It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by kinglizard

Hey, passion is a good thing! I guess I'm just really tired of subjects that divide us, especially after this very divisive election cycle. I just wish that instead of finding issues that divide us, we could all come together on the issues that bind us. This whole debate is just another example of the power of those who try to keep us apart as a society, and I find it distructive in th end. This in no way was an assault on you in particular, it just somehow became a back and forth debate between us. I am just seeking the 'United' part of the USA. Given recent history, we have become more akin to the Divided States of America, and our politicians and those behind ballot proposals are not helping any. I fervently defend the right of religions to believe whatever they wish to believe, but not to the point where it becomes "us against them", for that only weakens us as a society. I believe that one's faith is between the individual and their Creator and should not be used as a prybar to keep us apart. I hope that makes sense, and I fully realize that you are just speaking from the heart, as I have endevoured to do as well.

That was a great post's been a fruitful conversation.

The last thing I want is to divide but I am more passionate about living in a place that doesn't legalize sin. Love is shown in many ways. If I were to support gay marriage I would be supporting sin and make sin more acceptable to those that come after. Sin comes with a price and a punishment and a warning from God. A father doesn't tell his son not to run with scissors because he wants to take his freedom away, he does it out of love to protect the child from the inevitable consequences. In the same way Christianity views homosexual relationships to be dangerous, something God himself said was sinful and comes with inevitable consequences. So limiting ones ability to sin is a form of love not oppression. Raising a young generation in a society that says it's okay to sin will inevitably raise more sinners that will also pays Gods price.

I'm just expressing the Christian view here.....I'm not asking anyone to agree.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:37 PM

Originally posted by caballero
Last night Proposition 8 was passed in California. For those who havent heard of Prop 8 it was to ban gay marriage.

This is some of the most disgusting news I have ever heard. I always thought growing up that we were so much ahead of the fifties and sixties because we accept people for their differences and we let them live out there lives, I thought we had learned from the reckless hate and idiotic segregation of the past hundred or so years.

I was proven wrong when I found that prop 8 had passed and a new type of segregation would live on in the place of the segregation against black America.

I dont understand why people have to be so narrow minded, prop 8 might of well have been called jim crow and it still would have passed.

I am disgusted with my home state and our concept of freedom and equality.

Well, look at it on the bright side. At least this is going to make Ellen Degeneres very angry.

Sarcasm aside, it is sad to see that while this country has demonstrated we are a little bit less racist than we ever were, it is really embarrassing to see Californians are so homophobic, because, let's face it, homophobia is what fuels this proposition, is it not?


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by caballero


I applaud your sentiment, and thank you for starting this thread. I admit I haven't read all the pages, this POST is only in response to your OP, since I just stumbled across it.

(I hope all the other responses are similarily offended by the response of Californians...)

I grew up in California.....both of my parents grew up in, I'll admit, my parents didn't understand Gay issues before I came out to them, but they DID learn, after some reflection.

To think that this 'ballot initiative' could actually pass, IN California, frankly shocks me. I think it is an indication of a terrible 'trend' that may stem from the Orange County, and might be spreading up in to the 'Inland Empire' and then into the Stockton, Fresno area...essentially, the 'suburbs' of California, full of small-minded FOX-'News' watching robots who think that two people who happen to be in love are, somehow, a THREAT!!!

This may seem off-topic, but let's look at Utah....I know, it's not commonplace TODAY for Mormans to advocate multiple marriages....but, isn't it interesting that many of the advocates, and the money donated in support of Prop 8 came from the LDS???

Irony, is...the LDS based its concept on ONE MAN, multiple wives....

Hmmmm........where is the vaunted "One Man, one Woman" concept there???

This argument that 'marriage' was always 'since the dawn of time' about one man and one woman....baloney!!!!

How many 'arranged marriages' have occurred in Human history??

We only have to look back to Europe, and feudal England to find a few examples. Keep looking back and you will find MANY, MANY more.....

So (sorry about the's my keyboard...)....

Summary: The "sanctity of marriage"????

Kidding, right? I don't know how other readers have come from a 'broken home'..../....MY parents divorced when I was about three years old, and of course I have no siblings. Still, I came out fairly well-adjusted, despite the apparent "mal-adjusted" environment I grew up in.

Perhaps it's the term....."marriage"....that sticks in some people's craw (a particularly American expression, sorry) but, why?

WHY does this word "marriage" engender such passion?

I'd like to take a few steps back.....back to when Humans did NOT have a civilized organization -- we were just animals, tribal for the most part, and procreating as animals do in nature.

As the higher functions of our brains tended to dictate our behaviour, we began to 'think'.....and then we invented 'morals'....and "marriage"....

Morality is a Human imperative...."marriage" IS NOT!!

"Marriage" is completely of Human invention....

My Best,


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:46 PM
Well im confused about a couple of things.

1st marraige is a pact between god and a man and woman so its the church thats decides marraige

2nd What advantage does a married couple have that individuals dont?

Gays can file taxes jointly if they wish they can add people to there insurance and in most states adopt a child so whats left?

Heck if its trhat big of a deal start your own church!

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:48 PM
I am curious. It seems that people who are on the "right", and who call themselves "conservative" are usually dead against government intervention in their own lives, but at the same time, are usually also very happy to have the government say what people who are gay can or can't do.
Is that what you call a bigot?
It also seems to be the case that they are very happy to have the government pass laws that reflect their particular religious beliefs as well. They want the government to get all involved in what they see as moral issues, but only from their point of view.
My non religious morals say that loving someone is a good thing, and wanting to make a lasting commitment to the person you are in love with is an even better thing. My morals also say that when two people have a life long commitment to each other, that commitment needs to be respected by everyone, including the laws of the land.
There is no downside to this issue, regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons involved.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by wayno]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by dragonridr

I have a few friends at work that are same sex couples with kids and the legal aspects of death and dying as a couple do get complicated that married peopel do nto have to deal with.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by dbates

Hmm, it me or does it seem like single people are being discriminated upon?? Why is it that someone who is married gets benefits while someone who is single does not??

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by dragonridr

That argument is flawed based on the fact that if marriage was a pact between God, a man, and a woman, then all marriages would have to take place in a church, be performed by an ordained minister or a priest, and be approved/registered/whatever in the church.

There are a lot of marriages that don't happen that way....they are performed by a judge or justice of the peace.....take place in a courthouse or on the beach or in a back yard.....and have no religious conotations at all. So, what are those marriages??

Also, not every state....not even the majority of states recognize same sex unions or domestic partnerships, so, no, gay couples don't have the same rights and privileges that married couples have.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

It would appear that you, like so many others, got caught up in the well-funded and carefully crafted "smoke-screen" that was Proposition 8.

But then, I fear That was the intention of Proposition 8's backers, all along.

Please read the following excerpt from an earlier post:

Proposition 8 WAS NOT about "marriage", traditional or otherwise.

Nor was Propsition 8 about Sex, Gay, Straight, Group or Bestial.

The California Supreme Court overturned a prior law (Proposition 22) because it was found to be unconstitutional, that is, in conflict with the Constitution of the State of California.

The Justices found that the prior law was unconstitutional in that it would have required the existing laws regarding the State's recognition of marriage to be applied differently for same-sex couples seeking recognition as being married.

This "different treatment", they found was tantamount to "Unequal Treatment Under the Law" for such citizens of the State, and therefore in violation of the right to Equal Treatment Under the Law, as guaranteed by the State's Constitution.

In this context, no matter how it was worded, promoted, potrayed, or "spun", Proposition 8 was really about

Establishing a Precedent Whereby the Government May, at its Choosing, DENY otherwise Law-Abiding Citizens the Right to Equal Treatment under the Fundamental Law of the Land.

Again, Proposition 8's intent had Nothing to do with "Gay Rights" or "Special" rights, or even preserving the "Traditional" definition of "Marriage" (which, as many have already pointed out, should NOT be within the perveiw of the State in the first place).

Proposition 8's purpose was to establish a legal precedent whereby the government (in this case, the State government) could Arbitrarily Deny Fundemental Rights, otherwise Protected by the State's Constitution, to Law-Abiding Citizens of the State.

And if you STILL don't understand what "Right" we are talking about, it is this:

The Right to Equal Treatment Under the Law!

And if you are a citizen of California, whether you are straight or gay, on this dark day, you too have lost this fundemental right.

And by the way, "Married" may be just a label, cherished by those in our society privildged to proclaim it.

But then, "Colored" was once "just a label" cherished by those who could hurl it at others in our society they sought to oppress, others who were "different".

It replaced another label, and the replacement was seen as a great step forward for society. Especially since the previous label had long been established as tradition by centuries of accepted use.

That earlier, more "traditional" label?


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by wayno

My non religious morals say that loving someone is a good thing, and wanting to make a lasting commitment to the person you are in love with is an even better thing.

For some reason, gays always demand that love be equated with marriage. Or that a commitment somehow doesn't count unless it is recorded by the county clerk.

I am fine for gays to love anyone they want. I wish that you could designate benefits without need a license (w/ regards to medical issues, etc., you largely can).

But none of that is enough.

Gays here have posted repeatedly "How is what two people do a threat to you?"

It's not. I'm not threatened by what they want to do (as long as folks are circumspect, regardless of how they get off; gay, straight, alieo-sexual, whatever).

What they do to each other is their own business. Demanding that the state redefine marriage makes it MY business. right there.

I want them to be free and go on dates or whatever. I do not want them redefining marriage. and somehow me wanting to keep the ....450 year old definition of marriage the same is somehow now a threat to THEIR way of life.....

Basically, this is gay people demanding that we change society away from me (and the majority)..... because THEY want something else.

It's sort of like walking into an italian restaurant, and throwing a fit because they won't serve you a taco. Ooooh, they are narrow minded bigots because they don't change the menu to so you.

Even if you get another progay judge to side with you. Even if you force this on the state of california; .....

The more you win, the more you lose.


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:16 PM
its my understanding that CA NOW, and several other activist groups are already talking legal challenges to this travesty. An attorney in SF is already putting together a challenge as well. Lets hope they prevail.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Sliick

Except the other chick will be a lesbian, but good try

It's not too surprising though. It would require people to think of what's right and fair versus what feels "good" for people. Sort of like how people watch the news for entertainment and not for content. All it would take is a 3 dollar gift card to walmart for those that voted no, and this prop would have crashed totally. This is the intelligence of these people - they don't care.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by dragonridr


Sorry if you're confused....perhaps we should change the 'wording'???

With all due respect, not ALL marriages are 'blessed' by a representative of 'God'.

(I admit, into evidence, many, many well-documented "marriages" of certain celebreties, in either Las Vegas or Reno, just for example)

The point here is simple: A spurious, alcohol-induced 'marriage' can be presided over, in virtually ANY venue...not only Las Vegas or Reno, as long as the two participants are, seemingly, a MAN and a WOMAN.

So much for the much-vaunted "sanctity" of marriage...

What is being glossed over here is the basic concept.....two people who actually wish to devote their lives to each other.

We tend to laud the Male/Female couples that celebrate their 59th anniversery....but NO ONE tends to notice the same-sex couples, who exist, for decades.....just under the RADAR!

This is a sort of racism....well, not "racism" per se, but actually 'sexism'....because 'homophobia' is very similar to sexism, if you take time to think about it.....

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:31 PM

Originally posted by TheRooster
Off topic my 4$$!
When deciding who gets to call themselves married, where do you draw a line? Because wherever you draw it, you will inevitably leave someone on the other side. My orig post was not off topic and a mod (badge) imposed his/her will and removed a post that was very on topic.

If you start letting homosexual people get married where will it end??? trans-gender? trans-sexual? etc...

My reference to polygamy being legalized spoke directly to the topic at hand. When you draw a line, you leave people on both sides, where will it stop?

Why can't the line be drawn at TWO CONSENTING ADULTS? You reference trans-gender people, showing that you know that gender itself is now a changing thing and has long ago been judged a poor basis for any granting of rights/privilege anyway.

Why does the "sanctity of marriage" have to be reduced to holes and poles? That cheapens it greatly, in my opinion.

Two consenting adults are two consenting adults, period. They are not comparable to any other number of adults, adults plus kids, adults plus animals, or anything else.

Virtually all arguments against gay marriage lack logic and usually lack common decency.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

skeptic1....ya beat me to it!!

Your post is kinda/sorta what I was tryin' to say.....I hope it connects wiht peolple who are reading.


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:34 PM
Right now, I'm going to admit, I am a lesbine. I have trolled and watched all the comments about the gay comments, and actually was afraid to admit it, but here I am. Now, it would be nice to be recognizied as a "human being" by the religious community, but I don't see that happening. All "they" see, is what the bible (take out the 2 b's and put the L in front of the i). Can you imagine, what this world would be like if we didn't have such a biased GOD. Excuse me. God loves us no matter what.

We are all here to learn something, not matter what it is, we are "all" here to learn to love one another as souls, not human religion, as has been made up to keep us all fighting. Out of all the lie that I read, was a truth hidden that the illuminati does not want us to do, to LOVE each other as an equal and a fair life of learning. I have been through my hell, and if I were to tell you, it would literally be a book of a 1000 pages in very small print. I am a very nice, considerate, caring, loving human soul, as we are only in a shell, LOVE is the answer. Does not matter to me about marriage, I don't care about that, it is the equality of spirit that matters, not a tax deduction, or a, (lets's go against religion thing). It is a love of one another that binds us together as a whole, that is all. Most heterosexuals can (not all), only think of the "sexual" part, that is "not" what it is, it is a "love" union, as straight humans have, what is wrong with that. By the way, I am not flaming, I am just stating facts. We love as you love, no matter the flesh of how we turn out.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by caballero

In my opinion gay marriage should be legal. I found it very telling that a overwhelming liberal state like California banned it.

Unfortunatly it seems that the majority of Americans don't want it. Its a shame, but in a democracy the voters decide what they want. The voters made thier choice.

I am confident and hope that gay marriage will eventually be allowed. It just didn't pass his time around.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:53 PM
It's sad that legislation is wholly unaware of the principle of rightful liberty, so ingrained in our very Constitution, which provides our most fundamental laws. Again, this isn't the place for popular ballot. It should have only originated in the Supreme Court, and even then would not have even required a Constitutional amendment. It's already written there. This is not an issue regarding the merit of its legality; its a threat of the disenfranchisement of the established political order. This is definitely an issue worth pursuing, however, its introduction to state legislature was an entirely irresponsible and futile measure. This is called cooptation, a submission of the movement's agenda to the social and political order and through its established legal channels. This only grants power to the oppressors and discredits the foundation upon which the movement was built. It's an acceptance of said authority's ability to further direct and advance the movement's agenda under their own province, passing judgment and criticism onto the agitators for their lack of patience when it inevitably fails, the state itself having worked so hard in order to ensure that reality. To acknowledge the authority of the state is willingly subvert the credibility of a movement as important as this. Although the denial of authority is the very principle upon which radicalism is found, popularized across Universities in the late 1960's, an issue such as this is a common pursuit of all free-thinking individuals. It is not a radical movement. It is not a religiously inspired revolution whose goal is the disruption of society. It's a fight for freedom, equality and representation. It is an issue that is already supported by the Constitution. A major failure of the Supreme Court in recent years has been its very misinterpretation of the Constitution, instead aligning its judgment toward the conventional public and its social mores, of the interests of mobs. This movement must be elevated to the proper channel, i.e. the Supreme Court; it must repudiate the state's authority to even consider this issue. This has been a major failure, and one that will cast a long shadow on the movement for years to come. It has done irreparable damage to the credibility of its leadership. In order for this to pick up again in California in the near future leadership must change hands, and there must be formed a new and exciting element in its campaign. This issue has to be taken for the whole of its meaning, and not designed along technicalities, of the definitions of archaic social institutions such as the marriage.

Some things just shouldn't be put up to vote. Where have we strayed from the Enlightened path that our Founding Fathers have laid for us? Mob rule will ensure the perpetual oppression of any civil liberty of a minority, whose interest is predicated unto the social majority. One would either wait for people to gradually shift their perspective over time, or take liberty into one's own hand.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by cognoscente]

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by maus80


'gay marriage' does not lack common decency.....because, frankly, most traditional weddings I've ever seen are just an excuse for bad dresses and free booze.

Here is what's happened:

There is a strong, well-funded conspiracy by the 'WEDDING INDUSTRY' to infiltrate the psyches of people (mostly women) who are planning their weddings.

This 'industry' includes, but is not limited to: The dress designers....both the 'wedding' dresses, and the 'bridesmaids' dresses....the cake designers...the 'wedding planners'....etc, etc, etc......

THIS is why most weddings baloon into terribly expensive PARTYS, when it should really be about the marriage....because, isn't THAT the point???

OK....we've all probably been a guest at a 'traditonal' marriage "ceremony"...and how many have accepeted the invitation just so you knew you'd get free 'rubber chicken' and free booze?????

Perhaps some of you were Family members, of the 'intendend', why???? Then, do most 'weddings' become such spectacles????

AND, why, oh why, do 50% of Male/Female 'marriages' fail??

We should ALL have the same chance to fail!!!!!

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 11:03 PM
i cant believe how many people in here are pro=gay, first of all i live in california and second... its not a legal issue, its a religion thing... in any place in the world... when 2 people get married( man and woman) it is a religion thing under god that unites the 2 people(adam and eve) and that usually starts off with having kids and starting a family. Now tell me how the hell (keyword hell) is a man and a man = family... when your older and you have kids do you want to see guys walking around pretending to be married just because they can... its not marriage... its devils exploiting there freedom... btw im not very religious but i believe in God and right and wrong... this is america not europe... lets keep it that way.... GUNS AND RELIGION... and so proud

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in