Proposition 8

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

I haven't been able to find an actual ballot, but according to the link above (post 43), this is the language approved by the California Attorney General to appear on the ballot. If indeed this is what appeared on the ballot, I re-affirm my assertion that the question WAS NOT confusing, and further assert that those arguing that it is/was confusing are either uninformed, or trying to muddy the waters.

Quote:

PROP 8
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

I have the voter handbook handy. When I get back from football practice I will scan it and post it.

TO: Game14---the seemingly lone vehement dissenter in this thread, you really need to be smarter politically in picking your battles and the forums in which you present them. I am a very conservative person when it comes to government, by that I mean I do not want my taxes raised to increase the size of government programs. I work hard for my money and do not want to support others who choose not to work hard. those are fiscal matters. On social matters I am a little more "liberal" if you want to call it that. I really don't give a damn if two homosexuals want to get married..that is fine---as long as it is not subsidized in any way by taxes I am paying to the government. The one point I am worried about (and would not have given a shit about this one until I became a parent)...is what effect would it have on a child to have two daddies or two mommies? Children are innocent to all of this political stuff. I am no psychologist, but I would imagine a child in that scenario would have a more difficult time adjusting. Adolescence is tough enough without having to carry that burden for same sex parents. The bottom line Game14: there are conservative blogs you should check out instead of fighting the liberals here. liberals on this site have a good point that keeps me coming back: pics and movies of hot young pussy !!

yeah fredg, only libs should be able to post.... ever heard of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Originally posted by fredg222

I am no psychologist, but I would imagine a child in that scenario would have a more difficult time adjusting. Adolescence is tough enough without having to carry that burden for same sex parents.

The problem with this is that a good family can be comprised of any group of loving people. If people outside the family (schoolmates, friends, passers-by) pass judgment and give the child a hard time, that's not the fault of the family.

This introduction to social pressures and judgments is going to be the same for the child of gay parents as it is for a child might be made fun of for having a long or weird last name, a disabled parent, a mixed family, or any combination thereof.

The "problem" is the people doing the judging, and the solution to that isn't banning everyone not "normal" IMO.

Quote:

Originally posted by fredg222

The bottom line Game14: there are conservative blogs you should check out instead of fighting the liberals here. liberals on this site have a good point that keeps me coming back: pics and movies of hot young pussy !!

First, I don't advocate people only opening themselves up to points of view which they personally agree with. That only perpetuates sterotyping, irrational judgment, and is not a productive intellectual activity.

Second, I think the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing is overdone. They're both hypocritical groups.

yeah you gotta love how people try to label you as liberal or conservative. I am registered democrat, by the way. I dont vote party lines, and I dont beleive everything one party says blindly, like a lot of people. Most people just vote their "block", which is ridiculous, but that is our society.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story....

If this is allowed where does it end, I love my dog, can I marry her too?

Obviously it stops with two people. A dog is unable to sign the paperwork or show consent.

is it obvious? go back 10 or 20 years and it was obvious that marriage was between a man and a woman ONLY. what if I really love my dog, or my dog really loves my cat, why should you stop them from getting married. Someone said it before, who cares as long as they love each other...

Quote:

Originally posted by mrdorkbutt

...


Obviously it stops with two people. A dog is unable to sign the paperwork or show consent.

That is what is obvious to you. To me it is obvious that it stops with a man and a woman

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

The problem with this is that a good family can be comprised of any group of loving people. If people outside the family (schoolmates, friends, passers-by) pass judgment and give the child a hard time, that's not the fault of the family.

This introduction to social pressures and judgments is going to be the same for the child of gay parents as it is for a child might be made fun of for having a long or weird last name, a disabled parent, a mixed family, or any combination thereof.

The "problem" is the people doing the judging, and the solution to that isn't banning everyone not "normal" IMO.

...

First, I don't advocate people only opening themselves up to points of view which they personally agree with. That only perpetuates sterotyping, irrational judgment, and is not a productive intellectual activity.

Second, I think the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing is overdone. They're both hypocritical groups.

I'm disgusted by this. I agree with EVERYTHING Lindros is saying. Every last word. Disgusting.


The problem here is the word "marriage". Do I think gays should be married in the sense of Husband and Wife.........I don't see why it is necessary and that is for each church to decide for itself. Now do I think they should be allowed civil unions and legal rights to joint property, medical care and they legal protections and financial benefits offered a husband and wife? Yes. Yes, I do.

Legally ALL people in the United States are considered equal under the law with equal access to all of the restrictions and benefits that the law provides. Through a strict constitutional interpretation of the law, I do not see how it would be possible NOT to allow gay couples to marry. I don't think we want a constitutional amendment saying they can't. We do not want our Constitution to be used to infringe on personal freedoms. Let it be a state issue. And let the compromise be that it is a civil ceremony and not a religious one.

I dont mind if they have civil unions or commitment ceremonies, but I draw the line where they want to call it marriage and get the same rights as a man and a woman being married. They should be able to share medical care, and property and stuff like that, but they cannot get financial benefits for it. For example they can never file a joint tax return or get any govt benefits for being married, that would be like saying our government endorses or supports it, which it should not.

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal.

Sugarpie: The topics you are referencing are something they are taught in high school, and at that age I can live with it. They are indeed taught and exposed to nearly EVERYTHING in their high school years, and likely have gay friends by that time. But 2nd graders? Come on, there has to be some innocence for a portion of one's childhood...

Perhaps grade two is too young, but when then? Also, I don't remember hearing that they were going to start educating children about gay marriage at grade two levels...just because it happened in another state, does not mean that it would happen on a national level. I don't know about the US, but I was learning about WW2 and the holocaust in grade 6, I was part of a group in grade 7 that brought a speaker in to talk to the entire school about nuclear weapons. I give you credit for being an active parent in your child's education, unfortunately, not everyone is, and that is part of the problem. If we can teach children that gay people are not any different then straight people in their love for one another, then some of the hatred and misunderstandings will go away. I'm not naive enough to believe that all hatred of gays will go away, but its a start.

good point game14...freedom of speech is great...knock yourself out.....but if you really want to accomplish something that will make a difference it would be by building a coalition of folks that feel the same way you do.....not by trying to change the minds of people here that are throwing you under the bus. you will not change their minds.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

is it obvious? go back 10 or 20 years and it was obvious that marriage was between a man and a woman ONLY.

Just because it wasn't talked about, doesn't mean that the desire was there.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/06/17/MN8C11ACCD.DTL

I am just stating my opinion, as others are doing.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

I dont mind if they have civil unions or commitment ceremonies, but I draw the line where they want to call it marriage and get the same rights as a man and a woman being married. They should be able to share medical care, and property and stuff like that, but they cannot get financial benefits for it. For example they can never file a joint tax return or get any govt benefits for being married, that would be like saying our government endorses or supports it, which it should not.

I'm just curious, why shouldn't the government support it. I mean in the case of proposition 8 it was voted on by the people, and I guess I have to live with that...I would like to see a clearer vote on it however, but for today it is what it is.

But if the majority of the population supports it, then isn't it the responsibility of the government to both endorse and support it?

i admire your stand game14 keep it up. you will be successful if you can get one person attacking your opinions here to change their mind, though i am sure they all respect your right to express your opinions within the guidelines of the wbw site.

also: i am glad EL has it all figured out in his responses here, honestly i look him up for his posts all the time because he is very entertaining. but he is from above the mason dixon line so i take his comments under review as i do many of my true friends from that part of the country which i met in college. usually we end up agreeing to diasagree and move on because our friendships are more important personnally to us. one of my best friends a very liberal guy from NYC whom i have known for 23 years ---finally got to the point on this issue and many others presented in this watershed election, that we agreed our friendship was more important than politics...he will exercise his constitutional rights as will i--end of that story. we both, btw, did in fact agree that the usa --over the last 3 election cycles--is more divided than it has been since 1860. and you know what ahppened after that.....

for many reasons, but how about because it is against my religion for that to ever happen. How would you feel if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork even though some religions clearly say they cant, just like mine says only man and woman can be together.

Quote:

Originally posted by sugarpie26

But if the majority of the population supports it, then isn't it the responsibility of the government to both endorse and support it?

Certainly not. There are issues the Govnt should stay out of, irrespective of popular opinion... but just wait a little longer, every year the govnt take a larger role in determining social issues... expect this to increase much faster under Obama than it has for the last few decades.

I prefer if it was female marrying female and that it was only hot females marrying each other. L O L.

Overall I see no harm done with this as I've been following this for a little while. Ever since George Takei came out of the closet a couple of years ago.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

for many reasons, but how about because it is against my religion for that to ever happen. How would you feel if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork even though some religions clearly say they cant, just like mine says only man and woman can be together.

Thegame,

I fully respect your opinion, and I'm glad that you've finally decided to give some real reasons as to why you are against it, instead of the right to marry an animal shit.

The problem I have with your argument is this; The government would not be telling YOU to do anything. you aren't the one that wants to be married to another man. YOU don't have to treat them any differently, YOU have to do nothing. Hell, you don't even have to accept it, that is your right as a person who lives in a democracy. This is simply about giving the same right that you take for granted to someone else....someone who wants to be treated the same by the government that they voted in.