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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaNutter
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.


Any good Christian is a sinner and lives with that realization everyday.

Any good Christian also knows Jesus befriended prostitutes and tax collectors.

Any good Christian knows Jesus did die on the Cross for the forgiveness of all peoples sins.

Jesus also gave us rules to live by.

Is it still hypocrisy if I know and live by the above but wish to defend my beliefs because the Bible says I should and because I have a clear right to the religion of my choice?

So to not be hated by you I need to adopt your values and live by them?




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat

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.


Yes, it seems we have come to an impasse and I appreciate the position you take to diffuse the otherwise volatile issue this topic invariably becomes. I think it is for this reason we have a curtain around us in a private voting booth where no matter what we say or do in public, what speaks for the social collective conscience of this country is when the American people have spoken and the rule of law is not abrogated but is agreed to whether we like it or not, we comply with it in peace.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
As a straight, unmarried resident of California, I didn't really have an iron in this fire at all. Until this election, the issue of gay marriage never really crossed my thoughts.

Then... the advertising started. And the hysterical cries from the anti-gay marriage crowd started to build. I heard claims that gay marriage leads straight to bestiality. Claims that schools would be forced to teach about gay sex to elementary schoolchildren. Claims that every church in California would be sued out of existence. And so on and so on.

Someone above mentioned examining the issue from a new perspective, which I started to do, as well.

The first thought I had was that the root of every argument against gay marriage was based in bigotry, fear, and intolerance. The onslaught of advertising was aimed purely at demonizing homosexuals, and creating a climate of fear that "traditional marriage" was under assault.

Next I started thinking about personal freedoms and liberties, and that the freedoms I would want for myself, I would have to extend to others. I came to the conclusion that real freedom means sometimes you have to allow others to do things I wouldn't do.

I want as little government involvement in my personal life as possible, and if erring on the side of freedom and tolerance means fighting against gay marriage bans, then so be it.

AND THEN, I really started thinking about it. If two consenting adults want to bond together to form a stable, social unit, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? It's different. It's unknown territory. But historically, so was emancipating the slaves, sufferage, and the civil rights movement.

My mom has been married three times. My dad's been married twice. Over 60% of my relatively religious extended family have been through multiple divorces. And every time they re-married, it wasn't just about tax breaks and inheritance rights, it was to express love, devotion, and a special level of recognition that the words "civil partners" just doesn't convey.

Gay marriage costs me nothing and has no bearing on my life. It neither cheapens or enhances any marriage(s) I might be part of. It doesn't hurt me in any direct financial method, and it doesn't change my church or how I worship. On the other hand, the gay people that I personally know who want to get married are stable, boring middle-aged people whose lives would be dramatically enriched by that simple concept.

By the time my thinking and analysis got to that point, I had become a pretty vocal proponent for gay marriage. It shocked the hell out of me, but my commitment to civil liberties and fighting ignorance turned out to be pretty important to me.

My question to those who oppose gay marriage - why do you want that level of government interference in your lives? If you let the government dictate at all who can marry whom, isn't that the "slippery slope" into government intrusion that we should all be fighting against?

Sometimes politics make strange bedfellows, and sometimes freedom doesn't look like what you think it should look like, but that makes it all the more important to fight for.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The Fact is all this money spent $83 Million, over what people think is right?
For people to judge each other.

Whilst this money could be spent aiding the world, fixing the world stopping hunger, poverty and going towards medical supplies.

Made the world a better place to live, but insted it helped just aid one side of an arguement. What if more money was put into this? If someone disagreed and promoted the other side. Inserting more and more money. That money could of helped people aswell.

Personally I think If not allowed Marriage, an equal to marriage like a union, people wanting same sex marriage should accept that people in Christianity do not want it and think its wrong. But people also should see it as segregation because that was it is exactly.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhedonFan
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.


You don't deserve 99% of all that for the same reasons I don't

is this that hard for you to understand??

What makes you think you have a right to extend someone else's SS# to you merely because you have had your penis in his rectum over 5-10 even fifteen years? Ever foster a family that way??

Ya know this free love and sex crap being what ever and who ever you do it with, how ever you do it has caused more grief from single mothers with no child support to the tragedy of a genocide of Americans guilty of tresspassing in their mothers womb. These are ALL moral acts against biblical morality. While we have all argued up and down against those who would judge us for our tresspasses along these lines of sexual depravity, what is so ironic is that they were RIGHT all along and it IS destroying this country.

You want all that stuff then get a carte blanche financial power of attorney that is effective upon death of the deceased love companion or whatever the hell you want to call him or her husband or wife, bottom or top it really makes no difference anymore.

It has got that hard identify with


Good luck with that

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WhedonFan
 





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


I agree with Monax, you've posted an excellent response very welly thought out indeed.

Many of the denied rights you point out also apply to many heterosexual men upon divorce, although men go into a marriage as equal partners with their wife, they seldom come out equally.


Marriage in the 21st century seems to be a complete farce who's only purpose is to obtain some of the benefits you quoted, it is hypocrisy to prevent gays getting married but not try to prevent them cohabiting.

There was a time that interracial marriages were frowned upon and attempts were made to prevent them but times changed and people changed, including the religious.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 





What makes you think you have a right to extend someone else's SS# to you merely because you have had your penis in his rectum over 5-10 even fifteen years? Ever foster a family that way??



That has to be one of the most repugnant and ignorant posts I've ever read, and I'm pretty easy going.

nevertheless you're obviously unaware how many women like a penis in the rectum and have been doing so throughout their marriages.

Sex is sex dude what ever you choose to enjoy as long as it's consenting adults. You seem to b unable to differentiate between a sexual act and a relationship.

I may choose to try being gay one day, to see what so many women I have known have enjoyed so much. If I do decide to do that (as xtians claim it's a choice not a gene) I would kindly ask other people to butt (lol) out of my business.

What exactly is the difference between a woman pillowmunching and a man pillowmunching ? All the places where you park your bike look the same at the end of the day.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marmota monax

Any good Christian is a sinner and lives with that realization everyday.

Any good Christian knows Jesus did die on the Cross for the forgiveness of all peoples sins.

Jesus also gave us rules to live by.

Is it still hypocrisy if I know and live by the above but wish to defend my beliefs because the Bible says I should and because I have a clear right to the religion of my choice?

So to not be hated by you I need to adopt your values and live by them?


You ask good questions, Marmota, but let me answer them with some questions in return:

It's not hypocrisy to defend your beliefs in the bible, there's honor in that. But is where is the line drawn between 'defending your beliefs' and 'imposing your beliefs on others'?

If you look at this issue not as an attack on your religion, but as an attack on the freedoms you cherish, would your viewpoint change? If federal or state recognition of gay marriage changed absolutely nothing about your church, your beliefs, or your chosen manner of worship, would you reconsider your stance?

Consider it another way - if we, as a people, allow the government to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, doesn't that open the door to let the government regulate more of your life. First, you can only marry a woman. Then it's only a Lutheran woman. Or a white woman. Or, since the government has now defined marriage, your church has to accept the interfaith marriage between your son and a Jewish woman. What if the Presbyterians get on a tear and through a vote, define marriage as only between one Presbyterian and another?

Those scenarios might seem unlikely, but sometimes a slim precedent is all it takes to start the ball rolling.

On the flip side of the coin, if marriage is a private matter between two consenting adults, recognized by state & federal organizations, where does that slippery slope wind up? If it doesn't change your church, or mandate a change in your beliefs or how you live, you lose nothing and gain an extra ounce of freedom from government intervention. The "two consenting adults" is a strong shield against those hysterical claims that it will lead to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. And pushing back what the government can and cannot regulate in your life builds a firewall around your civil liberties.

The irony here is that those who would fight for religion to remain free and unmolested by government control should be at the forefront of this fight, because it's about the freedom to live as you please. It's in your church's interest to maintain control over what they care to recognize as a marriage -- but church recognition and legal recognition are two wildly different matters.


As to the rules Jesus gave us to live by, where does Jesus lay down the law on what is the sole definition of marriage? My bible readings celebrate Jesus as a man of peace, who uses openness and patience and love to achieve his goals, not divisive legislation.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 





You don't deserve 99% of all that for the same reasons I don't

is this that hard for you to understand??

What makes you think you have a right to extend someone else's SS# to you merely because you have had your penis in his rectum over 5-10 even fifteen years? Ever foster a family that way??

Ya know this free love and sex crap being what ever and who ever you do it with, how ever you do it has caused more grief from single mothers with no child support to the tragedy of a genocide of Americans guilty of tresspassing in their mothers womb. These are ALL moral acts against biblical morality. While we have all argued up and down against those who would judge us for our tresspasses along these lines of sexual depravity, what is so ironic is that they were RIGHT all along and it IS destroying this country.

You want all that stuff then get a carte blanche financial power of attorney that is effective upon death of the deceased love companion or whatever the hell you want to call him or her husband or wife, bottom or top it really makes no difference anymore.

It has got that hard identify with


Good luck with that

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]




Why are you talking Biblical Morality when we are talking about laws, Im not asking to rewrite scripture, I'm stating I should, in this country have equal rights. All 1138 belong to someone else and not me. Power of Attorney does not hold up if pressured in a State that does not allow for equal rights. WHy should I have to pay an atty. to get some, certainly not all of these rights? Why should my finances and my WIFES not be counted together on a credit rating as any other couples, when our finances are mixed? I am perfectly capable of fostering a family, be it by natural means, absolutely free just like anyone else.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by detroitslim
 





As to the rules Jesus gave us to live by, where does Jesus lay down the law on what is the sole definition of marriage? My bible readings celebrate Jesus as a man of peace, who uses openness and patience and love to achieve his goals, not divisive legislation.


Now I know quite a few xtians who will say your not a real xtian for saying that. Then they will go to their bibles, completely fail to be able to contradict you and fall back on selected old testament verses, which don't include leviticus to try and tell you what jesus really meant to say.

Nice intelligent post post dude, i take it you're the type who actually understand the meaning of " Let he that hath not sinned -------".



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dances With Angels

More than $83 million spent on Prop 8


www.msnbc.msn.com

SAN FRANCISCO - Donors spent more than $83 million to support or oppose the ballot initiative that abolished same-sex marriage in California, according to campaign filings released Monday.

The new filings cover the weeks immediately before and after the Nov. 4 election. They show that elected officials, businesses, churches and individuals poured more than $28 million into the campaigns during the contest's closing days.

The final tallies show that opponents of Proposition 8 raised $43.3 million in 2008 and had a little more than $730,000 left on hand at year's end. The measure's sponsors raised $39.9 million and had $983,000 left over.

(visit the link for the full news article)



vote no on proposition 24



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaite Couric
 


So where exactly did this $83million go, who benefited from all of this? the lawyer must be rubbing their hands with glee.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Kaite Couric
 


So where exactly did this $83million go, who benefited from all of this? the lawyer must be rubbing their hands with glee.




Most of it went to television stations, newspapers, magazines, ad agencies, and commercial production companies. The bulk of the cash raised wasn't for lawyers, it was for air time. By way of comparison, Paramount Pictures probably spent $83 million to advertise "Benjamin Button" alone.


[edited to correct spelling]

[edit on 3-2-2009 by detroitslim]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 

moocowman

Many of the denied rights you point out also apply to many heterosexual men upon divorce, although men go into a marriage as equal partners with their wife, they seldom come out equally. Marriage in the 21st century seems to be a complete farce who's only purpose is to obtain some of the benefits you quoted, it is hypocrisy to prevent gays getting married but not try to prevent them cohabiting. There was a time that interracial marriages were frowned upon and attempts were made to prevent them but times changed and people changed, including the religious.

Very much agree with your post.


(Edit- added quote)

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



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

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??


Laws do change and will eventually in this case. Just because people have "spoken", it doesn't mean that it is over. Any group that has found and lost their fight for their rights, have gotten it eventually. You talk about gays imposing "selfish self seving self indulgent repugnant beliefs" on all of us. Christians and other religious organizations (yes Atheists included) do the same thing, do they not? So what, the gays want to get married, let them get married and shut up about it, it's got nothing to do with anyone except the ones who got married.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by detroitslim
 





Most of it went to television stations, newspapers, magazines, ad agencies, and commercial production companies. The bulk of the cash raised wasn't for lawyers, it was for air time. By way of comparison, Paramount Pictures probably spent $83 million to advertise "Benjamin Button" alone.


So it doesn't seem to be in the majority interest, to have a minority treated as equal human beings, when the continuation of the plight can generate so many dollars for another minority.

Makes you wonder how Dr King got through the day, knowing that the harder his fight became the more money some people would make.

Sad really, I wonder why it is we are all born equal, except those who are not ?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by maus80
reply to post by Common Good
 


This is complete unadulterated ignorance! You think non-religious people, or people belonging to a religion that doesn't address marriage, do not get married in the USA? Think again! The CEREMONY can be religious, or it can be disco-pimp themed, or anything in between. The legal contract has ZERO to do with religion, and everything to do with the rights of the two parties entering into said contract.

How many times have you heard "Will you marry me? Uuuh...I can't, I don't have Jesus in my heart..."

Aaargh!! I've over-dosed on ignorance for the day, I need to read something happy and smart and fun now...


Both sides are ignorant. The Gays refused to accept a Domestic Partnership with the same rights and privileges as Marriage. The opposition is not against giving them the rights but don''t want it called Marriage. That means that the real issue is something else. Either it is the word "Marriage" they covet or they are just whining to whine. If not about this, it would be something else.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by detroitslim
 


So it doesn't seem to be in the majority interest, to have a minority treated as equal human beings, when the continuation of the plight can generate so many dollars for another minority.


I wouldn't be so pessimistic about things. The $83 million was the total amount spent, and the pro-gay marriage side raised & spent more than the anti-gay marriage side. (According to MSNBC it was approximately $43 million to $40 million).

All that for a result that was 52%-48%, practically a coin flip, and a dramatic narrowing of the gap from the previous gay marriage ballot issue.

The most troubling thing about the money trail is that out-of-state religious groups contributed at least a million dollars directly to the anti-gay marriage campaign, and untold amounts of phone banks, organizational spaces, and non-listed in-kind contributions.

As this was a states rights issue, it was completely inappropriate for an out of state entity like the Mormon church to expend so much in resources in this campaign. I don't think Utah would like an association of aggressive California hippies pushing a gay marriage statute in Salt Lake City. That would probably be widely regarded as one group overstepping its bounds to meddle in another state's affairs.

Given how close the vote was, it's entirely possible that the out-of-state contributions were a deciding factor in the margin of victory. I'm all for free speech of all types, but there's a difference between an individuals right to free speech, and unchecked speech that wields undue influence.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Correct me if i'm wrong but...i don't think Christ had a standing on the gay issue. Why bring him into this? No one knows what Jesus would do for certain so don't assume he was with or against.

I was/am for Prop 8 because i see one point for marriage, procreation, gays can't do that as far as my knowledge goes. I'm a Christian (actually to take it further i'm LDS aka mormon) but i don't base my beliefs off the Bible, i base it off what i feel is right for not only me but my surroundings, and in a day and age where marriage means pretty much nothing, i don't quite see the point of all the fighting. (this isn't an invitation for people to flame me or spill their case on why they think homos should have the rights to get married.)

Propostition 8 isn't about happiness, it's about the LEGAL DEFINITION of marriage

I'm also against Prop 8 because i don't want my kids learning about gay marriages in school, i don't want them being told a marriage between 2 men or 2 women is the same as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman, because it's not, no matter how you word it.

Now don't go thinking I'm anti-gay or homophobic, I'm not, i don't even want my kids learning about traditional marriage in school, i can do that. Teach them math, spelling and whatever else, let the parents handle the rest.

As for the money raised, it probally went into that anonymous black hole every other political fundraiser has, i didn't think a propostion really needed SOO much money, i mean what's there to spend the money on? You already have volunteers but you can pay them all minimum wage with that money, and than you need ad money but what else is there, really?

edit: for editting purposes

[edit on 3-2-2009 by screamo]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman



Marriage in the 21st century seems to be a complete farce who's only purpose is to obtain some of the benefits you quoted, it is hypocrisy to prevent gays getting married but not try to prevent them cohabiting.


There was a time that interracial marriages were frowned upon and attempts were made to prevent them but times changed and people changed, including the religious.


The inter racial canard has been debunked and is no comparison

No, nothing has changed and the more things do, the more they stay the same. The goal posts are moved further into depravity in this one and the farce you call marriage would become one unequivocally if it ever gets to this. Ironically it is those calling it such a farce that are fighting so hard to be a part of that same farce.

It makes that argument very hard to take serious then




[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join