Jump to content

OT: (Blog) California's Prop 8.


Funkee1

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Sorry.......and I hope this thread doesn't violate any forum rules. This is the one proposition on the ballot I feel really strongly about.

 

For those of you in other states, or countries, Proposition 8 basically overturns the law making gay and lesbian marriages legal. The campaign for this bill has been extremely ugly. I voted against it, and I'll tell you why.

 

I am no big fan of gay lifestyle. In fact, it creeps me out a little. But why do I give a rat's ass who you want to marry?

 

Besides, we already have an existing law in the constitution that covers this issue. It's separation of Church and State. Here's what I mean by that.

 

A marriage, if you take religion out of it, is nothing more than a partnership. From a legal standpoint, That is all a marriage is. Two parties, entering into a binging agreement to do business as a single entity.

 

If S4001 and I want to open a bass store in Long Beach, the State of California cannot deny us the right to do so, based on race, religion, gender or sexual preference, right?

 

So, the only reason anyone wants to refuse gays the right to marry is because "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman". This is unconstitutional, or am I wrong?

 

Secondly, the people supporting prop. 8 are saying schools will be required to teach about gay marriage if prop 8 is struck down. Let me tell you something, as a parent of a 4th grader, I don't want the schools teaching her about marriage! How bout you schools stick to math, science and reading??

 

Sorry. Mods, feel free to delete this thread if you think I've crossed a line. I just had to get that off my chest.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

No on Prop 8

 

Another note: Maybe it's the bitter divorcee in me, but I am not sure why the gays want the right to marry. From my perspective, all marriage does is give someone the right to take half your stuff.

 

I wish I was just kidding.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anyone who gets worked up over a word, no matter which side, is retarded.

Religious folks that believe marriage is "theirs" are retarded, and gay folks who think they need to be "married" are retarded.

 

And I don't mean retarded in the derogatory sense, I mean that their mental capacity is retarded enough to think this is important.

 

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Another note: Maybe it's the bitter divorcee in me, but I am not sure why the gays want the right to marry. From my perspective, all marriage does is give someone the right to take half your stuff.


I wish I was just kidding.........

 

 

Adam Carolla discussed this when the CA Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage earlier this year. His message was along the lines:

 

"You gays don't know how good you have it. Why would you want to ruin it with marriage?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Anyone who gets worked up over a word, no matter which side, is retarded.

Religious folks that believe marriage is "theirs" are retarded, and gay folks who think they need to be "married" are retarded.


And I don't mean retarded in the derogatory sense, I mean that their mental capacity is retarded enough to think this is important.



Dan

Nice PC save Dan!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Personally, I don't think this Prop belongs on the ballot.

 

Y'know???

 

It kinda reminds me of the movie "Wag the dog" Actually, all politics remind me of that movie.....but I digress.

 

California is all up in arms about prop 8. What are they doing behind our backs while we focus on this??

 

Hmmmm............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm with Funkee on the 4th grade thing. Most parents don't want to have the birds/bees talk with their kids let alone explain our generations efed up PC view on, "Some times when daddies love daddies, and want to be close...," call me close-minded or old-fashioned, but the concept is bazarre...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm with Funkee on the 4th grade thing. Most parents don't want to have the birds/bees talk with their kids let alone explain our generations efed up PC view on, "Some times when daddies love daddies, and want to be close...," call me close-minded or old-fashioned, but the concept is bazarre...

 

Thanks for the thumbs up, but I'm not sure you got my point.

 

To reiterate: I have no problem talking to my kids about the birds and the bees. I don't want the schools to do it, gay or otherwise!

 

There was a big deal a few elections ago about teaching sex education in schools, especially at the 7th and 8th grade level. If I had a middle school age kid who didn't understand about how babies were made before they had to take that class, then I've failed as a parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


There was a big deal a few elections ago about teaching sex education in schools, especially at the 7th and 8th grade level. If I had a middle school age kid who didn't understand about how babies were made before they had to take that class, then I've failed as a parent.

 

 

Yes, but there are many parents who do fail in this area. I'm all for as much sex education as we can get. I know I will definitely be teaching my daughter about it when it comes time but I'm not going to be against sex ed in schools. The whole teaching kids about gay relationships in school is an iffy one. On one hand I think it might increase knowledge and therefor tolerance, on the other hand I don't really think it's necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yes, but there are many parents who do fail in this area. I'm all for as much sex education as we can get. I know I will definitely be teaching my daughter about it when it comes time but I'm not going to be against sex ed in schools. The whole teaching kids about gay relationships in school is an iffy one. On one hand I think it might increase knowledge and therefor tolerance, on the other hand I don't really think it's necessary.

 

True dat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, but there are many parents who do fail in this area. I'm all for as much sex education as we can get. I know I will definitely be teaching my daughter about it when it comes time but I'm not going to be against sex ed in schools. The whole teaching kids about gay relationships in school is an iffy one. On one hand I think it might increase knowledge and therefor tolerance, on the other hand I don't really think it's necessary.

 

Perhaps there should be two separate topics: sex education and reproduction education :idea:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Besides, we already have an existing law in the constitution that covers this issue. It's separation of Church and State. Here's what I mean by that.


A marriage, if you take religion out of it, is nothing more than a partnership. From a legal standpoint, That is all a marriage is. Two parties, entering into a binging agreement to do business as a single entity.


If S4001 and I want to open a bass store in Long Beach, the State of California cannot deny us the right to do so, based on race, religion, gender or sexual preference, right?


So, the only reason anyone wants to refuse gays the right to marry is because "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman". This is unconstitutional, or am I wrong?


 

 

I think you're wrong, IMO. There is no requirement whatsoever that a marriage have any connection with religion. There is no such law as "separation of church and state". The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." A ban on gay marriage is a legal, not religious issue, regardless of the motivation of citizens being a belief based on religion.

 

Having said that, I still feel there's no reason to ban gay marriage. Gays have every right to the same misery as the rest of us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think it will pass. If I lived in California, I'd vote no on proposition 8.

 

I definitely would've voted for Proposition 187 had I lived (and been eligible to vote) in California in 1994. It passed, but unfortunately it was killed by an activist judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think you're wrong, IMO. There is no requirement whatsoever that a marriage have any connection with religion. There is no such law as "separation of church and state". The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." A ban on gay marriage is a legal, not religious issue, regardless of the motivation of citizens being a belief based on religion.


Having said that, I still feel there's no reason to ban gay marriage. Gays have every right to the same misery as the rest of us!

 

I can take that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...