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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE03
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...





Having stepped back and looked at it from a new perspective


what perspective is that? Are you married? out of the closet? have children? Their are plenty of perspectives I have listed that you have not even considered, for instance,, My PERSPECTIVE!

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVE!

THEY SAID NO

Get over it




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
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.


Yeah and guys who work all day have to pay for their four kids new shoes their school books, various sports teams uniforms all that while gays sip mochalatta at the castro should be taxed for evey kid they don't have everytime they have sex with the dude they get their sick freak on with where the only thing 99.9% of this union is about is their own self indulgence contributing nothing to the future of our society in the form of new taxpayers. You know those rugrats that grow up and get jobs so they can further the surival of the species and our country.

Your idea is absurd and btw, Church is not tax exempt anymore and the faith based initiatives that bush passed while in office, in his entire eight years in office not one church got a single dime from it.

Not one dime.

I have just as much right to justify their calling me a bigot, as they have the right to justify my bigotry.

In other words, I don't have to justify my bigotry.

Gays calling my being repulsed for their selfish self serving self indulgent lifestyle bigotry, doesn't trivialize my sentiments by calling it bigotry,,

IT EXPLAINS IT!

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
To GeeGee above:an observation.


The term minority is broad, factually to broad to have much credibility when defining groups of individuals. Virtually anyone can rightfully and probably legally define themselves as a member of one or more 'minority' groups given the current terminology .
Left handed people, green-eyed people, red haired people, etc. Its all a bit relative and certainly subjective.

That said, the homosexual community is in fact recognized as a 'sexual minority' in the USA , at least, although comparing the expected civil rights for sexual minorities is much trickier than applying those same rights to members of a more 'obvious' minority group such as racial/ethnic or even religious.

However, it might be a bit overstated to compare the homosexual union to that of interracial marriage simply due to the fact that IR marriages have the potential in most cases for natural reproduction, which was long held as one of several objections to IR marriages decades past. And obviously no such potential lies with the homosexual union.

Merely an observation.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
To GeeGee above:an observation.


The term minority is broad, factually to broad to have much credibility when defining groups of individuals. Virtually anyone can rightfully and probably legally define themselves as a member of one or more 'minority' groups given the current terminology .
Left handed people, green-eyed people, red haired people, etc. Its all a bit relative and certainly subjective.

That said, the homosexual community is in fact recognized as a 'sexual minority' in the USA , at least, although comparing the expected civil rights for sexual minorities is much trickier than applying those same rights to members of a more 'obvious' minority group such as racial/ethnic or even religious.

However, it might be a bit overstated to compare the homosexual union to that of interracial marriage simply due to the fact that IR marriages have the potential in most cases for natural reproduction, which was long held as one of several objections to IR marriages decades past. And obviously no such potential lies with the homosexual union.

Merely an observation.


Yes. You have made many goods points. But I was only pointing out that some of the arguments that were made against interracial marriage are quite similar to the ones being made against gay marriage today.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhedonFan
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.


Yeah sure and if we allow those who have sex a certain way with certain people and make that a class distinction then we have to do it for Bi sexuals and people who can't express their "love" unless it is mixed couples and what about those who can only get off by expressing theirs with themselves and then I can marry myself to get a tax break too!

I mean really, if you people cannot see how case law works and the slippery slope this line of thinking begets than you need your heads examined. The gay marriage argument is as fallaciously argued as it is destructive to those who actually NEED the tax breaks.

I mean why wouldn't two straight guys just lie and say they are gay to get the same tax break and two woman say they are lesbian whether they are or not. I mean this idea is absolutely ridiculous and if you don't think people have already thought of doing this to take advantage of this tax break then you have never heard of attorney Denny Crane.

Yeah that's right, televisons own eccentric but once brilliant lawyer on The TV Show Boston Legal. The entire premise was taken from one of the great aggregation of the many issues that have clouded the tax laws making the entire issue of marriage spill over into a murky mess of creative ideas that are costing EVERYONE in the state of Mass.

Wow how progessive!
Pffft !



Believe me, it would inundate the states with so many bogus marriages and the Government knows it. Gays may as well take credit for yet another type of epidemic that ends up costing us billions. The audacity of those too ignorant to see that what those evil churches did putting all that funding to fight this issue was for your own good and you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for castigating them in what would have cost all of us in more ways than you even realize.

ASK ANYONE, ANYWHERE this idiotic idea has been allowed and even the gays there will tell you, they should have never done it. Some of you need to get this through your heads, that religious "folk" ain't always wrong and sometimes,, sometimes they are as right as rain and in this case you're all wet.

This whole thing reminds me of what a liability gays can be

in the first place









[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by dooper
 


Who are you to judge what kind of behaviour is good or bad? Who made you god?

All of this gay hate stems from bigotry and homophobia. The world changes, and so must you, religion included.


Wow. And none of your judging of Christians should be reviewed? Really?

[edit on 2009/3/2 by Marmota monax]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Just because prop 8 was passed does not mean that the issue is over. It is simply another roadblock on the path to equality for homosexuals. No one has a right to impose their beliefs upon another.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by PieKeeper]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Just because prop 8 was passed does not mean that the issue is over. It is simply another roadblock on the path to equality for homosexuals.
[edit on 3-2-2009 by PieKeeper]





No one has a right to impose their beliefs upon another.


No, thats why we have laws to protect these traditions and the rights for the institution of marriage between a woman and a man so that gays won't impose their selfish self serving self indulgent repugnant beliefs on the majority of all of us.

Get it??



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by WhedonFan
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.


Yeah sure and if we allow those who have sex a certain way with certain people and make that a class distinction then we have to do it for Bi sexuals and people who can't express their "love" unless it is mixed couples and what about those who can only get off by expressing theirs with themselves and then I can marry myself to get a tax break too!

I mean really if you people cannot see how case law works and the slippery slope this line of thinking begets than you need your heads examined. The gay marriage argument is a fallaciously argued as it is destructive to those who actually NEED the tax breaks.

I mean why wouldn't two straight guys just lie and say they are gay to get the same tax break and two woman say they are lesbian whether they are or not. I mean this idea is absolutely ridiculous and if you don't think people have already thought of doing this to take advantage of this tax break then you have never heard of attorney Denny Crane.

Believe me, it would inundate the states with so many bogus marriages and the Government knows it. Gays may as well take credit for yet another type of epidemic that ends up costing us billions.

Which reminds me of what a liability they are

in thre first place





[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]


Forgive me, but I choose not to "believe you". If two straight peoople are living together sharing the same kitchen, sharing the bills, then yes, they should be able to claim "married" as well. My point is there is a separation of Church and State, at least there is supposed to be. Why should anyone be taxed differently than anyone else simply because they are part, or not part of a religious unity? That fact, that we are taxed differently, is unconstitutional and against what this great country was founded upon. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why should I be taxed differently than a het couple who chooses not to have kids, simply because they have been given a religious symbol that the governemt recognizes?

Now, "if we allow those who have sex a certain way"...what exactly does how I have sex have to do with being taxed equally?

Next "The gay marriage argument is a fallaciously argued as it is destructive to those who actually NEED the tax breaks. " Ok, so gay folk don't need tax breaks in the middle of a depression? The Fed should keep more of my money than yours..why..because..I'm lesser? Because...one penis and one vagina makes more fiscal sense?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Some observations/questions:

All groups, Gay, Christian et al, spend millions on politics on a routine basis. This does not mean issues such as world hunger etc. are not also a valid concern of said groups.

How much money/time/effort did the Gay initiative spend on stop "poverty and help depressed people around the world" ?

Did Christians spend millions on hunger and helping others around the world last year?

In this case the majority won. This is how the law was intended to work. I think we need more "Majority" thinking in America.

In the end the courts will settle this, most likely on the side of Gay Marriage.

Could someone have a Gay friend or relative and still oppose Gay Marriage? I would hope so.

Just because someone is against Gay Marriage are they a bigot or homophobe ? I would hope not. If you answered yes you may want to check your "Intolerance Meter"

Should this topic be so divisive? Probably not.

Is this topic divisive as a means to an end? No doubt.







[edit on 2009/3/2 by Marmota monax]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I agree what a waste of money,when they knew the majority was in opposion of the law,I'm sure California could of used it in some situation now,if they don't like the laws here why not move to a state where they allow them,we have enough liberal laws,why create more IMO



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
No, when someone is against gay marriage, they are not a homophobe. Should I, as a gay person, believe that someone who is against marriage is against me having 1138 constituional rights that they inheritly can have? Should I find that hurtful? How can I not?

How can I not be offended by someone thinking my spose doesn't deserve my social security benefits if I pass?

How can I not be offended by someone thinking my spose doesn't deserve my payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after if I pass?

How can I not be offended by someone thinking my spose doesn't deserve making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts after I pass?

How can I not be offended by someone thinking my spose doesn't deserve veteran's disability or..
-- Supplemental Security Income
-- disability payments for federal employees
-- medicaid
-- property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
-- income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Or just a few other rights I don't get..

-- joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
-- joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
-- family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
-- next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
-- custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
-- domestic violence intervention
-- access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
-- Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
-- Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
-- Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
-- Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
-- Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
-- Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
-- Court notice of probate proceedings
-- Domestic violence protection orders
-- Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
-- Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
-- Funeral and bereavement leave
-- Joint adoption and foster care
-- Joint tax filing
-- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
-- Legal status with stepchildren
-- Making spousal medical decisions
-- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
-- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
-- Right of survivorship of custodial trust
-- Right to change surname upon marriage
-- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
-- Right to inheritance of property
-- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

While I attempt to respect anyones opinion, it feels differently when you are the one who doesn't get treated the same.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by WhedonFan
 

WhedonFan
Well thought out response.

I have a Gay sibling and I have discussed this in depth with her. Although she is not pro-Gay Marriage, she has many of the same complaints you do.

Question: Wouldn't civil unions bring most of your complaints to equity?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Referring to the fact that California grants same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under the term "domestic partnerships," Moreno asked: "Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the M-word -- marriage?" The best response came from the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, which briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. "Words matter," Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart said. "Names matter."


LA Times

Equity was achieved well before Prop 8.

Is this really worth the hatred it seems to generate on both sides of the fence?

Or is it another reason to blame Christians for the problems in the US?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Marmota monax
 



Sorry, I haven't quite figured out how to quote. Unfortunately, CU status only applies in certain states. Most of the rights I mentioned are still denied becuase they are Federal. The ones that really get my goat are things like inheritance, and if I'm in critical condition in the hospital, my spouse might not be able to see me, or inform my Doctors of my wishes...

In all honesty, I could care less what it's called, I just want equal rights for me and my partner. It's really a hard pill to swallow, I paid over 20k in taxes last year, all to a government who continues to treat me like a second class citizen.

As for the millions paid re Prop 8 (which was a very poorly worded bill) it truly is obscene on both sides. I also seem to remember, most of the pro Prop 8 anti-gay marriage money, came from the Mormon Church? I just find frustration with the country, i don't expect Utopia in my lifetime, but jeez, I just think if we could get to a point where each American is treated equal, we'd be in a hell of alot better place, morally, economicaly, and spiritually.

edit for a typo


[edit on 3-2-2009 by WhedonFan]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhedonFan

Forgive me,


NO! I won't forgive ignorance when it is insisted and imposed on the rest of us I DENY IT!

Your argumnent of church and state doesn't apply and I suggest you get your information about that out of this argument because YOUR version is against the first ammendment and your version of roomates getting marriage status is as asinine an argument to destroy whats left of any reason two people should get married that now NO men have reason to give woman and what will become a society of kids fatherd by the state and your tax dollars will support all children in this country.

The most idiotic box pandora has is the postulate for an anything goes lifestyle and By the way sherlock, just because you don't believe the facts doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequences of facts.




but I choose not to "believe you".


What if I don't believe the laws of gravity, I won't fall to my death jumping off the sears tower?

Ya know what hot shot, if it were you, I'd say jump

Your ignorance ain't taken the rest of us with half a wit down with ya



. My point is there is a separation of Church and State, at least there is supposed to be. Why should anyone be taxed differently than anyone else simply because they are part, or not part of a religious unity?


The rest of that "stuff" you aksed was asked and answered on previsous posts .

READ MY POSTS not just this page but the thread I won't explain things twice .



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Here is my take on this...

Everyone lives by their own ideals, and everyone else's ideals are wrong. Everyone preaches tolerance, but no one means it. Everyone likes to think their ideals mean something to them, but they don't, the only thing they actually mean is it makes that individual feel good about themselves for "believing in something" but they never really get to the CORE values of what make up their ideals.

In all actuality, the ones who continue to stand against gay marriage on the stance that we "can't redefine marriage" is no different from the racists who said whites and blacks couldn't marry. We redefined marriage for them, why can't we redefine marriage for homosexuals?

I don't even want to hear one stinking word from a religious person, saying that God said this, God said that. Well how about this, didn't Jesus supposedly die for ALL of our sins? What about the other myriad of contradictions on Christianity? You're going to ignore all those but take a stand on this one issue? Give me a break. Christians who take a stand on gay marriage because of what the bible says, is hypocrisy at it's finest. Most, if not all of you, break one of the ten commandments every single day as well as commit other sins.... but are too righteous to see that for what it is. Hypocrisy.

This is about HUMAN rights. Dooper the dope tried to say "well next it's beastiality" or next it's giving rights to pedophiles... no, Dooper the Dope... you don't understand this is about Human Rights. Beastiality violates animal rights, because the animal does not consent and it harms the animal. Animal's don't have sex for pleasure (except dolphins I think). On another point, we're not the same species.

There is nothing wrong with two human beings who love each other getting married. We redefined marriage before, it will happen again very soon.

In 50 years history will look back at this time in similarity with the times of segregation. Same principle.

But I understand some of you cling to your dogmatic ideals so desperately, even when in the wrong, because that's all you've got. You don't want to see things from an objective view point. You don't want to look at things rationally. You would rather irrationally tie two things together that have no business belonging in the same sentence to desperately try and make yourself not look ignorant... but you fail....

I have yet to hear, and will never hear, a rational argument for not allowing homosexuals to marry....and I'm still waiting. Besides, how friggin' holy is that union when 50% of couples end up divorced anyway? The gays couldn't possibly do any worse than you bible thumpers.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WhedonFan
 


WhedonFan>

All soild points.

I think any citizen should be afforded the benefit of a civil union. That clearly makes sense.

All but one of the Christians I know would agree with the above.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marmota monax


Or is it another reason to blame Christians for the problems in the US?


It makes for an "excuse" to bash Christians, but as for reason?

Nope



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

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


Hmm, well you have clearly planted your flag and I applaud you for your unwaivering convictions. What you see as pointless I see as pivotal. Arguments you label as stupid I support as enlightened. At this point I simply agree to disagree and would add a thread with no spark is soon forgotten, so carry on.




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join