POL: California Prop 8
 

I didn't want to thread jack Flasch's thread, so I created this. I know I shouldn't be shocked, but the money being spent on this is just eye-popping. The second largest political campaign in the country, behind the presidential races.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/859605.html

I always been curious, do you think that donations should be accepted from non-residents/non-state organizations in states these propositions are being voted in?

It's maddening and sickening that some people are moving completely fucking backwards on this issue.

:+1:

Labor union organizations definitely say yes.

""". Yup. The Mormon church's official backing for it is doing wonders in establishing them as proponents of basic civil rights...

I'm torn on this. I believe in the spirit of Prop 8, but dislike the lack of say of when a child can be taught the issue.

I'm hopeful that the no vote's lead will stand up here. Although we really need to seperate marriage the civil right from marriage the religous right. (no pun intended)

I voted No on my absentee ballot. ANY law that prohibits a group of people from being able to do what another group of people can legally do is discriminatory, regardless if you 'feel' that it is wrong or what your religious views may be.

Every time I see a proposed law like this, I always have to go back and check the calendar to see if we really are in the 21st century or the 14th century.

You can't drive through a busy intersection here (just south of San Fran) without seeing people holding "Yes on 8" signs. 95% of the time they are pacific islanders, Tongans, Samoans, etc who I'm guessing belong to the Mormon church. Once in a while you'll see "No on 8" people but unfortunately it seems like they are in the minority. The Wife and I are really wishing we had registered this year just for the sake of being able to Vote for Obama and No on prop 8.

Huh? Prop 8 doesn't mention education at all.

Does California have a large Mormon population?

Please enlighten me. I don't understand.

For Gods sake, live and let live. George Takai being married to his life partner has not effect on the quality of life in this country. How about issues that really matter like the economy, crime, education, etc.

BTW, don't just single the Mormons out. The Catholic church is behind it as well and FLR, a national christian radio network I listen to at times is speaking out about gay marriage props in several states.

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.

Great post. +1

I have no idea what Prop 8 is, and it's not just because I don't have an interest in politics. I just saw that it had something to do with California, so I zoned out, since I'm a couple thousand miles from there.

Letting anyone marry?

California voted no on gay marriage a few years ago, but a judge voted that they could marry, which prompted the ballot initiative for this election

so are you saying you are against gay marriage?

I now understand the confusion. I am FOR gay marriage. Sorry

yeah, the wording of it is very confusing. If you are pro-prop 8 then you are against gay marriage.


I think.

Correct. Sorry MrBug. So I guess we agree. :)

To make everything crystal clear.

"No on Prop 8" means you support marriage for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

"Yes on Prop 8" means you are against it.

Dola.

The posters/bumper stickers here that are "Yes on Prop 8" show a silhouette of a man and woman with 2 kids inbetween them. Therefore, inferring that marriage is only ok if it's between a man and woman who plan on or are capable of having children. So, by that logic, if you are a woman who is incapable of bearing children, or you are a man who is sterile, it would be wrong for you to get married.

Exactly. The logic isn't there. That's why I was hoping MrBug (If he were in fact FOR Prop 8) would explain it. I don't get it. How the hell does it impact anyone elses life?

We have one here in Florida also but I am pretty sure it will lose for 2 reasons , firstly they included domestic partnerships which are fairly popular in the older heterosexual communities down here between widowers. Also it needs 60% to pass. Most of the polling has it around 51-52%.

I think the people who want these laws passed for whatever reason realize that this next few years is their last chance to get them passed. The younger generation really just doesnt give a damn in general about banning gay marriage or race ect.

I don't get how we can have so many queers in this country while Iran doesn't have any at all.

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

As for Prop 8, I'd love to see it pass (would be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal election year) but have little hope that it will do so.

maybe you should move to Iran

why is it so intolerable and unthinkable?

C'mon Lathum, I don't believe for a second that has to be explained to you. You aren't 9 years old & you haven't spent your life living under a rock. I simply tried to answer the question Jets06 asked, working from the premise that he was asking in something less than a completely rhetorical manner.

I guess what I am asking is why are you against gay marriage? Not trying to bait you into an argument.

I am genuinely curious and would love to have an adult discussion about it, which I know you are capable of having, yet others aren't ( as evidence from lungs' post). So maybe its best to let if go.

That's fucking ridiculous. Do you really, really, believe that? So because I want two competent HUMANS who are of adult age who love each other to have the same rights as I do, you really think that I, or anyone else for that matter, want to move closer to incest, bestiality, etc? I think you are a smart guy Jon...but this is just stupid.

Anyone who didn't expect this level of opposition from Jon on this issue is fooling themselves. Just respect that his worldview is where it is on this issue and don't try to get into an argument.. all it'll do is create more bad feelings.

I respect his opinion and have never had any personal issues with him, I am just curious about why he feels the way he does.

dola- I predict this thread ends badly

Maybe you are right. I'm not the type to "try" and get into arguments. I actually hate arguing. But this is silly thinking.

FTR, that's not how I interpreted your original question exactly.


In briefest terms possible (because virtually zero good will come of the discussion here overall IMO), my adamant opposition to it is actually more based on the attempt to redefine something that has a long-standing & clear definition than on the more common religious grounds. I find labeling anything other than one man+one woman a "marriage" as absurd on its very face as suddenly decreeing that all dogs are cats. Some (many) things simply are what they are, I believe the definition of the word "marriage" is one of things. Only secondarily do I take issue with it on the basis of religious beliefs.

Hope that answers what you were looking for.

Absolutely, without the slightest hestiation. And we've got the society to prove it. What was once unthinkable is now not even worthy of an batted eyelash, even when it should be. I don't see the slightest reason to expect this to be any different.

The man doth have a point ;)

I will say however, that I hope you'll at least credit me with trying to keep a matter-of-fact tone with my answers to the questions I tried to answer. I don't believe extended discussions would be worthwhile, but Jets06 first question & Lathum's subsequent question (once I understood what he was asking) seemed reasonable enough & readily addressed with clear but brief responses.

ill be voting no on tuesday

As some would say, True Dat.

They are - sorry to not be clear on that. That being said, it seems to be when the church officially campaigns for a position, it opens itself up to ridicule like this.

I hope this gets shot down, and completely shits all over anyone's religious beliefs. That's how I feel.

Here's the thing I don't get about the slippery slope argument. So people argue that allowing gay marriage will lead to legalized incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. I think that's a bullshit argument, but let's run with that for a second...

Instead of banning gay marriage, wouldn't it then make more sense to pass an Amendment specifically banning incest, bestiality, and pedophilia?

So Jon - are you okay with civil unions then? or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it?

Sorry, that just makes me think of South Park :D

Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be “butt buddies”. Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be “butt buddies”. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be “butt buddies”. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be “butt buddies”.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be “butt buddies”.

SI

They should have it set the other way around.

I'm pretty sure those trying to pass Prop 8 did it that way intentionally

SI

Don't you think that younger generations care more? They seem more progessive on social issues.

Check out the sex laws in Europe. Much more liberal in comparison to ours. The age of consent is much lower in a lot of European countries.