons, why not lay those out as well?
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Yes, that was me, and if you will look at the message I was responding to, you will see that you wrote
“Shame on you for equating sexual deviance with race or gender. The U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based on that, not homosexual behavior. No State can “repeal interracial marriage” nor “the right to vote for women”. Next canard?”
My message was in response to this quote, not anything that Kimberly said. Seriously… can you stick to the arguments at hand, or are you going to keep trying co confuse the issue with silly comments like who said what when and how?
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
JakeD… You cannot possibly believe (although I shouldn’t give you this much credit) that by simply allowing gays to marry, that the only marriages from here on out will be gay marriages, can you? Can you look someone in the eye, and with a straight face, say that if gays can marry each other, that no heterosexuals will ever marry again? Or that heterosexual marriage will become so obscure that the reproduction rates will drop below your critical levels? Seriously? Because if that is the type of logic you are employing in your arguments, then I don’t think I can win this argument.
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
JakeD… I’m pretty sure that cultures that do not follow, or that have never even heard of the bible, have pretty strict laws against killing people. The Bible is not the end all be all of natural law.
Does the Dalai Lama advocate killing people simply because his holy book does not begin with “In the beginning?”
# JasonP Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
JakeD…
I can’t believe you are still on this end of civilization kick! Aside from your doomsday scenario, that you once saw in a movie, where nobody got pregnant, can you provide a serious argument, not based on religion, against allowing gays to marry each other? Or do you seriously believe that once gays are allowed to call civil unions marriages, that everyone will magically turn gay and stop having babies?
Strom Thurmond was a very racists person… now some person on this board is bringing racial issues into this discussion? JasonP keep on going with this dude. He can not make a good argument. Its sad and what he as to say is almost pathetic.
I must get back to work
$1 million contributed by the California Teachers’ Association to the no side.—-Every teacher that I have talked to has said that they will vote YES on EIGHT —–they all fear that they may have to teach this garbage to the students left in there care. ——I for one think it was a disgrace that my tax dollars were spent to take first graders to see two lesbian teachers get married.
1) Am I supposed to “respect” abortionists too?
2) If Strom Thurmond had been elected President, we would not have these problems either. So?
1 is thats up to you, and # 2 what the hell does that have to do with prop 8?!?!?!?!?!
I give up with you….. I guess you win!
Caseclosed…
Maybe instead of asking teachers how they felt on Prop 8, you should have been asking them to explain to you the difference between “there,” “their,” and “they’re.”
Yes on 8
Or else we should just not bother with marriage.
JakeD…I actually HAVE seen Children Of Men. And like Jason, I have to agree that it’s hilarious and sad that you’re somehow pointing to some movie about the potential end of the human race as justification for banning gay marriage.
May I suggest hiding in your basement, huddled in a corner, clutching a baseball bat in one hand and a bible (or an issue of Playboy) in the other?
No one mention UFOs or JakeD (and all the other Pro 8 wimps) might have a heart attack.
when did right and wrong get do confusing
JakeD Says:
43 years.
Ah I see. The wonderful world of limitless cheap oil, smog, Vietnam and the cold war.
Society moves on. Deal with it.
And Strom Thurmond? You *must* be kidding.
Lizzard…
What a mature viewpoint! If I can’t play the game with my rules, I’m taking my ball and going home.
edward:
Good point.
Denny:
Please just answer my question, or don;t expect me to answer your question.
JasonP:
1) Why should I be concerned about what Kimberly says?
I answered that already — I am simply setting the record straight as to who attacked whom — that’s not “confusing the issue with silly comments like who said what when and how.”
2) Dali Lama question?
I thought that was a rhetorical statement, but if you really want to know, I have no opinion on other religions, one way or ther other. I answered all the rest of your questions. So, now that I had to pull teeth just to find out if you had seen a movie:
3) Aside from your doomsday scenario, that you once saw in a movie, where nobody got pregnant, can you provide a serious argument, not based on religion, against allowing gays to marry each other?
Yes, see “emotional and physical” argument re: individuals, families, and society (above).
4) Or do you seriously believe that once gays are allowed to call civil unions marriages, that everyone will magically turn gay and stop having babies?
No, it would take some time.
5) So being gay is being the same thing as a murderer or a child molester?
Already answered, but I will revise and extend my remarks to point out that homosexuals actually molesting children IS the same “thing”.
6) You have just admitted to me that being gay is not the same as being a murderer or child molester. Therefore, how can you say that since murderers and child molesters “choose” to murder and molest, gays must certainly “choose” to be gay? …. How do ANY of these things have ANY bearing, whatsoever, on defining marriage as being between a man and woman only?
I’m trying to see where, if at all, some of you will draw the line — I think I stated that before too — see “slippery slope” argument (above).
Any more questions?
You guys are wasting your time. Everyone here is set in their viewpoints-but I guess its kind of fun to argue. Talk to the undecided if you want to make a difference-without yelling comments ect. Use aguments and make your case
caseclosed please read this again,
Hilary McLean, a spokeswoman for state Superintendent Jack O’Connell, said the decision to teach gay marriage lies with local communities and school boards.
“Schools are not required to talk about marriage at all,” McLean said. “It’s up to local school districts to decide.”
The state Education Code will be unaffected by passage or failure of Prop. 8.
The code only instructs schools to “teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” as part of health and sex education curriculum. The code allows districts to decide against teaching health and sex education, and allows parents to pull their children from those classes or others dealing with sensitive subject matters.
No ones 1rst or 2nd graders are EVER taught about any kind of marrage in school!
Misty:
Don’t let the door hit you when you leave.
Tom Parker:
For the last time, that is the WORST case scenario. Someone asked me though.
Ralf:
Ah, 1965!!! As for why I brought up Strom Thurmond, it was to counter Denny at 12:22 pm “Kids should respect “everyone” and if they were taught that by their parents (gay or not) we would not have this problem to begin with.” Open and accepted homosexual marriage will eventually lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Can we at least agree on that much?
Bob:
Is there something about my arguments you don’t understand?
Granted belief in religion looms large in times of uncertainty however
the United States is not a theocracy but a secular nation.
There is separation of church and state as upheld by the supreme court. The founding ideals were based not on old world superstition but the ideals of the enlightenment: Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason and Common Sense.
I also would note that it is not a crime to love only to hate.
Hate is the only crime. The religious right is very selective about
what biblical ideals it adheres to. Waging crusades in the 21st century
is worthy of medieval peasantry and brutish knights not for this time.
JakeD…
By “slippery slope” argument, do you mean the argument that allowing gays to marry will lead to people marrying cats and dogs?
Seriously, people, the gays are coming for your children.
Don’t even bother voting on Prop 8. Just pack up your things RIGHT NOW and move to Iowa or Kansas. There’s room for all of you there.
You can build little castles with moats. You can burn books until your hearts are content (if you run out, call me…I’ll send you enough Hemingway and Plath to light up the sky). You can put your children on leashes, arm yourselves to the teeth, and prepare day and night for the inevitable onslaught of terrorists, child molesters, and homosexuals who user their gaydar to mass against you.
The end is coming, people. Better run while you can.
The term “Marriage” is sacred and was already taken. Don’t mess with our culture.
So…who gave money against Prop. 8. At least give an equal-sided article. It makes OC Register look very far off to one side. I’m curious who the big donators to No on 8 are…
If you are still undecided on Prop 8, please visit http://www.protectmarriage.com and http://www.preservingmarriage.org for more information. These are very informative websites.
JakeD…
“Open and accepted homosexual marriage will eventually lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Can we at least agree on that much?”
I finally see where you are coming from! You don’t want to ban gays from getting married, you want to ban gays from being accepted! Thank you for finally admitting this! What difference does it make to you whether they are married or not? So long as being gay is acceptable, more and more people will turn gay, and the end of days will be upon us! It all makes so much sense now!
I’m at a loss for words at how ridiculous this is.
Not just dogs and cats, but incest and polygamy too.
Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve? Whatever! There is an assumption that your god made this…and of course he grew tired so he needed a rest on the 7th day. Most Judao-Christian/Islamic doctrine and teachings come from the sexually repressed minds of simple men.
You can believe what you want to believe but the legal issue of marriage is at stake, not the morality. There’s money, property, health benefits and tax implications that are at issue. I’m not gay but I’ll be the last person to tell someone else how to live and what benefits/rights they can’t have while I enjoy those same benefits. Like most doctrine…hypocrisy is between the lines and the divorce rate in this country shows it.
So what if my children are taught about it at school? Homosexuality is a reality that hasn’t gone anywhere and isn’t going to. Better to educate compassion and tolerance in youth versus breed hate and ignorance in adulthood. If anything they shouldn’t be taught anything about man/woman, man/man, woman/woman relationships…that’s for the home. I’ll leave reading, arithmetic and science to the schools.
Tired of people talking for god…from vitriolic words, sticks and bats, they end up talking with guns, bombs and missiles.
For the record, the end of civilization as we know it” is different than “end of civilization, period.” To use a negative example, after the Civil War, for instance, that was the end of antebellum civilization as they knew it. That “progress” was good. This “progress” would be bad.
You know what the saddest thing about this entire proposition is?
That normal people like me have to stop paying attention to the WAR, the ECONOMY, and the ENVIRONMENT to fight back against this ridiculous bit of legislation supported by a bunch of religious zealots who, for some inexplicable reason, think gay marriage is more important than the WAR, the ECONOMY, and the ENVIRONMENT.
It’s almost like you nutcase wimps gave up on the issues that actually matter and instead decided to gang up on the one aspect of the election you might actually win.
Oh, and your kids are all still going to be gay.
Tom Parker said:
“Seriously, people, the gays are coming for your children”
Correction, Tom, the Christian Evangelicals and Catholics are the ones coming for your children…..because they’re horney.
lol the end of the world. by banning same sex marriage the proposition will stop homosexuals to not procreate with the opposite sex. once again if i were a homosexual i would put it into a religion, let see if religious oppression bill going to stop me. Geeze, anyone who are homosexuals reading this post, being religious in America can get you anything you want, like those christian fundamentalists.
Is polygamy accepted? Is marrying cousins accepted?
Jake D would you marry a guy if prop 8 is voted down? If you had the right to marry a man would you? I am straight and married to a woman, i have NO interest in MEN and no prop will change that, maybe you are different. Hey you have the RIGHT to do a lot of things, doesn’t mean that you will. Prop 8 does not FORCE you to marry a man! It simply gives eveyone equal rights under the law, and don’t counter with the “civil union” crap, do the research and you will see that that does not give people the same rights as married people!
johnadams:
You mean the HOMOSEXUAL Catholics priests?
JakeD…
How many times do we have to cover this topic before you actually read the comments?
Marriage is a contract, which requires capacity and consent. You cannot marry a dog, cat, or any other animal, because animals cannot enter into contracts. Allowing gays to marry will not lead to incest and polygamy because those, like murder and rape, are outlawed to everyone. And I know, in response, you’ll say that “same sex marriage would be banned to everyone,” very clever. That’s like saying segregation isn’t discriminatory, all whites use the white fountains and all blacks use the black fountain! It applies equally to everyone!
Your problem, as can obviously be seen from your posts, is that you equate being gay with being immoral, bad, and in the same category as child molestation and incest.
JakeD hates the gays because he has thoughts of having a gay relationship. One thing we learned from Republicans is, usually the loudest one against gay rights are the ones who are paying homosexual prostitutes for closeted sex.
JakeD…
You can’t have it both ways. On one hand you say that people will stop having babies because gays will be allowed to get married. When it is pointed out that that view is downright stupid, you change your tune and say, oh, well, I don’t really believe that, I just think that things will change a lot, and “This “progress” would be bad.”
And that is the heart of the issue. You have yet to explain why this progress would be bad.
JakeD Says:
Ralf:
Ah, 1965!!! As for why I brought up Strom Thurmond, it was to counter Denny at 12:22 pm “Kids should respect “everyone” and if they were taught that by their parents (gay or not) we would not have this problem to begin with.” Open and accepted homosexual marriage will eventually lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Can we at least agree on that much?
Gaah, read my posts above if you want to know what I think. You have some serious paranoia going on here. There are states and countries where gay marriage is allowed and nothing has changed there. Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, not a choice, so if we deny gays the right to marry we violate the constitution. This is why all this discussion is moot because the Supreme Court would overturn Prop 8 anyway. Rightfully so. ’nuff said.
JakeD is a gay man in the closet but doesn’t want his parents to find out. I bet $100 he has a man in a gimp suit in his closet that he calls Mr. Slave.
Oh, and JakeD, if you didn’t get what I just posted:
God made homosexuals. So lay off your bible tainted viewpoint please.
YES ON 8!
johnadams:
LOL! Not. If you don’t want to clarify whether you were referring to HOMOSEXUAL Catholics priests, that’s fine with me. Have a nice day.
JasonP:
I have read every comment, and I am not trying to have it “both ways” (no pun intended) by simply pointing out two different spots on the slippery slope. Your problem, as can obviously be seen from your posts, is that you don’t equate ACTING gay with being immoral, bad, and in the same category as child molestation and incest.
It’s a cultural issue. A normalization issue.
Ralf:
You think the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court is going to “overturn” a Constitutional Amendment?! Also, God “made” murderers (again, I am not equating being gay with murder, but just showing the illogic you are using).
Get an education Tard,
so you are smarter than every man who preceded you?
Adam & Eve not Adam and Steve? Whatever! There is an assumption that your god made this…and of course he grew tired so he needed a rest on the 7th day. Most Judao-Christian/Islamic doctrine and teachings come from the sexually repressed minds of simple men.
You can believe what you want to believe but the legal issue of marriage is at stake, not the morality. There’s money, property, health benefits and tax implications that are at issue. I’m not gay but I’ll be the last person to tell someone else how to live and what benefits/rights they can’t have while I enjoy those same benefits. Like most doctrine…hypocrisy is between the lines and the divorce rate in this country shows it.
So what if my children are taught about it at school? Homosexuality is a reality that hasn’t gone anywhere and isn’t going to. Better to educate compassion and tolerance in youth versus breed hate and ignorance in adulthood. If anything they shouldn’t be taught anything about man/woman, man/man, woman/woman relationships…that’s for the home. I’ll leave reading, arithmetic and science to the schools.
Tired of people talking for god…from vitriolic words, sticks and bats, they end up talking with guns, bombs and missiles.
What a waste of money.
What a waste of energy.
Please people, live and let live.
Marriage is a unique institution in which a man and a woman summon a child into the world - creating a unique tapestry of responsibilities. Our marriage laws are designed to support those responsibilities and are simply inapplicable to any other kind of relationship. Lincoln asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one.
JakeD Says:
LOL! Not. If you don’t want to clarify whether you were referring to HOMOSEXUAL Catholics priests, that’s fine with me. Have a nice day.
Are there any others?
Seriously, who else would forgo sex with a woman for the rest of his life? I’ve always wondered about that.
The only catholic priest I ever had contact with (he led a youth group I participated in) later turned out to be gay. That’s one out of one. 100%.
The purpose of prop 8 has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with providing a wedge issue to get the vote out. Actually a very clever strategy, although I have ethical issues with the fact that the only beneficiaries will be candidates that have another agenda entirely.
JohnAdams is right.
The louder you rail against gay marriage, the more we all suspect you’re sneaking a little gay love on the side. You hate the idea of gay marriage because it represents the life you want but will never allow yourself to have. And if you can’t have it, why should anyone have it?
The whole Mormon aspect here is pretty sad, too. Here’s a group who used to (and in some cases still do) support polygamy and we also very persecuted themselves for many year, now emulating the very same bullies that chased them across the country.
Seriously, to all the self-righteous Mormons who support this prop: you can try to spin it anyway you want, but you’re hypocrites, pure and simple.
Oh, and if you think this blatant pandering to the Christian right will get you new members, think again. They’ll take your money to help fight gay rights, but they all still think you’re creepy cult members.
P.S. And YOUR kids are going to be gay, too.
JakeD..
You are a real piece of work, and I would hate to live in your world of fear. You are correct, I do not equate gays with immorality, or child moletsters, etc, because there is no equation there. Let me ask a question. Do you know any gay people? And that does not mean watching Ellen or seeing photos of a San Francisco gay pride parade… I mean, do you really know any gay people? If the answer to that is “no,” I’d suspect that you really do, but just do not know it. I invite you out into this world of ours, you may have to skip a bible study or two to do so, but I assure you, you will come to find out that gays are not murderers, necrophiliacs, child molesters, abortionists, or any of the other labels that you have thrown out today.
The reason I do not equate gays with your labels? Because I have had the privilege of knowing many throughout my life. You still have not told me how acceptance of gays would be bad.
THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE PEOPLE
IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! DO YOU KNOW WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS MEANS?? I WILL DEFINE IT IT. KEEP THE BIBLE OUT OF THIS, AS IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS PROP.
ACCORDING TO DICTIONARY.COM:
RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY ESTABLISHED BY THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE US CONSTITUTION AND CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL ACTS, ESPECIALLY APPLIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR MINORITY GROUP.
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. IT IMPLIES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG, BUT THAT’S IT. SO FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THEY GET MARRIED? YOU ALREADY HATE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. HOW DOES IT LITERALLY EFFECT YOUR OWN MARRIAGE? I WANT ONE EXAMPLE HOW GAY MARRIAGE LITERALLY EFFECTS YOUR MARRIAGE. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. YOU ARE ALL JUST TALKING ABOUT PROTECTING YOUR CHILDREN FROM LEARNING ABOUT IT IN SCHOOL. GUESS WHAT? “TRADITIONAL” MARRIAGE ISN’T EVEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. ALL THE FAIRY TAILS LITTLE KIDS READ IN SCHOOLS LEARN ABOUT “HAPPILY EVER AFTER”. MARRIAGE IS JUST IMPLIED BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. THE MASS. THING IS A SCARE TACTIC. DON’T YOU PEOPLE GET IT?
A MAJORITY OF US ARE HAPPY THAT WE’VE ABOLISHED SLAVERY, ALLOWED BLACK PEOPLE TO VOTE, MARRY EACH OTHER, AND ALSO HAVE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES. THOSE WERE ALL CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES, AS THIS ONE IS!
SERIOUSLY, SOMEONE - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, TELL ME HOW GAY MARRIAGE SPECIFICALLY EFFECTS YOUR OWN MARRIAGE. JUST YOUR MARRIAGE, NOT YOUR CHILDREN. DON’T EVEN MENTION YOUR CHILDREN.
John Adams,
I just caught one comment of yours. All you did was say that God doesn’t exist and then accuse anyone who believes He does to be retarded, racist and pro-slavery. You also said, “they believe women are worth half a man, they believe disabled people can’t go to church, and if you don’t think like they do, they will wish you to a place filled with demons and fire, or they will kill you” none of which is true other than with a few zealots perhaps or non-christian cults.
John, you used to at least try to argue religion in an intellectual manner and I respected you for it. This is neither intellectual or even remotely factual. If all you are trying to do anymore is stir the pot then perhaps a college frat party is a bit more your speed. Sorry dude, but it needed to be said.
Jake D, and god made you so we know that he is not perfect!
fighterj Says:
Marriage is a unique institution in which a man and a woman summon a child into the world - creating a unique tapestry of responsibilities
Incorrect. Gay married men have adopted kids and lesbian couples have had kids through artificial insemination.
Next argument please.
First off - No on 8 - souls are free of sexual orientation
next - we all should have our rights to our beliefs- that includes gays and the people against them
lastly - if a couple wants to be married - let them - that couple has come together for a purpose - whether straight or gay
let them live the life that you do - but only happier !!!!!!!!!!!!
Jake,
fortunately, I have not encountered too many of the crazies just yet. but I’m sure if I drive up Bristol, about half mile up from here, then I’ll see a whole slew of them ready to attack my car as I drive by and give them the finger.
but I did cast my ballot today (perm absentee). I voted YES on 8!!
Sorry, don’t know why my name was listed as “think”.
Megan Says:
THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE PEOPLE
I agree, but could you please lay off the Caps Lock? Reading your post hurts my eyes. Also, Caps Lock is considered the equivalent of shouting on the Net.
Sorry, I left it on on accident.
no on 8 and im straight… if the gays want to get married and go thru the same crap as us straight married people so be it. who are we to deny their happiness…
“That normal people like me have to stop paying attention to the WAR, the ECONOMY, and the ENVIRONMENT to fight back against this ridiculous bit of legislation supported by a bunch of religious zealots who, for some inexplicable reason, think gay marriage is more important than the WAR, the ECONOMY, and the ENVIRONMENT.
It’s almost like you nutcase wimps gave up on the issues that actually matter and instead decided to gang up on the one aspect of the election you might actually win.
”
blame the activist judges and Mayor Gavin Newsome of the most liberal city in the U.S. for allowing this to happen. now it’s up to us, the citizens, to reverse it and preserve the law for eternity.
nutcase wimps? seriously, how does that apply? though it seems like it would describe said judges quite well, hiding behind their robes and the bench. JUDGES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE, PERIOD.
there’s nothing cowardly nor wimpy about preserving our society, morals, and prevent the future indoctrination and waste of tax dollars for our children, and their children.
For all the people on here saying that marriage is a unique this or that to summon children into the world, and so on, fine. There is church marriage, and there is civil marriage. The two, while similar, are completely different. You can get married in a catholic church, but if both parties are not catholic, you cannot have the catholic mass. You can get married in a mormon temple, but only if you are mormon (and forget inviting your non-mormon relatives to the ceremony). People get married in courthouses and city halls all over this country, every day. In those civil ceremonies, is there a mandate to go forth and have children? What about people who get married after menopause or other sterilizing events? Are they “evil” because they are eroding the purpose of marriage? You can put whatever definition or purpose into your marriage as you see fit, but why try to force that on everyone?
I seriously want someone to answer my question though as to how gay marriage LITERALLY threatens their own marriage. Marriage ONLY, don’t include your children. There are a lot of people who get married without any intention of having children, so leave the procreating argument out as well since it has nothing to do with this proposition a well.
Megan, perfect posting, sadly most people will not look at it for what it is, if they did how would they argue with it…. Typical politics…. NO on 8
“JUDGES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE, PERIOD”
No, but they are required to overturn unconstitutional laws when presented with the opportunity. Period.
I love how every judge who decides in a manner inconsistent with yours, suddenly becomes an “activist judge.”
Have all you religious people thrown “love thy neighbor” out the window as well? How many of you religious people have been divorced (more than once, even)? Did you know in the state of California, married couples can get a divorce simply because they don’t want to be married anymore? Many of these people have children. How do you feel about them? I know gay couples who have been together for 20+ years. My parents have been married for 22 years.
# JakeD Says:
You think the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court is going to “overturn” a Constitutional Amendment?! Also, God “made” murderers (again, I am not equating being gay with murder, but just showing the illogic you are using).
I was talking about the SCOTUS.
And what you don’t seem to get: Homosexuality is *normal*. There is a small percentage of people born that way (like gender or skin color), and you’re trying to restrict their constitutional rights.
Oh, and a murderer does harm. How are gay people harming you, whetehr they marry or not?
AMEN ‘Mind Your Own Business’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are sooo worried it will be taught in schools - write a prop that bans that!
If you are sooo worried your child will know he can be with someone of the same sex - don’t have kids cuz, let’s face it. If they are going to be homosexual, they WILL be homosexual and your parenting will not prevent that.
If you are sooo worried that your family will suffer because someone 100 miles away get’s married to someone they love - seek marriage counseling.
This might be one of the worst cases of bigotry seen in the great U.S. since the civil rights movement. Stop it people, you no longer live in a cave, you CAN coexist with people whom you do not agree with.
NO ON 8!
No one has answered my question yet. Maybe they are making their answer really long.
# bpsqwerty Says:
there’s nothing cowardly nor wimpy about preserving our society, morals, and prevent the future indoctrination and waste of tax dollars for our children, and their children.
Nice Kool Aid you got there buddy. No, I don’t want any.
Or you people can just answer with “Because I don’t want fags to have the same rights as I do” because I know that’s what most of you supporters really think, you just wont say it. So you support a prop that puts it lightly.
# Megan Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“Or you people can just answer with “Because I don’t want fags to have the same rights as I do” because I know that’s what most of you supporters really think, you just wont say it. So you support a prop that puts it lightly.”
Which is odd, because the Prop 8 supporters have stooped to using the words murderers, child molesters, incest, bestiality, and other fun ones in their arguments against gay marriage.
bpsqwerty…
That’s like saying that banning shampoo for airlines is somehow “fighting back against terrorism.”
You tried to keep women from voting because you were afraid of chicks. You tried to keep the country segregated because you were afraid of blacks.
And now you want to ban gay marriage because you’re terrified of homos.
Face it, dude. You’re a Grade A certified puss.
# Megan Says:
No one has answered my question yet. Maybe they are making their answer really long.
There is only one semi-rational answer: “It’s in the bible!!!!”
Just like loads of other crap. And if any evangelicals speak up, please enter a prop that introduces stoning to punish adultery (female only) first.
bpsqwerty:
Plenty of them lately off of El Toro or Alicia Parkway.
JasonP, they use those arguments to beat around the bush because they don’t want to actually LOOK like bigots.
Look people, supporting a ban on gay marriage makes you look like a bigot whether you like it or not. Because guess what? You are bigots. You don’t want homosexuals to have the same right as you because you don’t like homosexuals. You don’t like homosexuals because you probably think they are disgusting. This makes you a bigot.
I say No on 8….it’s a simple decision, quite frankly. who am I to tell someone they cannot marry who they wish. it’s seriously none of my business. And it’s none of yours.
And for those who site “religion” or “morals” as your reasoning for YES on 8… then ask yourself : do you honor everything the bible preaches? or just that which is convenient for you?
And how many “yes”‘ ers are divorced? not very holy of you if you are;
my suggestion: everyone should just worry about their own marriage and not about what others are doing as consenting adults. in case you haven’t noticed: the divorce rate is 50%… And if you are afraid your kids will be influenced into being gay, then perhaps your kids are just G-A-Y… it’s not something you can teach someone to be.
and on a final note: since when do schools discuss marriage anyway? I don’t recall ever having a “marriage lecture” when I was in school. And besides, this is not the school’s responsibility. it is a personal preference. I do NOT want any government institution imposing their moral code onto my kids when it comes to marriage, or anything else.
TheWatcher:
Get an education?
I’m quite educated thank you. Am I smarter than everyone before me? I can’t say for sure but I’m pretty sure I’m more educated than the bloodletters, the crusaders, the flatworlders, and those that would seek to hide women under cloaks so that my own insecurities and weakness don’t wreak havoc on the world. I follow the golden rule, you judge by it as long as it conforms to your beliefs. Keep holding on tight to those beliefs, your life would probably be shattered without them and, therefore, you’d probably kill to protect them like so many before you.
isabel:
Do you want laws against murder repealed too? I mean, really, who are we to deny their happiness?
It looks like JakeD has given up attempting to argue his position, even though I have asked, multiple times, how acceptance of gays is a bad thing. I guess I have wasted enough time on here already though. I’ll jump back on later, to see if he actually wants to have a meaningful discourse, or continue to use twisted logic, fear mongering, and bigotry to support his position.
I’m still waiting for a logical answer that does not involve the bible. Marriage is not defined in the bible.
Q: How does gay marriage literally threaten your own marriage?
Please do not mention children, insest, pedophilia (since a very large margin of pedos are HETERO), or zoophilia (homosexual humans are not animals). This proposition has nothing to do with ANY of these.
Thanks TheFloyd. Now piss off. I really care less about you, your opinions, or anything about you. It just had to be said. You kept following me wanting me to justify your comments. You kept begging me to read your crap, and I did and I always responded. My comment stands and it just shows you the mentality of most religious people. “Believe what I believe or I will kill you”. That is the Christian motto.
Why would you pick my one comment, out of the 100+ negative comments? Because I attacked something close to you and I did just what you and your type are doing against the gays. I am not gay, but I support people to have the freedom to what they want. Remember, “They hate us for our freedom”!
Well hey! look at that! JakeD is back! And yet again using another ludicrous hypothetical, tied to murder, to attempt to make his point!
It’s too bad you just used in your argument, language that flies in the face of the pro 8 stance. “Do you want laws against murder repealed too?”
From what I remember, this wasn’t supposed to be a law “against” anything, it was simply “defining” marriage as between a man and a woman. So tell me, IS this a law AGAINST gay marriage? And while you are at it, why is being gay bad?
JasonP:
I have told you, repeatedly, what acceptance of homosexual marriage will do, up to and including a worst-case (secular) scenario. Not sure what more “meaningful discourse” you are looking for. See you when you get back, I guess.
Wow — I go to lunch, and there are 100 more comments. Hard to keep up with the “debate” (I’ll use that term loosely in this comments chain, where both sides seem to be lobbing crap bombs at each other).
That said, to respond to JasonP’s issue about homosexuality being a biological trait, I do not deny that, but I don’t think that is a complete or persuasive response to the question as to why some limitations on marriage are o.k., and others are not. I believe that sexual orientation/preference/proclivity does have a biological component, but that there also is a social/cultural component. Human sexuality is a complex and nuanced thing that exists on a continuum, not just at the two “poles” of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Bisexuality arguably is biological also — is it discriminatory to forbid a bisexual man from marrying both a man and a woman so that he can feel fully satisfied in his marital relationship(s)? What about issues of consanguinity (a fancy term for close blood relations) — that is a biological issue too, but we ban loving adults who are too closely related from marrying. Why? If your answer is biological — i.e., risk of birth defects from kids — then I think that tends to support the limitation on gay marriage as another thing that does not support families. If your answer is something more visceral — it’s icky! — then that is a moral judgment you are making and imposing on a minority. Is that right?
There is a difference between biological orientation and social/sexual behavior. Marriage is, among other things, a particular type of approval of a set of behaviors that are traditionally tied to sexuality. Nobody is suggesting prohibiting grown adults from engaging in their particular sexual preferences, assuming of course they are not violating others’ rights in the process. But marriage is a special social construct designed to, among other things, promote a particular social instituion — families. People with close gay friends, relatives, and associates can and do reasonably believe that society is better served as a whole if marriage is kept limited to its “traditional” definition as being between a man and a woman.
I will answer it for you megan. The men here who are against gay marriage because they are afraid their wives will leave them because they are horrible husbands and horrible lovers. They are afraid that a woman will give their wife more satisfaction than they could ever give her. That’s why they are scared.
Notice everything that involves religion is always meant to scare you to their side? That’s what people do when they have no logical arguement. Although expecting a religious person to be logical is really a moot point.
JakeD! Maybe you can answer my question! I don’t know if you are married or not, but I’ll give it a shot:
Q: How does gay marriage literally threaten your own marriage?
Please do not mention children, insest, pedophilia (since a very large margin of pedos are HETERO), or zoophilia (homosexual humans are not animals). This proposition has nothing to do with ANY of these.
Haha, you’re ignorance is astounding. Are you sure that the reason we are in this economic depression is because of gay marriage? I’m pretty sure you’re being ridiculous. Maybe we’re in a depression because the bees are going extinct, that sounds like a pretty good explanation, let’s run with it! You need to look past your ignorance and accept the fact that the world is changing. There is NOTHING wrong with two people being in love and wanting to be together whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Denying them love is a sin. Denying them happiness is a sin. It says in our constitution that all people are guaranteed the right to life, so what right do you have to make their life miserable? Not to mention the separation of church and state. Denying gay marriage is a religious issue and religious issues are far from political issues. Voting no will not lead to AIDS, obviously you have never ACTUALLY learned about AIDS because you are still living in the ignorance of the 70’s. Move on people, it’s the 21st century!
Proposition 8 is a “law” in the sense that a State Constitutional Amendment is needed to overturn another “law” (legislated from the bench). I never said otherwise.
I wonder how many of the supporters of Prop. 8 have cheated on their spouses, or gotten a divorce (or 3)…
Megan:
First of all, why should I respond to anyone who cannot use civil language in the discussion (”You are bigots”)? Second, I already included ALL “emotional and physical” harm in my argument, above — I didn’t even bother getting into the spiritual harm it causes — homosexuals are doing to themselves, families, and society at large. Yes, that includes opening up the legal path for NAMBLA, incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, and all manner of other deviations.
In fact, my “worst case scenario” was completely based on secular rationale. Did you read those posts? Did you read the posts that urge us to get rid of “marriage” altogether? Would that “literally” threaten marriage, or not?
AP:
I am not divorced. Are you for repealing murder laws too?
Murder is not defined as a civil right.
jasonP:
It’s my ball, I can do what ever I want with it. You can go play with your own balls!! Or your boyfriends’!!
I would argue it is (see, e.g. Roe v. Wade). Regardless, 5 California Supreme Court Justices could easily define it as such. That’s why I am asking AP the question.
also i was using “you are bigots” in an example.
but i hit it dead on
“You tried to keep women from voting because you were afraid of chicks. You tried to keep the country segregated because you were afraid of blacks.
And now you want to ban gay marriage because you’re terrified of homos. ”
I did? I was born in the mid-70s, first voted in the 90s… and you’re saying it was ME keeping the women out of the voting booth all those years? it was ME enacting Jim Crow laws against the Blacks? it was ME fighting to keep slavery in the 1860s? damn I’m either really good, or I have a ridiculously awesome time machine on my hands.
as for your last comment yes, I’m afraid they might smear their dirty KY on me. remarkably on target.
as usual, opponents of free thought and logic retort with the hate card.
“No, but they are required to overturn unconstitutional laws when presented with the opportunity. Period.
I love how every judge who decides in a manner inconsistent with yours, suddenly becomes an “activist judge.”
#1 there’s nothing unconstitutional about heterosexual marriage, especially when you consider when such documents were written, nobody could conceive of any other kind. it’s not whether, I care if Bob and Bob are together, its’ whether I want our government to sanction it and allow it to be taught in our schools as the “alternative viewpoint” or more accurately, as it will be taught, as “THE” viewpoint. I don’t usually buy into the slippery slope argument but knowing the absurdity of this things, it most assuredly will lead to other things.
#2 how can anyone say with a straight face that the judges that effectively re-wrote California law were not legislating from the bench?? open your eyes.
Dear LDS Church,
Thank you for all the money to help us pass Prop 8. We were kind of short on cash and it came in really handy. Even though we knew you had saved it for Mitt Romney, we think it went to better use here.
We also want to thank you for mobilizing your members and helping to spread the word about protecting marriage. A lot of our guys went to Starbucks for a bible study and we haven’t seen them since (we think possibly the queers got them).
Unfortunately, despite your best efforts to become even bigger bigots than we are, we still think you are a creepy, blasphemous cult.
Sincerely,
The Christian Right
But still-
No one answered how gay marriage effects or threatens their own marriage.
JakeD, you didn’t answer how it specifically would effect your marriage. Gay people are married right now, is that harming your marriage?
for those who like to say there’s no such thing as a slippery slope…(watch out for that KY).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21768663/
I tend to just look at events as they are presented.
Regardless of how you feel on the issue, it passed by 60%.
The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, but it’s still the will of the people, and this is a democracy. That means the majority rules.
Prop 8 should pass, if for no other reason than that.
No one has answered my question.
JakeD. Gay people are married right now, is this harming your marriage?
sorry i accidently posted twice.
Also, gay marriage isn’t a GATEWAY into anything (incest, pedophilia, zoophilia ect.) Why does it keep popping up into arguments? This is LITERALLY just a RIGHTS issue.
What is WRONG with everyone?
JakeD…
Great answers… being gay will cause emotional and physical harm. And how would that happen?
Let’s take a look at how you answer a question:
Q: How would acceptance of gays be bad?
A: Because it would cause harm.
Very enlightening.
Lizzard…
Even if I wasn’t a happily married heterosexual, how would playing with my boyfriend’s balls hurt you?
All you prop 8 proponents keep harping on this “being gay leads to emotional and physical harm” b.s., when the real emotional and physical harm is being caused by your ignorance and bigotry! Do you really think there would be “emotional and physical harm” if people like you weren’t constantly trying to deprive others of their rights, or weren’t constantly making snide comments like “playing with your boyfriend’s balls?”
twice?
bpsqwerty…
“damn I’m either really good, or I have a ridiculously awesome time machine on my hands.”
Dude, that was such a Napoleon Dynamite answer.
“Yeah, like I’ve really got a time machine. GAWD!”
And who used the “hate” card? I don’t hate you. And I don’t think you hate gays. I think you’re probably a closet homosexual and you’re terrified that if you ever get too close to a homosexual, their Gaydar will go off the richter scale, you’ll be unable to control your natural urges, and the next thing you know you’ll be spending your weekends in Palm Springs with Larry the cable dick.
Go with it, man. Don’t be afraid anymore. America is for the strong and the free and the brave.
Be a man and face your gayness.
If ALL marriage is canceled, as I think several people posted should happen (I will call that the “nuclear option” regardless of which side launches it), that would apply to my marriage. As for your faulty logic on what homosexual marriage is doing right now, murders are not harning me personally either. That doesn’t mean either behavior is good.
I said I happened upon it John. Not “picked it out”. My point was that at a time you used to argue with some credibility and intellect not just name calling. As a Christian that gets pissed off by the rudeness and and short sighted views of other Christians I appreciated your discussions and your angle. But if you are reduced to insults than so be it, I have no care for what you think or say either because it is shallow and pointless. It sucks you chose to take the easy road.
I am one Christian that will be voting NO on 8. My relative and her partner have two kids and are doing a great job raising them. They have a supporting church, friends and family. They, in my opinion live a Christian life based on what the Bible states about sexual activity between same sex individuals. I also don’t believe that my children are going to be swayed one way or the other by this or their future marriages put at any risk. I will be the biggest influence on my children. As I’ve said be fore, I chanted the Pledge of Alligence every day for at least four years in elementary school. It neither made me a believer in God or a patriot. I never even considered what the words meant until I was an adult. Why? Because my parents didn’t preach either in my home. People, raise your own kids and leave mine alone!
FYI: incestuous people, as well as pedophiles are more often than not heterosexual. this is why these arguments have nothing to do with homosexuals having the right to marry one another.
Megan:
I’ve answered your questions. Care to answer mine now?
JasonP:
You need me to link to all the studies of diseases, shortened lifespans, clinical depression, etc. for homosexual males? I mean, how specific and detailed can we get on this limited forum? I thought you were leaving anyway?
FYI: two wrongs don’t make a right.
“This is LITERALLY just a RIGHTS issue.”
people like to imply - or flatout state - that marriage rights are civil rights.
heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have the same civil rights as everyone else… the state gave them additional rights above and beyond civil rights, which the citizenry did not vote to make part of our state.
this is a state’s rights issue, the right to marriage can be taken or given away on a state-by-state basis. these are not civil rights, and there is nothing wrong with an alternative called domestic partnership. the problem is liberal activists won’t compromise.
bpsqwerty:
“it’s not whether, I care if Bob and Bob are together, its’ whether I want our government to sanction it and allow it to be taught in our schools as the “alternative viewpoint” or more accurately, as it will be taught, as “THE” viewpoint.”
It’s not whether I care if slavery is abolished, it’s whether I want our government sanctioning these blacks as free men, and allowing our schools to teach that blacks are people too.
It’s not whether I care if the rights of Chinese or Irish immigrants are protected, it’s whether I want our government sanctioning these people having the same rights as me, and allowing our schools to teach that Chinese and Irish are people too.
It’s not whether I care if Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, Hindus, Mormons, or Muslims can freely practice their religions, it’s whether I want our government sanctioning their freedom, and allowing our schools to teach tolerance.
Jason P
So if you are a happily married heterosexual, why do you care if gays can get married. Are you planning to dump your wife for a dude? If you think it’s nobody’s business if gays get married. Then why are you so passionate about changing things? Why do you care? You are married already and whether or not gay people can get married, how is that going to affect you?
“And who used the “hate” card? I don’t hate you. And I don’t think you hate gays. I think you’re probably a closet homosexual and you’re terrified that if you ever get too close to a homosexual, their Gaydar will go off the richter scale, you’ll be unable to control your natural urges, and the next thing you know you’ll be spending your weekends in Palm Springs with Larry the cable dick. ”
it’s amazing you draw these rich conclusions, since I never actually said anything about gays and you know nothing about me, but attempt to go the ad hominem route anyway. it’s clear you’d say this about anyone who opposes you Prop 8. enough projecting, nice try.
who used the hate card? let’s roll back the tape - it would have to have been you.
I hate women? I hate blacks and therefore it makes sense that I hate gays (which was never even implied). seriously, where do you get this material, sir? good bye
“It’s not whether I care if Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, Hindus, Mormons, or Muslims can freely practice their religions, it’s whether I want our government sanctioning their freedom, and allowing our schools to teach tolerance.
sex is not a religion. get over it
JakeD…
“You need me to link to all the studies of diseases, shortened lifespans, clinical depression, etc. for homosexual males? I mean, how specific and detailed can we get on this limited forum? I thought you were leaving anyway?”
I was going to leave, but then you popped back up, and it’s just too interesting to see what happens when they give a trained monkey a keyboard and an internet connection, I had to stick around to see what nonsense you would come up with next.
So again, you are against allowing gays to marry, because you are against gays in general… it is ok, you can admit it, we already know it. As for those shortened life spans, clinical depression, diseases, etc… how do those go away if gays are not allowed to get married? Please tell.
bspqwerty…
“these are not civil rights, and there is nothing wrong with an alternative called domestic partnership. the problem is liberal activists won’t compromise.”
Hey, both of the drinking fountains use the same water. Use the alternative one labeled “COLORED”. See? We’re compromising!
Sit and spin on this message board all day, dude. You’re still afraid of gays just like you’re afraid of blacks and women.
Get a gun (or three) and hide in your basement.
Oh wait, didn’t you say you were going to drive by the No On Prop 8 activists in your car and flip them off?
Yeah, you did.
Okay, so do THAT first. THEN go hide in your basement.
it’s ironic that you broke out the “T” word, tolerance, seeing how the intolerant anti-Prop 8 camps are the folks vandalizing property and destroying any signs that dare support Prop 8.
tolerance! yes that’s it! to borrow a line from a P.Diddy Rock The Vote campaign, “vote [no] or die, bitch!”
People that don’t know how to proper discuss issues like to call names.
Call me whatever you want but I discriminate all the time. I discriminate rights from wrongs.
I think forcing people like me to legally accept homosexuality is discrimination.
This is for those of you that think you need to dictate to everybody your belief system. Please, like you do not have any sketetons in your closet. Marriage is completly screwed up, religion is a mess and those are the platforms that you choose to stand on. I do hope that you find something better to guide your life and beliefs than that.
If you all just took care of things in you own life and quit trying to force
your views and opinions on others, life would be alot better.
So remember when you think about opening your mouth and voicing your opinoin, be educated about the subject and make sure that you do not have anything that you are ashamed of in your past.
So in other words, unless you have lived in a cave or walked a mile in other peoples shoes, you need to shut the hell up and keep your narrow mined views to yourself
Megan, I think the answer to your “GATEWAY” question is this. Homosexuals statistically jump from relationship to relationship. Most will suggest that this is due to the tension and stress placed on them by society but the Christian community leverages this and adds other sexual deviance to it for dramatic value. There are also other statistics relating to sexual activities that are deemed “inappropriate” by the moral majority but are not even remotely illegal. Again, very easy to take those facts and add accusations of illegal behavior to push their agenda.
Megan keeps asking how current gay marriages harm existing heterosexual marriages. I’ll take a stab at the answer: they don’t, directly, but that’s not the point. In my opinion, a focus on that question — from either side of the debate — is misplaced.
What we are talking about are collective social values and the legal constructs and terms we use to promote those values. I freely admit that my neighbor’s same sex marriage does not directly impact my relationship with my wife. But I believe that there is value to keeping a limited definition of marriage that conforms to traditional norms. I believe that the social ideal of a family with both a mother and a father is the optimum environment for raising children — behavior on which society depends for its continued existence and vitality (someone has to keep working to pay taxes as we grow old!). Of course, there are many individual deviations and variations from the ideal, and many, many families fall short of creating an ideal environment to raise children. But, again, we are talking about broad social policies and cumulative effects, not individual variations.
I also think there are social consequences of same-sex marriage that extend beyond my relationship with my wife. Because same-sex marriage is still relatively young in CA, we have not seen those develop yet, but what has happened in MA with new curriculum developments, court rulings limiting parental opt-out rights, a large Catholic adoption service being forced to shut down operations, etc. are matters of public record that are a foreshadowing of things that could occur here if Prop. 8 is not passed.
On the education issue, there is a real concern there. SB 71, the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act of 2004, only grants parents opt-out rights for “sexual health education” — a narrow term limited to human reproductive organs and their functions. The Gay-Straight Alliance’s Fact Sheet on SB 71 specifically states that “Anti-bias trainings covering gender, sexual orientation or family life are not sexual health education. Therefore, parents do not need to be notified of this instruction and they may not remove their children from it.” (See http://www.gsanetwork.org/resources/pdf/SB71FactSheet2.pdf). Thus, if classroom instruction, including instruction relating to same-sex marriage, is characterized as “anti-bias” — a broad, undefined term — then parents of children of any age will not be permitted to opt-out under current CA law. This is a real concern for many parents, and is one example of how same-sex marriage affects (if indirectly) existing heterosexual relationships and family units.
# Lizzard Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“Jason P
So if you are a happily married heterosexual, why do you care if gays can get married. Are you planning to dump your wife for a dude? If you think it’s nobody’s business if gays get married. Then why are you so passionate about changing things? Why do you care? You are married already and whether or not gay people can get married, how is that going to affect you?”
Oh that’s grand. Under this reasoning, why should any white person have wanted to abolish slavery if they were already a free white person? How did it harm them blacks were still kept in chains? I care because I know plenty of gay individuals, and most of them are far better human beings than people like you who are so blinded by fear, religion, or whatever your reason, that they cannot accept that a person who does not see the world as they see it, can be a decent human being.
guns what guns? basement what basement? blacks? women? gays? huh?
again, keep going with the ad hominem BS against whomever you attempt to debate. whatever makes you feel better
JasonP:
Glad you could stay. I admit it will be a long fight — I would even agree with someone above who stated that heterosexual divorce is a bigger problem than homosexual marriage — but we have to wage the battles one at a time.
Tom Parker:
Flipping off someone is not as bad as calling then “bigots”.
Well heterosexuals statistically jump from relationship to relationship as well though.
It really amazes me how fired up people get about this, Me included..
NO ON 8 !!
“Flipping off someone is not as bad as calling then “bigots”.”
Oh yeah I’d totally take the silent term of “fuck you” any day.
wtf?
bpsqwerty…
That is a nice bit of irony. We’re intolerant of intolerance. It’s kind of like the “freedom isn’t free” little ditty.
And don’t confuse rudeness or anger with a lack of tolerance. I’ll take on all comers to defend your right to be a bigoted wimp.
P.S. You’re still gay.
JamesP:
On the flip-side of my “worst” case scenario, if every “homosexual” instead remains celebate or (God forbid) marries someone of the opposite sex — and there’s no divorce or sex outside of marriage — what do you think that would do to sexually transmitted disease?
Can anyone who is against prop 8 tell me why we are voting on this again? Proposition 22 was passed in March of 2000 with 61.4% approval and 38.6% against!
Morally, I dont feel that it is anyone elses business if two people want to be married regardless of their preferences but I read earlier that “O.C. is the only place this will be voted yes for”. How can you say that? 61-38!!!
Even though I disagree with the prop itself, I see just another example of the hypocrtical left wingers pushing their beliefs on the rest of the population. This is supposed to be a capitalistic and democratic country, but the left continues to push for a system of socialism and non-democratic law.
Ya gotta love the hypocrisy that runs rampant in the leftist community. They’re all for being open-minded and tolerant, as long as you share their views. If not, you are called homophobic, bigoted, racist, evil, etc. Seems like all the name calling is coming from one side. How many reports have we seen of “yes on 8″ signs being defaced or stolen? What about those five suburban college aged kids that stole those “yes on 8″ signs in Fullerton? What happened to the freedom of expression that the leftists strongly support? It’s gone, along with your common sense.
Megan:
I would be happy to answer your follow-up questions, just as soon as you answer my original questions to you.
socalyard… only in this forsaken state. only California, which is why we (as a state) always get labelled appropriately and derided in passing as “those nuts”. at this point we’re only about half a point behind Florida on the 100-point ridiculous scale.
61%… wow. that was even higher than I’d remembered. thanks for that reminder
Some of the most closed environments are the college campuses and left-leaning cities, such as San Francisco and Santa Monica. Tolerance is a one-way street. If you have an opposing view, you are run out of town. Columbia university openly allowed Ahmadinejad to lecture, but the student body feverishly protested and denied many Conservatives from speaking. What happened to the will of the people? If California overwhelmingly voted in prop 22, why are several judges overturning our majority will? Why are we even having this debate on prop 8? Yes on prop 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JakeD Says:
“On the flip-side of my “worst” case scenario, if every “homosexual” instead remains celebate or (God forbid) marries someone of the opposite sex — and there’s no divorce or sex outside of marriage — what do you think that would do to sexually transmitted disease?”
Seriously? You are asking me to imagine a world in which all gays will stop having sex, and that everyone on the planet will only have sex with one partner, their entire life? Is that what you are asking? If so, then I think there is a nice little place in Anaheim that I think you should move to, it has a castle and everything, because you are obviously not living in the real world.
Yes, under that scenario, certain STD’s would most likely become non-existent. Is that ever going to happen though? Of course not. Even your fanatical right-wing goddess Palin couldn’t keep her daughter from playing the field before she was married. But, to carry your reasoning further, let’s do this. Let’s lock up all the blacks and latinos, so we don’t have gang violence anymore…. let us lock up all the Muslims, so we don’t have any more terrorism… let us lock up all the Catholic priests so we don’t have any more children being abused. Hell, while we are at it, just to be safe, let us lock up all the Mormons, to be sure that we don’t have polygamy any more.
You can stereotype all day, and offer amazing hypotheticals to cure every societal ill out there. Not all gays have STDs, not all gays have AIDS, not all gays are depressed, and I can go on.
Jennifer,
Don’t really get me started on the Mormons. But since you did…Only in the last 20 years or so did the church ALLOW blacks to hold the priest hood, 100 years ALLOWED multiple marriages, killed innocent people in the Utah valley massacre, etc… So keep wearing your funny underwear to protect you from the evil that only exist in your own minds, and changing your beliefs and values on a yearly basis to match the current laws of the land. Bringham Young was a liar, thief and adulterer, at best. Question your so called beliefs, but your bishops will tell you not to for fear of you finding out that it is all a crock of SH@T…
Better yet, steralize all women of child-bearing age, so they can have all the sex they want and no abortions.
FYI: I only have had sex with one partner, my wife.
CUE: Denny saying I am secretly gay, in addition to a “bigot” yet maintaining that is not as “hateful” as flipping the bird.
# JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“Better yet, steralize all women of child-bearing age, so they can have all the sex they want and no abortions.”
Is that the best you can come up with? Are you going to respond to my criticism of your stereotyping and your fantasyland solution to real world issues, by flippantly making this comment?
Sorry, Denny, that’s Tom Parker” doing that mental balancing act.
To all the Anti Prop 8 - Good luck with your fight
To all the Pro Prop 8 - Good luck with your fight and may God bless you.
Heehee, JasonP, I liked that one.
Now why can’t we just lock up all the religious wingnuts and get a decent society going?
JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“FYI: I only have had sex with one partner, my wife. ”
Well that’s great for you. To expect that is how the entire earth will behave however, is pure fantasy.
JasonP:
I’m simply offering another “amazing hypothetical to cure every societal ill out there”. Whether you want to admit that one is a GOAL we should all be working toward, imperfect as it may be to acheive 100%, is up to you.
I’m simply pointing out that it CAN be done.
Socalyard…
You flunked PolySci. Would you like to re-take it in the spring?
1. Supreme court judges overturn laws ALL THE TIME. Sometimes they overturn things that make the Right happy (the 2000 Election recount…remember Justice Scalia?) and sometimes they overturn things that make the Left happy (Prop 22). The whole idea is that they PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. If a law is voted on and passed that happens to violate the constitution, they overturn it. They protect us from us. Which brings me to…
2. We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic. C’mon, dude…this is what happens when you skip class. Don’t get swept up in political rhetoric about “Democracy”. Our forefathers thought you and me and ol’ bpsqwerty were actually too stupid to run the country. So they gave us a big say in what our country does, but they didn’t give us the last word. That’s why we have Supreme Courts, Electoral Colleges, and all that other fun stuff.
I may totally disagree with Prop 8, but it is working the way it’s supposed to work.
As for our buddy bpsqwerty…
You should move. Clearly this isn’t the state for you. And you can flip us all off out your window as you drive away.
JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“JasonP:
I’m simply offering another “amazing hypothetical to cure every societal ill out there”. Whether you want to admit that one is a GOAL we should all be working toward, imperfect as it may be to acheive 100%, is up to you.”
Yeah, that’s great, way to avoid the issue. In simply offering another amazing hypothetical, you just proved how ridiculous your plan is. Let us lock up everyone who is not like us, so we can be protected from everyone with whom we disagree.
Actually, Tom Parker, it’s POLI SCI (short for “politicial science”), and unless you were a landowner and white male, our Founding Fathers didn’t give you ANY say in what our country does. Let me guess, you think the California Supreme Court can “overturn” a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as “unconstitutional” too?
(JakeD: fliiping Tom Parker the BIRD)
JakeD…
Mental balancing is good for you. You should try it. If we left it up to folks like you, we’d have laws out the wazoo, everything would be illegal, and no one would ever have to use their brains again.
“What Would Jesus Do” is synonymous for “Don’t think too hard about it, honey. You’ll give yourself a headache. Go read your bible and then wash up for supper.”
Life is complicated and legalized gay marriage may indeed open up a Pandora’s Box of complications to our already complex world.
Be brave, JakeD. Be brave. I know you can handle them.
bpsqwerty and Kerry,
Isn’t it interesting that these angry lefties don’t want to talk about prop 22. Read what they are saying; Lock up anyone who agrees with the majority! Take this election for example “Let’s steal from the ‘rich’ and give to the poor - but let’s give most of it to the governement”. It’s scary how far we have strayed from the ideals of our forefathers. I am not saying that we shouldn’t flow with the winds of change but do we need to sacrifice democracy and capitalism? There is a right way and a wrong way to protest laws - forcing laws into the books through a few socialist politicians is not what this country was founded on. Remember lefties - 61%to38%!
“Tom Parker Says:
That is a nice bit of irony. We’re intolerant of intolerance. It’s kind of like the “freedom isn’t free” little ditty.
And don’t confuse rudeness or anger with a lack of tolerance. I’ll take on all comers to defend your right to be a ****bigoted wimp*****”
Gee, that’s a nice bit of symbolic logic. Just as long as TomP understands intolerance happens with both leftists and conservatives. Ad hominem attacks, such as homophobe, bigot, racist, do little to bring both parties to a common ground. If someone says, I believe only men and women should legally marry, your job is to convince them otherwise. Replies such as “oh yea, well you must be a bigot” only serve to show your lack of respect (dare I say tolerance) to other people’s views.
This quote that really cracks me up from you Yes on 8 folks, especially the women: “Supporters of Yes on Prop 8 simply want to preserve the fundamental definition of marriage as it has been from the beginning of time - between a man and a woman.”
Um, to which part of time are you referring? The current voluntary love-based adult marriages are a phenomenon of the last 100 to 150 years, and that is only in the U.S. and Europe. Prior to that time, even in the most advanced Judeo-Christian societies, women were chattel, whose fathers paid small fortunes to have them taken off their hands by men who often had never even met them.
Give me a break trying to glom onto some nonsensical historical marriage definition argument. Unless of course you women are prepared to shut up in church, do whatever your husbands tell you, and stay out of the workplace and at home having babies, just as the Old Testament commands you to do.
JasonP:
My 2:40 pm post was sarcasm. I don’t REALLY want to sterilize every woman (that would be just as bad as my “worst-case scenario). Think Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. I was making fun of you. For the record, however, I don’t think having an ideal goal (which I know my wife and I were able to acheive) is a bad thing. As always YMMV.
Mr. Blue:
I commend you for making a very well stated argument in favor of prop 8.
I would like to open by saying I will be voting no - for many reasons, most of which I have stated above.
What I want to rebut is why you think values should dictate law? I mean, aren’t your personal beliefs just a reflection of your values and no one else’s? And, if you believe the general family values of America are that homosexuality is wrong, then you have nothing to worry about - prop 8 will pass. However I do not think my generation or those coming henceforth will agree with the belief system and values of the 40+ generation. Our values count just as much as yours, and as such can dictate our laws. Sooner or later, your generation will be gone, and what is left is a society built upon the ideals of the next generation. Perhaps this is just a taste of that new thinking? Much like the 60’s and 70’s saw a great revolution of thinking that dramatically altered our government, ushered in by the youth of America (you).
So I ask politely, why do you think that your old-age moral/social values should override those that do not follow the traditional way of thinking?
JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“unless you were a landowner and white male, our Founding Fathers didn’t give you ANY say in what our country does. Let me guess, you think the California Supreme Court can “overturn” a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as “unconstitutional” too?”
And if people like you had their way, the vote would still be restricted to white, male, landowners (which would probably be absolutely fine with you). As for your whole CSC overturning a State Constitutional Amendment thing, you continue to miss the point. The CSC doesn’t need to, the USSC can, not that they necessarily would.
JakeD…
“Let me guess, you think the California Supreme Court can “overturn” a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as “unconstitutional” too?”
No at all. But per your buddy’s comment, he didn’t understand why there was a constitutional amendment being proposed in the first place. He thought Prop 22 should have stuck in the first place.
Ya dig, bird man?
Oh, and shit…did I mispell PoliSci? I’ll retake it in the spring, too, JaykeD.
P.S. I still think you’re gay. Which is totally cool. I think you should be able to get married, too.
I don’t need to be brave. I’ve got Smith & Wesson to help me in that regard ; )
socalyard Says:
bpsqwerty and Kerry,
…
Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? Repeating Republican rhetoric won’t enlighten anyone. It’ll only distract and p*ss people off.
Tom Parker:
Prop 22 should have stuck (if we didn’t have activist judges ignoring the people’s will).
JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“JasonP:
My 2:40 pm post was sarcasm. I don’t REALLY want to sterilize every woman (that would be just as bad as my “worst-case scenario). Think Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. I was making fun of you.”
Let me get this straight. You say that we should keep all gays from having sex period, and all straight people from having sex outside of marriage, because it would be good for society. Using your reasoning, I then put forth a number of other scenarios, again, using your logic of “if group A stereotypically does act B, if we get rid of group A, we no longer have to worry about act B!”
You then carried my criticism of your logic further by saying if we sterilize all women, we get rid of abortion… explain to me again… how is that making fun of ME?
Geezzz, let ‘em get married. Then they can go through the same sh*t everyone else goes through - fights, sleeping on the couch, divorce, divorce court, alimony, etc.
Although I will vote YES on 8, if it does NOT pass, I’m not going to freak out.
“Although I will vote YES on 8, if it does NOT pass, I’m not going to freak out.”
Are you sure? They may eat your babies if they are allowed to marry!
They can have my first born!
Tom Parker,
You need a lesson in world history, my friend. Just about every country in the history of this planet has called themselves a “Republic”. All that means is that the people have a say of some kind. Do you know what the R in USSR stood for? Is that how it is supposed to work in this country? What if one judge came in and said that he thinks abortion should be illegal? Do you think the left would say, ‘Well at least the system is working!’ This country has become so misguided over the years that we can’t even tell the difference between socialism and capitalism now. Spare me the “PoliSci” quotes “dude”. I am not a 22 year old who thinks he knows more than everyone else because he got a degree from some liberal machine.
JakeD Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Tom Parker:
Prop 22 should have stuck (if we didn’t have activist judges ignoring the people’s will).
I was always taught those “Activist Judges”, being appointed by those YOU elect, are there to overturn laws that should not be a law based on the constitution (Supreme Law - hence the name - Supreme Court). Soooo they did EXACTLY what they were supposed to.
It would be a pretty scary place if the masses voted on everything - not what the founding fathers intended when they formed our government. For the people are fickle and easy to sway!
J-Stu Says:
However I do not think my generation or those coming henceforth will agree with the belief system and values of the 40+ generation
Hey watch it, I’m well over 40! This is only partly a generational issue. It has mostly to do with who is easily scared and who is relaxed and open to change.
Science is only beginning to pick up on that. See e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070911111852.htm or http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142545.htm.
flop41:
Thanks for the “yes” vote.
JasonP:
Because mine was an admirable goal, and yours are not (including the example I used to highlight your faulty logic). Next question?
J-Stu:
Which law school did you attend, and if you graduated, did you pass the bar exam (because THAT would be scary)?
socalyard Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“Tom Parker,
You need a lesson in world history, my friend. Just about every country in the history of this planet has called themselves a “Republic”.
And East Germany was referred to as the “Deutsches Demokratik Republik.” They worked in both Democratic AND Republic. What’s your point?
I want a proposition eliminates the right for married couples to divorce.
Protect marriage and BAN divorce.
It will save children from the depths of Satan’s bowels.
Ralf, my apologies please… I wanted to make a point that most everyone in this debate has a generational feeling on gay marriage (those that are young and support prop 8 are most likely repeating the beliefs of their parents).
I just think that eventually we Americans will figure out what most of Europe has long gotten. I find it astounding we “allow” the religious right to dictate what we can and can’t do based on their false interpretation of the bible.
Hey Ralf, all I am saying is that regardless of your moral beliefs about prop 8, we shouldn’t be voting on it again. What should have happened is the anti-prop 22 people should have pushed for a new prop about allowing gay marriage. I honestly want to vote No on prop 8 because I feel it’s the right thing to do but it kills me deep down to be agreeing with the same whackos that I feel are unintentionally endangering this country.
Kerry, if you support Prop 8, you’re a bigot.
Sorry.
I totally support your right to be a bigot. Seriously. But you’re trying to take away someone’s civil rights. And honestly, I don’t expect to sway you or anyone else who vehemently supports Prop 8.
What’s going to happen is exactly what happened with slavery, women’s suffrage, and segregation. The group of people in question will grow in power, the bigoted majority will decrease in size as new generations fill in, and full rights will eventua