Proposition 8

Alright then, let's make a real discussion about it.

I'll admit, I'm a little biased against anti-gay people. I support gay rights fully, and I don't see a logical reason to ban gay marriage. There's supposed to be a separation of church and state, so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

But nonetheless, gay marriage is now banned in California.

What are your thoughts on this, and why?

so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

I want to marry my dog, legally
I want to marry my 4year old neighbor, legally

works?

so there shouldn't be ANY laws enacted in regard to marriage.

I want to marry my dog, legally
I want to marry my 4year old neighbor, legally

works?

Marriage should be up to the individual churches/temples/shrines that are performing the ceremony. One Christian church could say "no" to gay marriage while another one across the street could say "yes".

I doubt EITHER of those churches would say "yes" to dog and 4 year old marriage. But even if they did, there are other laws which don't pertain to religion, that would prevent people from "doing" anything to a dog or a 4 year old.

Well maybe I rushed the stage a little bit when I said there shouldn't, be ANY laws enacted. I think the only kind of laws regarding marriage should be the whole "you can't marry people under 18 unless their parents say you can" law.

at least your not taking the 'born with it/state of mind' stance, because then I'd have to pull out the pedo's

at least your not taking the 'born with it/state of mind' stance, because then I'd have to pull out the pedo's

I'm not quite sure I know what you're referring to, however...

I personally believe that gays are born that way and/or they maybe turned that way from environmental factors.

Personally, both of those explanations seem more plausible than "they chose to be that way", because if THAT were true, then they could also "choose" to stop being gay, and then we wouldn't have problems like "Prop 8".

I do believe you should have the right to marry anyone and whoever is sick enough to marry something else should be given the rights to marry that something else. Their lives

There are a lot of people out there that are just bothered by the fact that there are men somewhere sucking each others' dicks. They think that by keeping them from getting married will somehow make them stop guzzling seman.

It's unfortunate that so many people are bigoted over an issue that is none of their business to begin with.

I'll quote something a friend of mine said years ago:

"Let's get back to the Biblical Standards of Marriage - How much for your daughter?"

As a person who doesn't hold much merit in marriage, this really doesn't make a difference to me. Marriage is an outdated rite that only has one benefit: tax purposes. Why do people really need some organization to tell them that they're allowed to live together, or have sex, or raise a family? People do those things without marriage all the time. As for the people who are very vocal about this, why not let people be happy? This is just another case of people wanting to impose their hand on another's business. Does it make a difference to you if the gay couple down the street have a document that states their relationship status? For that matter, how would someone having multiple wives or husbands effect your life? It wouldn't, but people are boring, and take pleasure in seeing other people suffer. The simple solution would be for people to stop putting power into a ceremony that doesn't really mean anything, and worry about the things that are wrong with their own lives.

I'm against Prop 8 for obvious reasons. People should have the right to marry whoever they wish. And before Nouman starts up again on people marrying dogs or 4 year old neighbors, the major difference is that the two guys/ two girls can love each other and want to marry each other. Both parties would have to want it and say "I do", and I somehow doubt that dogs or 4 year olds even understand what a marriage is, let alone want to get married.

@Holk - Oh, no real benefit to marriage. I mean, aside from the right to many of the ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing, survivor benefits for federal employees, survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers, additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances, payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death, making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts...

And the right to benefits while married, such as:

employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating, sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits...

As well as joint and family-related rights including:

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, 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, and Spousal privilege in court cases.

But hey, trivialities.

So you get materials and money. Great.

And a pretty ring that means you wuv eachother

Really, the best thing you get out of marriage besides the status and material is probably nothing, maybe to some people it makes them happy to know their partner has made vows and such to not sleep with anyone else and the sort.

Now about anti-gays, well I don't really care much for them. I believe its the person's own right, to want to marry someone else, mostly if they have the mental capacity to understand what love is and not just go "Hey look, my friends are getting married. I think I will to". If someone does indeed love another, and want to get married to that other person, then by all means let them, religion should not play a big part into who marries whom for various reasons, the best one I would think of now is that, Not everyone is of the same bloody religion. There god may say it's okay for you to love the same gender.

In my case I would be financially better off not being married because I would get more social security for my disability. They think that as soon as I'm married I'm suddenly getting twice as much income, therefore they should take almost all of my disability away. And since finding a job is incredibly difficult for me (people don't really care for hiring people who are visually impaired, even though they say they will) this leaves us with only one real source of income.

Anyway, again, people just like to force their beliefs on people that don't share those beliefs. Especially Christians.

By the way...

Where in the bible does Jesus say that gays are bad? All I've heard of are a few lines by this "Leviticus" guy, but "Leviticus" doesn't sound anything like "Jesus" except for the "us" at the end of their names, so clearly they aren't the same people.

One of the chief arguments against homosexuality that I hear is "because the Bible is against it and the Bible is the word of God", but according to the Trinity belief, Jesus is God, and yet it was Leviticus, not Jesus, who preaches against homosexuality. Where in the Bible does JESUS say being gay is bad? Who is this Leviticus guy and what gives him the right to put anti-gay graffiti in the bible? Is it true that the Bible is just a Jesus-ified version of the Torah?

Not that the Bible gets a say in the anti-gay issue or anything, but I just wanted to know if half of these anti-gay Christians really know what the hell (no pun intended) they're talking about? An anti-gay Catholic friend of mine told me he hasn't read the Bible yet for crying out loud! If you're going to hate a group of people, at least know WHY your comrades justify it!

They should really just put their noses on their own business, I don't see why they worry of banning gay marriage when they should worry on other things.

:/ If they're ambitious, they do it to get the majority of votes, they just like to mess with other people's live & worry about 'changing the meaning of marriage'.

@Animefan: It's the sexual act it speak, not living as a couple, that's what my father & my uncle tell that the bible say . . . the people misunderstood the message. :/

By the way...

Where in the bible does Jesus say that gays are bad? All I've heard of are a few lines by this "Leviticus" guy, but "Leviticus" doesn't sound anything like "Jesus" except for the "us" at the end of their names, so clearly they aren't the same people.

One of the chief arguments against homosexuality that I hear is "because the Bible is against it and the Bible is the word of God", but according to the Trinity belief, Jesus is God, and yet it was Leviticus, not Jesus, who preaches against homosexuality. Where in the Bible does JESUS say being gay is bad? Who is this Leviticus guy and what gives him the right to put anti-gay graffiti in the bible? Is it true that the Bible is just a Jesus-ified version of the Torah?

Not that the Bible gets a say in the anti-gay issue or anything, but I just wanted to know if half of these anti-gay Christians really know what the hell (no pun intended) they're talking about? An anti-gay Catholic friend of mine told me he hasn't read the Bible yet for crying out loud! If you're going to hate a group of people, at least know WHY your comrades justify it!

because God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah.  And in Sodom they had gay sex or some shit.
Also: keep in mind that different christians and different churches are allowed to interpret different sections of the bible completely differently.  some sections are literal and some are purely metaphorical.  though it's hard to keep track of which, considering it all seems to be situational interpretation.

Personally, I think it should be plain and simple: two of-age consenting adults should be allowed to marry.
Nouman: pull out pedos and beastiality on that one.

That all being said.
I'm glad that people are protesting Prop 8, and that it very well could be overturned.  Even the Governator himself, as well as a few other celebrities are supporting the protest.

Gay marriage is a little more complicated than what it is commonly presented as by either side. On the one hand, nobody should be discriminated against for taking actions that have no negative social consequences. On the other hand, it has a lot more to do with the word "marriage" then it does with the legal concept of marriage. What the argument comes down to on a religious basis is a concept of "marriage" that is sacred and defined by God. Because of this, any alteration to a definition of marriage is essentially profaning a sacred tradition for those of certain religious persuasions. Because government relies on hegemony, defining marriage as something ultimately states itself as correct and all other belief systems definition of marriage as incorrect. This takes on a form of social discrimination against other belief systems that do not agree with that definition of marriage. Like I say, it profanes the sacred and enforces itself as correct and the other belief systems as incorrect and bigoted. Now, this is not something new by any measure. If you are Catholic, the allowance of divorce is itself an offense against the sacred tradition of marriage as well, and probably a worse one than allowing gay marriage. To demonstrate that, all that is necessary is to look at a Catholic definition of marriage as opposed to a legal definition:

Catholic Marriage

Catholic marriage, also called matrimony, is an indissoluble bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. It is one of the seven sacraments. It is ordinarily celebrated in a Nuptial Mass.

The legal definition of marriage in Canada is more or less:

"the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Unlike Catholic marriage, the bond is dissoluble (no restrictions on divorce), it's not a sacrament, it is not ratified by divine grace, and it is between any two individuals. At least in some sense, forcing a Catholic person to recognize that as "marriage" forces them to reduce their own conception of marriage to something much weaker - thus transgressing against freedom of religious belief.

For that reason, while I understand the rights of same-sex couples to have their union validated by the government, I also understand that the redefinition of marriage transgresses freedom of belief in that it takes what is profoundly sacred for those of some religious persuasions and changes it to something without any real meaning - at best some social benefits.

My own opinion is that governments should not offer "marriage" at all, but instead change what is now called "marriage" to be "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or whatever and allow any two consenting adults to participate in that. Thus, it would remove the primary barrier to same-sex partnerships (that is, the fact that redefining marriage transgresses freedom of religious belief), and it would simultaneously grant equal rights to all people of any sexual orientation. Of course, neither side would like that solution as people only like solutions that prioritize their own views and discriminate against others, but it's fair.

It's not really that complicated at all. Let's say for a moment that religious beliefs are a legitimate argument against gay marriage, even though it isn't. But let's just say it is. Then you have exactly one legitimate argument and it has nothing to do with making laws. Everyone else against gay marriage doesn't really have a legitimate reason. The law should not be based off people's religious beliefs. It'd be like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent, or illegal to ever take God's name in vain.

Also, the bible actually doesn't say in any place that homosexuality is forbidden. There are a few vague one or two line passages that get bandied around as Christian/Catholic law, but they're usually used out of context and stretched to fit the premise.

What the bible says is not important. What people believe it or any other sacred text says constitutes a religious belief - every person has a right to religious belief in the United States, ergo it is important in law making to respect that right to religious belief. If a law violates that right, then that is a legitimate ground on which to form a protest to that law. Therefore religious belief has something to do with making laws.

I am not saying that a law should be made on religious beliefs - I simply believe that a law ought to respect religious beliefs as much as is possible. Given the alternative that I set up (abolishing legal marriage and replacing the word with civil union or whatever), the only thing that redefining marriage does that the alternative does not do is profane the religious traditions of a large number of people while providing no additional benefits to same-sex couples. As such, any arguments for the redefining marriage over my alternative are predicated on anti-religious discrimination. I don't see how it can be seen as preferable, nor do I see any reason for the law to infringe on the rights of those people. Further, all my argument amounts to is a further separation of Church and State, which I am sure we all here agree is useful. Since the term "marriage" is so tied up with religious sentiment and belief, making a clear distinction between what religions consider to be marriage and the legal benefits the state provides to couples living together can only be positive.

Of course what the bible says is important. Not to me, but to Christians. If it isn't, then they are not really Christians. The Catholic religion was based on this book, so why would it not matter what it says? If they make up their own rules without even referencing the single thing that formed the religion, then they are their own religion's enemy. They are some sort of self-serving group of people who think they can just change the rules as they go alo--

Oh shit.


I hate people.

the law says 'can' not 'must'.

the government can say 'gay marriage is legal'
it doesn't mean that everyone is now forced to be gay.

if it's against your beliefs, then don't do it.

I don't know if you were trying to address my argument or not, but since I am egotistical I will assume you were.

In which case, that doesn't address a single point of my argument. The problem is that it does more than simply include someone in a tradition - it is modifying the content of the tradition. Most religious conceptions of marriage don't centre on the love between two people - instead it involves convoluted notions of oneness and God and other things completely extraneous to legal concerns. However, by defining anything, the government excludes other definitions and implicitly states that they are invalid. Thus, the redefinition of marriage is essentially a statement that the religious beliefs of many people concerning an important tradition are invalid in society.

That being said, if the only way to avoid discrimination against people of homosexual inclinations was to do so, then I would be for it. As it is not, the religious discrimination involved in that action is entirely unnecessary and to some degree malicious. It would be like allowing all headwear in school, except for headscarves. It's discriminatory towards people with particular religious persuasions for no other reason than to be discriminatory. It would be serve the exact same purpose to abolish the word marriage and replace it with a religiously ambivalent word to which all people can adhere without subordinating their religious beliefs to that of the state.

But then again:

neither side would like that solution as people only like solutions that prioritize their own views and discriminate against others, but it's fair.

Everyone should be entitled to their own lover, male of female. Like Namkcor said, nobody is forcing you to go out and sleep with a guy or a girl.

Prop 8 wasn't to ban a civil union between same sex couples, just wanted to strictly keep the word marriage to mean male and female. It'd be like changing the names of the planets because you think Jupiter should be Zeus, it's stupid and pointless because someone will always want Jupiter and someone will always want Zeus. Personally, prop 8 should have been declined, as it's a silly act that keeps one person happy and another person mad.

Another complaint is that it would be taught in schools, everyday there was some bullshit ad showing a lady unloading groceries from her truck, telling some story about how her son came home talking about gay marriage. I really doubt that as it came out before the election ended.