Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Tre on November 03, 2008, 06:00:01 AM
-
Hmmm...
-
Mexican Mormons?
-
Hmmm...
? Lots of needles pointing up in the air here. ;D
-
WTF?? ???
-
He's talking about Prop 8 in CA. The Mormon church has taken a somewhat controversial stand in favor of it. Well the stand isn't controversial per se, just that the church is getting involved in the debate--some people seem to have a problem with that.
Are the Mormons taking over CA any more than any other conservative group who's voting according to their beliefs?
The way I understand it (I don't live in CA), Prop 8 doesn't illegalize gays forming civil unions, it just wants to avoid watering down the word "marriage" to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
For the record, I am Mormon and can see both sides of this issue since people close to me are gay and are following this issue very closely.
Perhaps it might seem like hair-splitting over semantics... but once you open up that door... what's next? People marrying their pets? People marrying their car, or their house, and making it legal and claiming legal benefits? I mean maybe it sounds stupid but it's opening up the door for all sorts of legal loopholes. So it's complicated and I'm not exactly sure where I stand on it yet... but it doesn't matter because I don't live in CA and I'm not voting on it anyway.
Proposition 8 is an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot, titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
-
He's talking about Prop 8 in CA. The Mormon church has taken a somewhat controversial stand in favor of it. Well the stand isn't controversial per se, just that the church is getting involved in the debate--some people seem to have a problem with that.
Are the Mormons taking over CA any more than any other conservative group who's voting according to their beliefs?
The way I understand it (I don't live in CA), Prop 8 doesn't illegalize gays forming civil unions, it just wants to avoid watering down the word "marriage" to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
For the record, I am Mormon and can see both sides of this issue since people close to me are gay and are following this issue very closely.
Perhaps it might seem like hair-splitting over semantics... but once you open up that door... what's next? People marrying their pets? People marrying their car, or their house, and making it legal and claiming legal benefits? I mean maybe it sounds stupid but it's opening up the door for all sorts of legal loopholes. So it's complicated and I'm not exactly sure where I stand on it yet... but it doesn't matter because I don't live in CA and I'm not voting on it anyway.
Dan-O, marriage is a religious institution.
Gay couples should be allowed to enjoy (if there is such a term for marriage ;)) the same marriage tax penalties that straight couples currently enjoy. Otherwise, it's discrimination.
Maybe if we have married gay couples paying more taxes it'll (mabye... just maybe) result in a tax cut for us all. ;D
-
He's talking about Prop 8 in CA. The Mormon church has taken a somewhat controversial stand in favor of it.
well, it's a bit more than that. they're pouring $20 million into it.
Well the stand isn't controversial per se, just that the church is getting involved in the debate--some people seem to have a problem with that.
some people could see that they're trying to legislate their morality.
The way I understand it (I don't live in CA), Prop 8 doesn't illegalize gays forming civil unions, it just wants to avoid watering down the word "marriage" to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
same sex marriage has been legal in California since this summer. prop 8 is trying to end that, trying to take away existing rights, trying to put discrimination into the state constitution.
Perhaps it might seem like hair-splitting over semantics... but once you open up that door... what's next? People marrying their pets? People marrying their car, or their house, and making it legal and claiming legal benefits?
how many people are already in loving committed relationships with their pets or their houses? there are hundreds of millions of people in committed loving same sex relationships. you just equated them to bestiality and wonder why people think you're a bigot.
btw, former QB Steve Young and his wife have come out against prop 8 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32216). (be sure to read the comments) Steve is the great-great-great-grandson of Brigham Young.
-
Dan-O, marriage is a religious institution.
it is also a civil institution, with thousands of protections and benefits. people get married without the involvement of a church all the time. no religious institute is required to conduct same sex marriages. but some religious organizations have been, without the recognition of the state, for years and years
-
Mormon Chiicks love it in the ass. I love going to Salt Lake City and Park City!!
-
Mormon Chiicks love it in the ass. I love going to Salt Lake City and Park City!!
This is true... :o Something else that's equally true:
Q: How do you get a Mormon girl to stop having sex?
A: You marry her.
-
Mormon Chiicks love it in the ass. I love going to Salt Lake City and Park City!!
Suuuuurrrre they were chicks. That's why they only wanted the A2O.
-
He's talking about Prop 8 in CA. The Mormon church has taken a somewhat controversial stand in favor of it. Well the stand isn't controversial per se, just that the church is getting involved in the debate--some people seem to have a problem with that.
Are the Mormons taking over CA any more than any other conservative group who's voting according to their beliefs?
The way I understand it (I don't live in CA), Prop 8 doesn't illegalize gays forming civil unions, it just wants to avoid watering down the word "marriage" to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
For the record, I am Mormon and can see both sides of this issue since people close to me are gay and are following this issue very closely.
Perhaps it might seem like hair-splitting over semantics... but once you open up that door... what's next? People marrying their pets? People marrying their car, or their house, and making it legal and claiming legal benefits? I mean maybe it sounds stupid but it's opening up the door for all sorts of legal loopholes. So it's complicated and I'm not exactly sure where I stand on it yet... but it doesn't matter because I don't live in CA and I'm not voting on it anyway.
Do you wear the magic Mormon underwear?
-
This is true... :o Something else that's equally true:
Q: How do you get a Mormon girl to stop having sex?
A: You marry her.
Might be the reasoning behind legalizing gay marriage as they are trying to get gays to stop having sex. :D
-
just a little over the top (ya think?)
-
just a little over the top (ya think?)
I think it gets the point across rather well.
-
He's talking about Prop 8 in CA. The Mormon church has taken a somewhat controversial stand in favor of it. Well the stand isn't controversial per se, just that the church is getting involved in the debate--some people seem to have a problem with that.
Are the Mormons taking over CA any more than any other conservative group who's voting according to their beliefs?
The way I understand it (I don't live in CA), Prop 8 doesn't illegalize gays forming civil unions, it just wants to avoid watering down the word "marriage" to mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
For the record, I am Mormon and can see both sides of this issue since people close to me are gay and are following this issue very closely.
Perhaps it might seem like hair-splitting over semantics... but once you open up that door... what's next? People marrying their pets? People marrying their car, or their house, and making it legal and claiming legal benefits? I mean maybe it sounds stupid but it's opening up the door for all sorts of legal loopholes. So it's complicated and I'm not exactly sure where I stand on it yet... but it doesn't matter because I don't live in CA and I'm not voting on it anyway.
didn't the church innitiate prop 8? Looks like the backers mostly come from religious groups.
-
didn't the church innitiate prop 8? Looks like the backers mostly come from religious groups.
Yes they did... The people in California have already decided we don't give a shit about Gay marriage... The majority has decided it's fine... This is simply the squeaky wheel getting greased... I can't wait to see their money wasted... I don't know anyone in California who is going to vote FOR prop 8.
Well, except for Joe maybe... which is assuredly his right... and I support it Joe. I just don't agree with it.
-
Regardless of how I personally feel about gays who act artsy - I don't see any rational argument I personally could have against gay marriages and rights in general.
Ok, I'm no fan of gay culture or lifestyle - will and grace is pure torture if you ask me - but there are really no reasonable arguments against their rights.
Sure, in Islamo-fascist countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran - what is to be expected.
But in the civilised world?
-
just a little over the top (ya think?)
Wow... the left does fear mongering too!
-
Regardless of how I personally feel about gays who act artsy
ok, that's about 3% of the people who are gay. how do you feel about everyone else?
will and grace is pure torture if you ask me
me too. But Noah's Arc (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0478079/) is a hoot. (season 2 was much better than season 1, though)
btw, I've met Darryl Stephens, and he's nothing like his character. (it's called acting)
-
... but once you open up that door... what's next?
If you let the 'prophet' and board of directors in Salt Lake City determine what your marriage rights are, how long will it be before they decide to set other policies for you as well?
-
Yes they did... The people in California have already decided we don't give a shit about Gay marriage... The majority has decided it's fine... This is simply the squeaky wheel getting greased... I can't wait to see their money wasted... I don't know anyone in California who is going to vote FOR prop 8.
Well, except for Joe maybe... which is assuredly his right... and I support it Joe. I just don't agree with it.
Ummmm, didn't the majority already vote AGAINST gay 'marriage'? Isn't the issue that those 4 judges in SF overruled the will of the people?
-
There are gay people in California??
-
Ummmm, didn't the majority already vote AGAINST gay 'marriage'? Isn't the issue that those 4 judges in SF overruled the will of the people?
Yes.
-
Yes, we have liberals here. Sorry to say.....
-
Yes, we have liberals here. Sorry to say.....
I don't mind liberals, but I do mind when a handful of judges overrule the will of the people.
-
I don't mind liberals, but I do mind when a handful of judges overrule the will of the people.
Remember prop 187?
-
Remember prop 187?
Yep, but it never really made its way through the courts from what I recall.
-
I don't mind liberals, but I do mind when a handful of judges overrule the will of the people.
So was it wrong for the California Supreme Court to overturn miscegenation laws in 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp) and then the US Supreme Court to do the same in 1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) ? Both overruled the will of the people.
Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
-
So was it wrong for the California Supreme Court to overturn miscegenation laws in 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp) and then the US Supreme Court to do the same in 1967 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) ? Both overruled the will of the people.
Constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.
Apples and oranges. Race is an innate trait protected by the Constitution. Lifestyle choices are always regulated by popular vote.
-
Apples and oranges. Race is an innate trait protected by the Constitution. Lifestyle choices are always regulated by popular vote.
how is who you fall in love with a lifestyle choice?
when did you choose to be straight?
-
Apples and oranges. Race is an innate trait protected by the Constitution. Lifestyle choices are always regulated by popular vote.
Race was not protected directly... Not until it was added as an amendment.
This country should always strive to increase personal liberty, not take it away... Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right?
If someone's happiness comes in being married to the same sex, I'm afraid you're just being fascist if you try to ban it.
-
Race was not protected directly... Not until it was added as an amendment.
This country should always strive to increase personal liberty, not take it away... Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right?
If someone's happiness comes in being married to the same sex, I'm afraid you're just being fascist if you try to ban it.
So i think they should get rid of the mexi hoards that are sneaking into Cali. They lower the quality of life for everyone, are always in jail, and we'd all be a whole lot happier with a cleaner, crime free society.
Is that fascist?
-
So i think they should get rid of the mexi hoards that are sneaking into Cali. They lower the quality of life for everyone, are always in jail, and we'd all be a whole lot happier with a cleaner, crime free society.
Is that fascist?
You think if mexicans weren't in cali we'd have a crime free society? ???
I agree, there is an illegal immigration problem. I think the bigger problem is we allow people to live in America who don't speak English and refuse to learn it.
-
Of course not, I am mearly pushing the issue Tu is talking about.
He says that you are fascist if you obstruct someones happiness.
Who's happiness is most important?
-
Of course not, I am mearly pushing the issue Tu is talking about.
He says that you are fascist if you obstruct someones happiness.
Who's happiness is most important?
Well then my x-wife is a fascist. ;D
-
Of course not, I am mearly pushing the issue Tu is talking about.
He says that you are fascist if you obstruct someones happiness.
Who's happiness is most important?
The obvious answer is, until the happiness of the lowest common denominator of society is guaranteed, no one is truly happy.
So we need to find ways to boost the self-esteem and ensure the happiness of illegal immigrants. Giving them driver's licenses and welfare is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more for them.
-
Yea, give me some free money for doing nothing but having kids and consuming every resource I could get my hands on. Hell, I'd be happy too...
-
So i think they should get rid of the mexi hoards that are sneaking into Cali. They lower the quality of life for everyone, are always in jail, and we'd all be a whole lot happier with a cleaner, crime free society.
Is that fascist?
No, because they're not citizens of the United States... I'm talking about US Citizens... They should never have rights restricted.
Why would you compare what is written for citizens with non-citizens who have allegiance to a country other than the US?
-
how is who you fall in love with a lifestyle choice?
when did you choose to be straight?
Who you choose to have sex with is a lifestyle choice. I don't care who consenting adults choose to sleep with. I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and a Y.
-
Race was not protected directly... Not until it was added as an amendment.
This country should always strive to increase personal liberty, not take it away... Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right?
If someone's happiness comes in being married to the same sex, I'm afraid you're just being fascist if you try to ban it.
Sexual preference isn't race.
Everyone has the right to sleep with whichever consenting adult they want.
If someone wants to use the government to legitimize lifestyle choices (and that's what this is all about), then people have the right to vote about it. I guess we'll find out today whether the majority of Californians and Floridians are as fascist as the overwhelming majority of the country that has voted against homosexual marriage. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't. Seventy percent of the voters rejected it in Hawaii when it was on the ballot.
-
People were on the streets last night in force.
On both sides of prop 8.
-
Who you choose to have sex with is a lifestyle choice.
you forget, prop 8 is about marriage. no sex involved after that.
-
you forget, prop 8 is about marriage. no sex involved after that.
lol. Not in my house! lol :D
-
Who you choose to have sex with is a lifestyle choice. I don't care who consenting adults choose to sleep with. I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and a Y.
I disagree... Many scientific studies have shown that brain patterns in hetero vs. homosexual people are different... leading scientists to believe it's not a "choice".
Sexual preference isn't race.
Everyone has the right to sleep with whichever consenting adult they want.
If someone wants to use the government to legitimize lifestyle choices (and that's what this is all about), then people have the right to vote about it. I guess we'll find out today whether the majority of Californians and Floridians are as fascist as the overwhelming majority of the country that has voted against homosexual marriage. Maybe they'll agree, maybe they won't. Seventy percent of the voters rejected it in Hawaii when it was on the ballot.
There shouldn't be any reason to HAVE to legitimize it... Once again, the Christian right brings up an issue that shouldn't be, and then gets mad when someone tells them it's stupid to bring it up in the first place.
-
these freaks wear magic underwear nothing they say should be takin seriously.
-
you forget, prop 8 is about marriage. no sex involved after that.
Arent many laws regarding marriage built around the idea of family and the benefits of marriage in a society based on the family unit?
-
I disagree... Many scientific studies have shown that brain patterns in hetero vs. homosexual people are different... leading scientists to believe it's not a "choice".
There shouldn't be any reason to HAVE to legitimize it... Once again, the Christian right brings up an issue that shouldn't be, and then gets mad when someone tells them it's stupid to bring it up in the first place.
I haven't seen any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic.
We are talking about abnormal behavior. I suspect that's why many people, not just "the Christian right," have a problem with using the government to legitimize this lifestyle choice. If "the Christian right" were the only ones opposed to this, we wouldn't see the overwhelming rejection by voters at the polls.
Keep in mind that people include bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites under this umbrella. Do you think those lifestyle choices are genetic too?
-
I haven't seen any scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic.
We are talking about abnormal behavior. I suspect that's why many people, not just "the Christian right," have a problem with using the government to legitimize this lifestyle choice. If "the Christian right" were the only ones opposed to this, we wouldn't see the overwhelming rejection by voters at the polls.
Keep in mind that people include bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites under this umbrella. Do you think those lifestyle choices are genetic too?
Yes I do actually... I also think that many people vote against it because of other reasons... I know a friend who voted against it because he said, "I don't care, but if it's legal HERE, then everyone will come HERE to do it, and he didn't want THAT for some reason."
-
Certian BEHAVIORS should not be subject to governmental protection.
-
Yes I do actually... I also think that many people vote against it because of other reasons... I know a friend who voted against it because he said, "I don't care, but if it's legal HERE, then everyone will come HERE to do it, and he didn't want THAT for some reason."
I agree people vote against it for a variety of reasons. That's why I disagree with the contention that Christian conservatives are essentially the only ones opposing homosexual marriage. The opposition is pretty broad based.
We have done some pretty unorthodox things with this whole sexual orientation thing. We have laws on our books here that define "gender identity" to mean whatever you want it to mean, on whatever day you want.
-
Arent many laws regarding marriage built around the idea of family and the benefits of marriage in a society based on the family unit?
yes, and gay families qualify. two people taking care of each other, with or without children.
there are hundreds of thousands of gay families with children in California. Prop 8 won't change that. these families deserve the same protection that straight families have.
-
We are talking about abnormal behavior.
welcome to the 1980s
-
welcome to the 1980s
:D
-
welcome to the 1980s
Thanks. You should read our "gender identity" law in Hawaii.
-
Ugghh... this whole issue obviously is so much more than a political one and I don't even want to open up that whole can of worms in this forum.
I'll just try to make a few succinct observations:
- I DON'T believe "being" gay is a lifestyle choice.
- I DO believe living a gay lifestyle is a lifestyle choice.
- Personally--and I know this is going to piss a lot of people off--I see homosexuality as a personality/behavioral disorder like alcoholism or drug addiction or pedophilia. Maybe (probably) you're born with a genetic predisposition to be "that way."
- Ultimately, as with everything, it's your choice about how to act on that tendency. At least in the US. Of course in countries like Iran, there aren't any gay people. ::) Of course how you choose to live your lifestyle depends on your values, beliefs and morals.
In all honesty--I thank God that I wasn't born that way. I don't know WHO in their right mind would CHOOSE that kind of a life. But just imagine if you were born that way--sexuality obviously runs so much deeper than a substance addiction or some other behavior, it goes down to the core of a person's being--I tell ya I feel for gay people in our society, I really do. Especially those who want and try to live devout, faithful spiritual lives and try to reconcile who they are with what they believe and read in the Bible. It's complicated and like I said... I feel for them... being gay ain't no picnic.
OK... fire away... tell me I'm backward/bigoted/hateful or whatever.
-
Thanks. You should read our "gender identity" law in Hawaii.
Bet you hate that one don't you?
-
Ugghh... this whole issue obviously is so much more than a political one and I don't even want to open up that whole can of worms in this forum.
I'll just try to make a few succinct observations:
- I DON'T believe "being" gay is a lifestyle choice.
- I DO believe living a gay lifestyle is a lifestyle choice.
- Personally--and I know this is going to piss a lot of people off--I see homosexuality as a personality/behavioral disorder like alcoholism or drug addiction or pedophilia. Maybe (probably) you're born with a genetic predisposition to be "that way."
- Ultimately, as with everything, it's your choice about how to act on that tendency. At least in the US. Of course in countries like Iran, there aren't any gay people. ::) Of course how you choose to live your lifestyle depends on your values, beliefs and morals.
In all honesty--I thank God that I wasn't born that way. I don't know WHO in their right mind would CHOOSE that kind of a life. But just imagine if you were born that way--sexuality obviously runs so much deeper than a substance addiction or some other behavior, it goes down to the core of a person's being--I tell ya I feel for gay people in our society, I really do. Especially those who want and try to live devout, faithful spiritual lives and try to reconcile who they are with what they believe and read in the Bible. It's complicated and like I said... I feel for them... being gay ain't no picnic.
OK... fire away... tell me I'm backward/bigoted/hateful or whatever.
backward/bigoted/hateful... Whatever too!
-
Ugghh... this whole issue obviously is so much more than a political one and I don't even want to open up that whole can of worms in this forum.
I'll just try to make a few succinct observations:
- I DON'T believe "being" gay is a lifestyle choice.
- I DO believe living a gay lifestyle is a lifestyle choice.
- Personally--and I know this is going to piss a lot of people off--I see homosexuality as a personality/behavioral disorder like alcoholism or drug addiction or pedophilia. Maybe (probably) you're born with a genetic predisposition to be "that way."
- Ultimately, as with everything, it's your choice about how to act on that tendency. At least in the US. Of course in countries like Iran, there aren't any gay people. ::) Of course how you choose to live your lifestyle depends on your values, beliefs and morals.
In all honesty--I thank God that I wasn't born that way. I don't know WHO in their right mind would CHOOSE that kind of a life. But just imagine if you were born that way--sexuality obviously runs so much deeper than a substance addiction or some other behavior, it goes down to the core of a person's being--I tell ya I feel for gay people in our society, I really do. Especially those who want and try to live devout, faithful spiritual lives and try to reconcile who they are with what they believe and read in the Bible. It's complicated and like I said... I feel for them... being gay ain't no picnic.
OK... fire away... tell me I'm backward/bigoted/hateful or whatever.
I'm not sure what you believe.
So it's a choice, but you are born with a disposition to be gay? And you'd to have to deal with it if you were born with that disposition?
-
welcome to the 1980s
Normal behavior is a union between a man and woman. This perpetuates our species. This fairly straight forward.
-
I'm not sure what you believe.
So it's a choice, but you are born with a disposition to be gay? And you'd to have to deal with it if you were born with that disposition?
Yeah, that about sums it up. Same as if you're genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic--it's still your choice to drink or not to drink. Would you think if that were the case, that you would be morally obligated to drink in order to express who you are? For the record I'm grateful I'm not an alcoholic either and since I don't drink (yet), I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm genetically wired to be an alcoholic.
And also for the record--this is just me talking... not any official pronouncement of religious doctrine. But I know enough gay people and have seen the trials they endure... to be pretty much convinced that being attracted to their same gender is not something they choose.
-
Yeah, that about sums it up. Same as if you're genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic--it's still your choice to drink or not to drink. Would you think if that were the case, that you would be morally obligated to drink in order to express who you are?
ok, I'm predisposed to falling in love with guys, but I shouldn't because it makes you feel icky ?
-
Bet you hate that one don't you?
No. I just think it's confusing and unnecessary. Here it is:
"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.
-
No. I just think it's confusing and unnecessary. Here it is:
"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.
It's simple... If you're a transsexual, you still have the same rights as everyone else.
It sucks it has to be stated, but in this world, in this country, it most certainly does.
-
ok, I'm predisposed to falling in love with guys, but I shouldn't because it makes you feel icky ?
Oh please, Tim... it's not about me... do you really care about how your actions make me feel?? It's your life, your choice... do whatever you want!
What it is about--you can either accept the Bible as God's word... you can believe in moral right and wrong and live according to your beliefs... or you can reject it all as outdated, old-fashioned, mythology, man-made, etc. etc. and live however you see fit.
For the record I don't hold myself up as a paragon of virtue and righteousness. I'm likely far worse than many on here when it comes to morality and integrity and I'm not exactly an "orthodox" practitioner of my faith. So I'm just stating my own personal views to contribute to this dialogue and I'm the last guy who's qualified to judge or tell another what they should or shouldn't do. I really don't want to debate what's right and wrong because I consider how you live your life to be none of my business.
-
Normal behavior is a union between a man and woman. This perpetuates our species. This fairly straight forward.
Yep.
-
It's simple... If you're a transsexual, you still have the same rights as everyone else.
It sucks it has to be stated, but in this world, in this country, it most certainly does.
Simple? Hardly. Where does that definition mention the word "transsexual"? It talks about your actual or perceived gender identity. What the heck is that?
Gender-related self-image? Dude. We are changing the definition of gender by statute. How twisted is that? There used to be men and women. Now there is whatever the heck you think you are on any given day.
-
I really don't want to debate what's right and wrong because I consider how you live your life to be none of my business.
the point of this thread is that the Mormon Church is trying to take away my right to marry the person that I love, a right granted by the Constitution of the state of California, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court.
What it is about--you can either accept the Bible as God's word... you can believe in moral right and wrong and live according to your beliefs... or you can reject it all as outdated, old-fashioned, mythology, man-made, etc. etc. and live however you see fit.
your either-or comparison is invalid. many Christians don't believe the bible is meant to be interpreted literally, such as that the earth is 6000 years old, or that there was a world-wide flood, that women are subservient to men, or that loving committed relationships between people of the same sex is evil.
my moral right and wrong includes justice for all.
-
the point of this thread is that the Mormon Church is trying to take away my right to marry the person that I love, a right granted by the Constitution of the state of California, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court.
your either-or comparison is invalid. many Christians don't believe the bible is meant to be interpreted literally, such as that the earth is 6000 years old, or that there was a world-wide flood, that women are subservient to men, or that loving committed relationships between people of the same sex is evil.
my moral right and wrong includes justice for all.
Just the Mormon Church?? Gee, I wonder where the Catholic church stands on the issue... Why don't we ask the Pope what he thinks? And the Lutheran church... And the Seventh-Day Adventists... etc. etc. etc. Where do you expect most Judaeo-Christian religions to stand on this issue? Or most practitioners of those religions, for that matter? Or most people who still hold fast to traditional conservative values, for that matter?
The Mormon church makes an easy and convenient scapegoat to focus your frustration but they're not the only ones by far behind this referendum. Although it is certainly their right to stand up for what they believe to be right.
The Bible's stand on homosexuality isn't terribly ambiguous, unlike the story of the Creation, for instance. BUT... you can take it or leave it.
Listen... Just for the sake of argument--IF gays are going to hell, I'll be right there with them because I do plenty of other things wrong that are against the teachings of the Bible and at this particular moment I'm not feeling particularly contrite and repentant. But... I'm not excusing or justifying my behavior pretending that it's copacetic with my beliefs. We all make our own choices and live with the consequences.
Neither the Mormon Church nor any other group that espouses conservative traditional values, needs to apologize for taking a stand on their beliefs. You can have all of your legal benefits and rights but they're going to fight you on redefining the word "marriage" and all of the legal loopholes that that opens up.
-
Ugghh... this whole issue obviously is so much more than a political one and I don't even want to open up that whole can of worms in this forum.
I'll just try to make a few succinct observations:
- I DON'T believe "being" gay is a lifestyle choice.
- I DO believe living a gay lifestyle is a lifestyle choice.
- Personally--and I know this is going to piss a lot of people off--I see homosexuality as a personality/behavioral disorder like alcoholism or drug addiction or pedophilia. Maybe (probably) you're born with a genetic predisposition to be "that way."
- Ultimately, as with everything, it's your choice about how to act on that tendency. At least in the US. Of course in countries like Iran, there aren't any gay people. ::) Of course how you choose to live your lifestyle depends on your values, beliefs and morals.
In all honesty--I thank God that I wasn't born that way. I don't know WHO in their right mind would CHOOSE that kind of a life. But just imagine if you were born that way--sexuality obviously runs so much deeper than a substance addiction or some other behavior, it goes down to the core of a person's being--I tell ya I feel for gay people in our society, I really do. Especially those who want and try to live devout, faithful spiritual lives and try to reconcile who they are with what they believe and read in the Bible. It's complicated and like I said... I feel for them... being gay ain't no picnic.
OK... fire away... tell me I'm backward/bigoted/hateful or whatever.
Good Stuff.
-
The Mormon church makes an easy and convenient scapegoat to focus your frustration but they're not the only ones by far behind this referendum.
they're the ones that put it on the ballot, they're the ones that pumped $20 million into it, more than anyone else.
and there are many religious organizations (http://www.councilofchurches-scc.org/index.php) campaigning against prop 8
-
they're the ones that put it on the ballot, they're the ones that pumped $20 million into it, more than anyone else.
and there are many religious organizations (http://www.councilofchurches-scc.org/index.php) campaigning against prop 8
you gotta love the irony of the Mormons spending millions of dollar to fund a proposition to define marriage as "one man and one woman"
-
you gotta love the irony of the Mormons spending millions of dollar to fund a proposition to define marriage as "one man and one woman"
Oh snap!!! It took a whole 3 pages before someone finally made the inevitable polygamy joke.
Welcome to 1890--the last year the Mormons practiced polygamy.
-
Warren Jeffs lived in 1890, eh?
-
Oh snap!!! It took a whole 3 pages before someone finally made the inevitable polygamy joke.
Welcome to 1890--the last year the Mormons practiced polygamy.
who's joking?
it's just another example of a bunch of hypocritical religious kooks
-
they're the ones that put it on the ballot, they're the ones that pumped $20 million into it, more than anyone else.
and there are many religious organizations (http://www.councilofchurches-scc.org/index.php) campaigning against prop 8
Your link shows the "Santa Clara Council of Churches." Are those the "many relious organizations" you're talking about?
-
Warren Jeffs lived in 1890, eh?
Jeffs isn't a "Mormon." In fact I wish he'd change the name of his church to something more dissimilar just to avoid any further confusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints)
The FLDS Church emerged in the early 1900s when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church's renunciation of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate practitioners of plural marriage.
-
to all the mormons out there
personally I don't give a shit if you have one wife or ten wives or no wives
I'm talking to the men of course
we all know women can't have wives
-
As of this moment, with 9% of CA precincts reporting:
For Prop 8: 53%
Against: 47%
Basically too close to call at this point.
EDIT: 56% for, 44% against with 16% of precincts reporting.
-
This will go great until some judge in SF screws it all up again.
-
This will go great until some judge in SF screws it all up again.
Is that possible? The state judges have to interpret the state constitution and the people of California are about to change the state constitution.
Now that I think it about it and what those handful of judges have already done, never mind. . . .
-
This will go great until some judge in SF screws it all up again.
Yep... who needs democracy when liberal judges can just legislate from the bench? They're smarter and wiser and know better anyway, so who cares what the majority thinks.
-
Is that possible? The state judges have to interpret the state constitution and the people of California are about to change the state constitution.
Now that I think it about it what those handful of judges have already done, never mind. . . .
maybe we shoudl just get rid of judges and let Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Governor make legal decisions
Congrats CA on being the first state to re-write the state constitution to take away the rights of your citizens
-
maybe we shoudl just get rid of judges and let Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Governor make legal decisions
Congrats CA on being the first state to re-write the state constitution to take away the rights of your citizens
You mean we didn't rewrite the state constitution in Hawaii to ban homosexual marriage? Do some homework.
-
You mean we didn't rewrite the state constitution in Hawaii to ban homosexual marriage? Do some homework.
Did the Supreme Court of Hawaii first rule that banning gay marriage was a violation of equal protection under the state constitution
If so then I stand corrected and Hawaii sucks too
-
Did the Supreme Court of Hawaii first rule that banning gay marriage was a violation of equal protection under the state constitution
If so then I stand corrected and Hawaii sucks too
Pretty much. A number of states of have amended their constitutions to ban homosexual marriage.
In fact, the Arizona and Florida measures amended their state constitutions.
-
Pretty much. A number of states of have amended their constitutions to ban homosexual marriage.
The California Supreme court ruled that banning gay marriage was a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution...i.e. gay people have and should have always had the right to get married.
Prop 8 rescinds that right.
Was that what happened in Hawaii?
-
The California Supreme court ruled that banning gay marriage was a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution...i.e. gay people have and should have always had the right to get married.
Prop 8 rescinds that right.
Was that what happened in Hawaii?
Same thing. Three justices on the Hawaii Supreme Court effectively ruled that denying homosexual marriage was discrimination on the basis of sex. We subsequently amended the state constitution, just like Florida and California are doing today. Passed by 70 percent and we are arguably the most liberal state in the country.
-
maybe we shoudl just get rid of judges and let Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Governor make legal decisions
Congrats CA on being the first state to re-write the state constitution to take away the rights of your citizens
Nobody took away any rights of the gays. They have the SAME rights as anyone else...
They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us.
-
Nobody took away any rights of the gays. They have the SAME rights as anyone else...
They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like the rest of us.
True. That was what the minority on the state supreme court here argued: the law "discriminates" against both sexes equally.
-
I support gay marriage if both chicks are hot.... lol Okay had to get that out of the way.
I think it is safe to assume MOST people are straight. That a man and a woman join to create new life to me is evidence this is the intended design of our evolution. Where I think most Hetero people fail to support the gay community is, when I am porking my wife, I might be ensuring life goes on after I am gone. The physical act of our sex has a function of the species.
Gay sex, (not sure but in hetero relationships, sex sort of seals the marriage) does not have this purpose. It is done purely for pleasure. No other reason.
I myself have had sex purely to reproduce. Sex while a female is pregnant in the last trimester also helps loosen up the canal for the baby.
I guess my question is what needs protection. I like having my wife and children protected, but if you are 2 guys or 2 girls... what is really going on? I mean just to have the piece of paper and commitment to each other? My marriage ensures I have rights to my children and they to me. I know you can adopt or for women they can artificially inseminate, I am going to say for most kids, that will bug the shit out of them not knowing who dad was. Medical history alone.
I guess my point over all is for every argument for gay marriage they all seem to fall a bit short as to why hetero couples get married. Truth be told, thats why people oppose it.
-
True. That was what the minority on the state supreme court here argued: the law "discriminates" against both sexes equally.
Kind of sounds like the "separate but equal" argument only worse. The judge actually admitted that it was discriminatory
-
the gov has not always had there hand in marriage so to speak.marriage is a religious ceremony.the only reason the gov. got involved is why they always get involved $money$.they seen they could charge for a marrage licence.