Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

Personally i am glad prop 8 passed. In nature it is meant to be a male female union. So anyone outside that is just plain weird. They should all move to masachusettes and leave us, the real americans, alone.

The real problem is not whether the government should or shouldn't recognize gay marriage. I'd like for you to explore a different take on this.

Speaking as a Libertarian of sorts, my take is that the real problem is us allowing the government to account for our personal contracts of marriage. Why does the gov't even need to know? Marriage should only be a personal contract between two people. For what reason other than to classify you and tax you does the gov't need to know your business.

See what I'm saying? The gay marriage "issue" should not be an issue at all. What we need is to get a federal referendum to ban the Federal Reserve, start printing our own money, back it with gold and silver, and eliminate the IRS. Without the IRS there would be no need for the nobles to account for which of their sheeple are marrying which.

All our problems would be solved if we just followed the Constitution. It really does provide answers for all our ills.

reply to post by caballero

Weeelp, I'm in Canada and we watch America with a close eye. And it's very sad to see something like this happen, truly I thought we were moving forward. I reside in Canada, which is something to be thankful for, being a lesbian. I hope someday America can move forward and begin a new era of acceptance. Thats all we can hope for as we watch Obama get into office..

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I guess that's my point. This should have never been put up to a vote in the first place.

All of a sudden everyone is a constitutional attorney. If it was unconstitutional in your mind then take it up with your state or the federal government. I'm sure there are complaints to the ACLU, get on board. I don't know what to tell you. A proposition is placed on a ballet by a state, the people vote according to their beliefs and it passes of fails. That's our end of things. If you feel you have a legal argument make it to those in the legal world. Don't come to me and complain about my legally cast vote.


EDIT: sorry if that sounded a little passionate, I'm getting a kinda frustrated....probably not unlike many others in this thread.





[edit on 11/5/2008 by kinglizard]

reply to post by kinglizard

All of a sudden everyone is a constitutional lawyer.

I think in this thread those who oppose the ban are stating their understanding of the constitution. I have not seen yet how anyone argues this is not unconstitutional. Just because it was allowed doesn’t make it right. Less than what, fifty years ago, we were dealing with these same issues. There were many who, even in the congress, ignored the injustice. However those involved in the previous fight prevailed, because the constitution was on their side. I have no doubts the same thing will happen with Prop 8, if not immediately then sometime in the future.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by scientist


When you are denied housing or an auto rental because of your sexuality, then you will have a real issue to deal with.

Otherwise, you're just rambling.

Originally posted by TheRooster
Say what you want, when you reduce homosexuality to it's simplest form, it is about SEX! Open the door to gay marriage and I say why not open it to polygamy.
[edit on 11/5/2008 by TheRooster]

Why not open it to polygamy?
And the thing about the sheep and the farmers, how do the farmers get special rights?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by scientist

 

When you are denied housing or an auto rental because of your sexuality, then you will have a real issue to deal with.

Otherwise, you're just rambling.

Since you wanted me to be clear, I was. Now let me ask you clearly: Was that your complete rebuttal?

You have (perhaps unknowingly) demonstrated multiple times now, that you are incapable of empathizing to the situation. Whether this is due to apathy, ignorance or just being stubborn is the only issue remaining with your stance at this point.

- your favorite rambler, the scientist.

reply to post by kinglizard


KL, it is possible for a ballot measure to be unconstitutional. Esp. here is Califnornia where we have a disfunctional legislature, we get all kinds of ballot measures because no politico is willing to stick out thier necks. This ban will be tested in court.

JSO, Isint this type of monogamous, committed relationship exactly the kind of family values conservative eat, breath, and sleep?????

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jam321
The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

If the majority of people voted to ban guns, it would also be unconstitutional. That's not Democracy. That's majority rule.

[

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

I probably won't get back to read this, but ... I have to scratch my head and wonder just What the Hell you think Democracy is, if not majority rule????

Some folks, methinks, try too hard to make too many stands on issues and end up appearing kind of doofy... And I know you better than that Benevolent Heretic... Unless, of course, I misunderstood what you are saying, in which case... Ahem... As you were! You are not doofy. You continue to be someone whom I read on these boards with great interest.

I for one an extremely glad that this passed. To all of those Californians out there, you have truly given many new hope for your state. For so many years people looked upon California as nothing more than an extremely liberal bastion for immorality and so forth. However, you have reignited the California that I and many others once knew, which is a place full of an amazing diversity of individuals, values, and ideologies. I am glad to know that Religion and Morals are not dead in Cali.

As for the Marriage issue, I have no problem with Same-Sex Couples retaining certain Civil Rights based upon their Union, but I am against such a Union being declared "Marriage", and being treated as such.

reply to post by scientist

Originally posted by scientist
Since you wanted me to be clear, I was. Now let me ask you clearly: Was that your complete rebuttal?

You have (perhaps unknowingly) demonstrated multiple times now, that you are incapable of empathizing to the situation. Whether this is due to apathy, ignorance or just being stubborn is the only issue remaining with your stance at this point.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I cared about empathizing with your viewpoint. I do not. Chalk a lot of that up to your attempts to force your opinion down my throat.

- your favorite rambler, the scientist.

Not my favorite by a long shot.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
I for one an extremely glad that this passed. To all of those Californians out there, you have truly given many new hope for your state.

you make it sound like its a modern day Sodom and G. I for one would rather live there than a ultra religious right wing, conservative, hate mongering state, but then I would be just as guilty as sterotyping as you are eh?

As for the Marriage issue, I have no problem with Same-Sex Couples retaining certain Civil Rights based upon their Union, but I am against such a Union being declared "Marriage", and being treated as such.

As I asked JSO is this not the exact type of nuclear family that conservative preach and crave? Committed monogamous realtionships?

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you Matthew 7:1-2"

[edit on 11/5/08 by FredT]

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


What is it that scares you so much about gay marriage?

It doesn't reflect on you and I doubt it would affect your life, you personally, in any way possible.

reply to post by jsobecky


So I will take that as a "yes, that was my complete rebuttal. Thanks.

and for the record, empathy is a personal asset, not something to be forced down your throat. Again, illustrating your complete ignorance to the concept. That is not a snide comment or an insult, that is a 100% authentic and genuine observation. Take it in offense if you have to, just make sure you contemplate the value of empathy sometime. It will greatly improve your debating skills in the future to perceive a topic from more than just one jaded angle. For example, I like to take a minimum of 3 jaded angles per argument.

Originally posted by FredT
KL, it is possible for a ballot measure to be unconstitutional. Esp. here is Califnornia where we have a disfunctional legislature, we get all kinds of ballot measures because no politico is willing to stick out thier necks. This ban will be tested in court.

I know it was on the ballot of several states so it may not be a California thing. If there are questions as to it being constitutional it needs to sent to the legal world. My issue is with people questioning me my legally cast vote.

reply to post by FredT

Originally posted by FredT
JSO, Isint this type of monogamous, committed relationship exactly the kind of family values conservative eat, breath, and sleep?????

Yes, because we believe it is the foundation of a solid society.

Nowhere am I arguing the relationship. Be happy, and Please enjoy the same rights as married couples.

But please do not demand to appropriate a simple label, esp. if you have the same legal rights. Doing so is just plain mean.

Originally posted by Liberty1
The real problem is not whether the government should or shouldn't recognize gay marriage. I'd like for you to explore a different take on this.

Speaking as a Libertarian of sorts, my take is that the real problem is us allowing the government to account for our personal contracts of marriage. Why does the gov't even need to know? Marriage should only be a personal contract between two people. For what reason other than to classify you and tax you does the gov't need to know your business.

See what I'm saying? The gay marriage "issue" should not be an issue at all. What we need is to get a federal referendum to ban the Federal Reserve, start printing our own money, back it with gold and silver, and eliminate the IRS. Without the IRS there would be no need for the nobles to account for which of their sheeple are marrying which.

All our problems would be solved if we just followed the Constitution. It really does provide answers for all our ills.

Hey look at this guy, He says the gov't has no right to even know if you're married. Gay, straight, sheep, whatever. It's your business. I like his idea.

Originally posted by flyindevil

Originally posted by TheRooster
Say what you want, when you reduce homosexuality to it's simplest form, it is about SEX! Open the door to gay marriage and I say why not open it to polygamy.
[edit on 11/5/2008 by TheRooster]

Why not open it to polygamy?
*snip*

When they too convince society that what they're doing is in the name of love. And make no mistake about it, if it can happen anywhere, it will happen in California.

OT quote removed

[edit on 11/6/2008 by Badge01]