It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

More than $83 million spent on Prop 8

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels


So think about it, 83 million dollars to stop two consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Think about all that money these so called "christian" churches could have used to stop poverty and help depressed people around the world. But NO! Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs so we can't let it happen, EVER! (Sarcasm)


Way to take the story out of context, Allison. Go back and read what it says again.


Donors spent more than $83 million to support or oppose the ballot initiative


To SUPPORT OR OPPOSE, meaning money was spent in opposition of Prop 8 as well. That means not all of $83 million was spent trying to "stop two consenting adults... blah blah blah".

Don't twist facts to suit your own personal vendettas.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Let's not act like this is unprecedented.

83 million is the total, not what one side spent. While I could care less if two gays or lesbians got married, how much money has anti-religion groups spent over the years to stifle the religious?

Why is it "hate" when a religious group wants to advance their view but its "progress" when a non-religious/minority group tries to advance their platform?

Rather than being mad at the anti-gay groups for spending money, why not focus on the pro-gay groups that failed to get this passed. Oh, that's right, you'll just sue and have the courts overrule the will of the people.


[edit on 3-2-2009 by skoalman88]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I’m going to stay out of the issue of gay marriage, this is an issue on here that always stirs up a good deal of hatred between the members, and there is rarely any actual debate, rather just one side attacking the other using the same old, tired arguments.

However, I will say this. Outrage over $83M being spent on prop 8? I’m going to hedge a bet and guess those on the losing side of this initiative supported Obama. Good for you and congrats. However, where was the thread by you decrying the $170M on his inauguration? That’s twice the money, imagine how much good that could have done for schools, homeless, etc...

If you are going to flame, at least try to keep it consistent.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





Gays want to do the nasty, fine. You don't need to ruin the concept of marriage for that


So marriage is just a concept ?

Surely marriage is but an institution ?

So what are the benefits of the concept of the institution of marriage ?

Regular sex for the male who often would like to and does, get it elsewhere,

A regular income for the female to buy shoes and decorate, then very often have sex with another male.

A seriously one sided divorce settlement for the female, before she moves on to the next sexual partner.

Tax benefits ? Obviously tax benefit or gays wouldn't be so vocal (which they have every right to be) about fair play.


Perhaps marriage is indeed a concept, because it would appear that it's an institution that serves no purpose other than force people together when they would choose to be apart.

At the end of the day, if you choose to be with someone then you will and when you no longer enjoy that then be with someone else. What could be so wrong in that ?

Perhaps the millions of dollars that prop 8 cost should be paid by the churches for their complete waste of public money, trying to enforce their beliefs on other people. Give unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser ------






[edit on 3-2-2009 by moocowman]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Okay so your source is from a pro-family website. Can you get these statistics from real crime websites that show actual data?

It looks very probable that data was manipulated to fit the agenda.


Yes it very much IS a "Pro Family" website you got a problem with families? It is also the same data you can access from the United States Governments own website various gay websites also and the many referances videos gays have sent us etc.

They are all listed there.

If you want to reach for excuses to imply it has been manipulated then I may as well say google it your damn self.

If you have no intention of accepting the facts as they are (and I have seen the logical fallacy for source is not the right website before,) then
I really don't care to explain to you what you wish to remain willfully ignorant about.

You got you mind made up and the last thing you will allow is let me or anyone else, confuse you with the facts.

but the facts in this case are,

UNDENIABLE






[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by 29083010384959
 


Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone. Not even counting historical, cultural and religious bias.

So no, homosexuality should not be taught in sex-ed as a normal sexual behavior, as it's not normal sexual behavior.

Deviant, aberrant, is deviant and aberrant. If I were deviant and aberrant, I too, would think I'm "normal."

And I grow weary from the "love" aspect. I know how this works. If it's "love" then nothing can be wrong with it.

BS.

Just like heterosexual "love," it's also based on sexuality.


The scope of Human sexual behavior is -huge-and to point to the sexual relations between Homosexuals and say "deviant" or "aberrant" is honestly laughable. There is nothing that occurs in the Homosexual bed that has not occured in the Heterosexual bed since animals figured out what feels good.



Hence the reasons for making same a "class disntinction" like race is ludicrous so thank you for proving the pointlessness in the gays argument much less the stupidity



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by dooper
 





Gays want to do the nasty, fine. You don't need to ruin the concept of marriage for that


So marriage is just a concept ?

Surely marriage is but an institution ?

So what are the benefits of the concept of the institution of marriage ?

Regular sex for the male who often would like to and does, get it elsewhere,

A regular income for the female to buy shoes and decorate, then very often have sex with another male.

A seriously one sided divorce settlement for the female, before she moves on to the next sexual partner.

Tax benefits ? Obviously tax benefit or gays wouldn't be so vocal (which they have every right to be) about fair play.


Perhaps marriage is indeed a concept, because it would appear that it's an institution that serves no purpose other than force people together when they would choose to be apart.

At the end of the day, if you choose to be with someone then you will and when you no longer enjoy that then be with someone else. What could be so wrong in that ?

Perhaps the millions of dollars that prop 8 cost should be paid by the churches for their complete waste of public money, trying to enforce their beliefs on other people. Give unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser ------


[edit on 3-2-2009 by moocowman]



Look no one is saying you won't look at marriage and go" Whats in it for me?" that is not the point of this thread and is a straw man, not a very good one but a straw man nevertheless.

Why don't you use this same straw man argument on what is in it for gays to be married and then you'll have your answer. That doesn't mean anyones vote is likely to change



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The sum is the total of either side of the coin, as has been pointed out.

Something to consider as well in this discussion are the demographics of those who voted against same gender marriage.

Below from CNN exit poll:

The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting Yes(against same gender marriage) on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll:
84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);[note 1]
82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);[note 2][note 3]
81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled);
70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);[note 4][note 5]
68% of voters married with children (31% of those polled);
65% of all Protestants - (43% of those polled);
65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled);
64% of voters with children in household – (40% of those polled);
64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate);
61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled);
60% of married people – (62% of those polled);[note 6]
59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled);
58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled);
56% of union households - (25% of those polled);
53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled);
51% of white men – (31% of those polled).
Polls showed that gender and income differences shared virtually no correlation with the vote.
Raw data from the poll is also available at www.sacbee.com...

A close look at the above will reveal the majorities of the below listed voting groups were against same gender marriage:

general white
general black
general latino
union households

Very interesting the way this subject seems to actually unify such sometimes diverse voting blocs.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by salchanra
I’m going to stay out of the issue of gay marriage, this is an issue on here that always stirs up a good deal of hatred between the members, and there is rarely any actual debate, rather just one side attacking the other using the same old, tired arguments.

However, I will say this. Outrage over $83M being spent on prop 8? I’m going to hedge a bet and guess those on the losing side of this initiative supported Obama. Good for you and congrats. However, where was the thread by you decrying the $170M on his inauguration? That’s twice the money, imagine how much good that could have done for schools, homeless, etc...

If you are going to flame, at least try to keep it consistent.


Yes I would say you are correct in all that you have said and again the bigotry and hatred about this issue is as contentious as you have pointed out. The Obama connection with the money issue is a great analogy and one that reminds me of something the Obamanoids always say about the election I will borrow for prop 8 that goes like this

As for prop 8, Gays lost, now get over it.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
The sum is the total of either side of the coin, as has been pointed out.

Something to consider as well in this discussion are the demographics of those who voted against same gender marriage.

Below from CNN exit poll:

The following list comprises a detailed, though not exhaustive, account of the demographics voting Yes(against same gender marriage) on Prop. 8 from the CNN exit poll:
84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled);[note 1]
82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled);[note 2][note 3]
81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled);
70% of African Americans – (10% of those polled);[note 4][note 5]
68% of voters married with children (31% of those polled);
65% of all Protestants - (43% of those polled);
65% of white Protestants – (29% of those polled);
64% of voters with children in household – (40% of those polled);
64% of Catholics – (30% of electorate);
61% of age 65 and over – (15% of those polled);
60% of married people – (62% of those polled);[note 6]
59% of suburban dwellers – (51% of those polled);
58% of non-college graduates – (50% of those polled);
56% of union households - (25% of those polled);
53% of Latinos – (18% of those polled);
51% of white men – (31% of those polled).
Polls showed that gender and income differences shared virtually no correlation with the vote.
Raw data from the poll is also available at www.sacbee.com...

A close look at the above will reveal the majorities of the below listed voting groups were against same gender marriage:

general white
general black
general latino
union households

Very interesting the way this subject seems to actually unify such sometimes diverse voting blocs.


And again, what this all adds up to is this,

The people have spoken, now

get over it



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Proposition 8 was put to the people to vote on. It was passed. The end. But perhaps instead of whining about it gays should seek another avenue, like the Supreme Court.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
reply to post by AshleyD
 


True but still look at the big picture here. People in this country are spending millions over their views on marriage while people around the world and including this country are starving. I guess having a culture war is better than having a war on poverty or hunger.


Ok, so tell me this, how much money was wasted by the opposing side?

Personally I don't care if gays get married, thats their decision BUT I do understand why some people are opposed to it. Marriage was originally a religious institution and should not be governed by law. If this law were passed churches may have been required to perform marriages that go against their dogma to avoid charges of discrimination.

The people of California have spoken, do their voices not count? There is no "right" to marriage. There is no law that gay people can't marry - they just can't marry someone of the same sex.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I was once against gay marriage based only on the way I was raised.

Having stepped back and looked at it from a new perspective I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to be against it. Gay marriage does not affect me therefore I have no right to tell others they cannot be married nor does anyone else. @OP you are absolutely correct when stating that this money could be better spent...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I have read many threads regarding gay marriage on ATS, and have still not heard an argument that legitimizes the Christian argument "homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible."

The main Bible verse used to support anti-gay sentiment comes from Leviticus 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus is a basically a list of rules for God fearing people. However, earlier in the same chapter, it says that adulterers should be put to death (Lev 20:10). In the next chapter, there are more rules, such as Lev 21:5 "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh," Lev 21:14 "A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife," and Lev 20:9 "For whatsoever man there be that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

So, if one rule from this section is valid, they are all valid, right? Adultery is a common issue among married couples, but I do not see any Christians killing adulterers. Nor do I see bald men being turned away from church, or being denied the right to shave their heads. Nor do I recall the church not allowing a divorcee or widow the opportunity to get remarried. I also doubt that virginity is a requirement for marriage. And who hasn't cursed their parents at least once in their lives?

I ask any Christian reading this to explain to me how one rule can be siphoned out from the others to build your point, meanwhile other rules ignored completely? Seems like a double standard.

As for the the argument that homosexuality is not natural, I encourage you to research homosexuality in nature. Many species of animals practice same sex partnerships. Although the prevalence is in the minority, penguins and dolphins both can take same sex companions for entire lifetimes, and practice sexual intercourse with one another. Not natural? Don't be so ignorant. While homosexuality may be a minority, to say it is unnatural is a false statement. Watch "Out in Nature: Homosexual Behaviour in the Animal Kingdom." It is a documentary outlining the previous point.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I thought of a way for California to get itself out of debt.

Since the churches donated money to a political cause, didn't they exempt themselves from tax-free status?

Tax the churches who donated monies to this cause (whether for or against) and get back on your feet Cali. Here's your chance. Maybe.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels


So think about it, 83 million dollars to stop two consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Think about all that money these so called "christian" churches could have used to stop poverty and help depressed people around the world. But NO! Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs so we can't let it happen, EVER! (Sarcasm)

Saying this as a straight female, it still bothers me because people are entitled to have equal rights, regardless of sex, race, age, gender, religion, etc. Civil unions are just another way of saying, separate but equal. I though we were supposed to be over that forty years ago?

Allison

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Think about it this way. The American People exercised their rights as citizens as appropriate to the United States Constitution and State Law. You cant have it both ways. Either you support their rights to vote, or you dont.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Just my two cents. My partner and I were "Unioned" (how stupid does that sound?) in Vermont while we lived there. We now live in New York, which sorta kinda but not really recognizes our Union. I really do not care if any chuch does or does not. I do not want to be wed, unioned, partnered, married, or anything else that has nothing to do with a social view, I could really care less.

However, I do care when it hits my pocket book:
850B Stimulas (ha ha)
250B tax credits for poor and parents (shameful amount to very specific groups)

Why not stimulate the economy by allowing the government to let gay couples file as married, or partners or whatever the hell the far right need to call it to let themselves sleep at night..let us have a few extra of our dollars back, which we will spend and probably not save for our kids college. 10% of the population is gay, mostly with more disposable income (ie..no kids). Gay Travel is a large percaentage of dollars spent (I think something like 20%) in the hospitality area, such as airfare, hotels, restaurants. Hospitality is the largest industry in the globe.

So dont marry me, but darnit all, let me file my taxes jointly just like you would a het couple that is married, and I think a het couple that has been domestic partnered for more tha X amount of years.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
It was put to a vote and got turned down. That is the way the country works. Personaly im not for same sex marriges in california becasue of the common law marrige laws. In southern california its really hard to find a place to live that is affordable without a roommate. So people use sites like craigslist and roomates.com to get a place with someone in the smame situation. Now if same sex marrige was legal, if you had a roommate of the same sex for more than 2 years he can turn around and say you were a couple and you were in the closet then sue you in the divorce. That is a big reason same sex marrige was turned down. If it was about "hate" they would outlaw homosexuality. You can still get a marrige ceremony at a church you just can not get legaly married in California. They can get married in another state and come back it would still be a legal marrige. Like when people get married in vegas they do not have to get remarried in california.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dances With Angels
 



True but still look at the big picture here. People in this country are spending millions over their views on marriage while people around the world and including this country are starving. I guess having a culture war is better than having a war on poverty or hunger.

People in this country are also providing volunteers and aid directly to poor countries around the world. Who are these people? The churches and not the government. No wonder Mormons are popping up all over the world!!!



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn

First of all, gays are not a minority anything, they are not a seperate race of people, they are human, therefore there is no discrimination based on anything except the way in which they perform sex.

I think gays are going about this all the wrong way. If you want minority status and rights as gays, then have yourselves declared mutations from human beings, thus forming your own race. You say its genetic already, in nature gayness happens when there are mutant genes that express themselves. If you are gay, you are in effect a mutant.

The way you have sex doesnt make a group of minorities, but being a mutant would. Mutations happen in nature all the time, usually those mutations never get passed on because nature eliminates most mutations from the gene pool by the very nature of the mutation.

So go before congress with the signatures of every single gay person and demand your new rights as mutants, you already have your own flag, why you had to ruin the rainbow is beyond me. I could think of some symbols that are alot more fitting, but I will get another warning from the mods.


Do you know what a minority is?

It is a racial, religious, political, national, or or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.

Homosexuals are by definition, the minority. As are atheists.

Your other statements aren't even worth commenting on. It's that kind of bigotry that breeds hatred in the world.

And yes, homosexuals are being discriminated against. They're being treated like second class citizens.

It's actually quite humorous. The same arguments that are being made against gay marriage were almost the same exact arguments that were made against interracial marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join