What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Special Comment: Proposition 8

  • Thread starter DrWurm
  • Start date
  • #41
idontlikeform how did it receive so much anti funding if there ain't a bunch of gay-fearing haters out there??
It's not a matter of fearing or hating gays. The yes side was funded because a lot of people, mostly Christians and Mormons, do not want to be forced to deal with the aftermath of homosexual marriages and their effect on our society here in California.
DrWurm said:
If by homosexual agenda, you mean equality, yes there is a homosexual agenda. The courts already ruled that no church can be forced to marry a couple, be them gay or products of divorce. Religious marriage means nothing to the government. It is a practice done by an independent group, so they can do whatever they please.
I've never heard of this. I'd be interested in reading about it if you can provide a source.
DrWurm said:
As far as teaching gay marriage in schools, before anything of the sort can be taught in schools, a consent slip is sent home to parents with all the curriculum and a choice of whether or not they want their child to attend. Yes-on-8 used the 1st grader lesbian wedding of their teacher as "proof" of this, except 2 parents opted their kids out and the trip was parent proposed.

Yes, some teachers out their may break the rules. That is to the fault of the teachers. Just because there is a potential to steal things does not make everyone a thief.
It's my understanding that these things played out a little different than this. But I don't want to debate it point by point. Even if teaching gay marriage isn't institutionalized many in academia are very far left and have pro-gay sentiments already. Most likely the bigger problem would be legally dealing with their in class off topic commentary and then not having a legal leg to stand on when parents complain about it.
DrWurm said:
As for religion, as I've said before: leave your God at home when you vote. When you let your religious beliefs influence how government functions, you undermine the intent of the constitution. Every time you let religion into politics, we are taken one step back from becoming the land of freedom, towards being a land like Iraq.
What is the point in having a religion if we don't practice it in our daily lives, which includes our voting? Would you have us Christians NOT vote our conscience? Do you disregard your conscience when you vote? Do you not vote according to your world-view as well?

Perhaps I've made a mistake commenting on this thread. It seems their is plenty of anti-Christian sentiment here.
 
  • #42
IDLF- we have allowed gay marriage for a few years now, there was no "aftermath", again empirical evidence rules the day

As for feeling you've made a mistake for posting here, that is not the case, this is a discussion area after all. Personally I have nothing against "christians", so long as they understand (as has been stated previously) that it is a PRIVATE thing. Base all the decisions you want on it, that's fine, I will not judge another person living their life.

HOWEVER once your "faith" starts making you feel entitled to tell others what they can and can't do based SOLELY on the teachings of your faith you have far overstepped the boundaries of what that faith should have been in the first place, a personal guidebook if you will

the above warrants a HUGE disclaimer- I tried to clarify it enough there but just in case- in the case of many laws, they exist solely so folks can't use the ignorance defense- if you kill someone, it is fairly easy to judge that as a bad act without having to consult some ancient book- a person has been deprived of their own life due to your actions, anyone who thinks they CAN justify random killings is crazy, religion or no. Thus we have a law saying "if you kill someone, you get punished like so" and anyone who does see fit to kill someone can't claim ANY kind of priveledge.... If I, say want to play basketball with someone, hang out with someone all the time, even swear some kind of oath of fidelity etc to someone, what the HELL does to do to anyone else??

The answer, of course, is nothing.

The doomsday scenario put forth by the folks with the gay-fearing agenda (and THAT group is real, if informally coordinated) about people being forced to accept public sex-acts, gay themed legislation, a pink paint job on the white house and California getting covered in flows of molten lava is laughable, the "homosexual agenda" if it exists is as stated above, equality and equal rights.

IDLF, I am NOT attacking you, discussion is key to understanding after all
 
  • #43
What is the point in having a religion if we don't practice it in our daily lives, which includes our voting? Would you have us Christians NOT vote our conscience? Do you disregard your conscience when you vote? Do you not vote according to your world-view as well?

Perhaps I've made a mistake commenting on this thread. It seems their is plenty of anti-Christian sentiment here.

I would have to agree with you on that point. Anti-religious bigotry -- anti-christian in particular -- is tolerated, if not outright encouraged, particularly at university. Religion, regardless of its affiliation is among the most emotionally-charged aspects of human behavior. The notion that one can simply vote in a vacuum and without any religious principles is naïve at best.

Again, I must reiterate that anger due to all-too frequent legislation from the bench has as much to do with the success of Proposition Eight here in California than the consequence of gay marriage.

Homophobia in California is a red herring at best . . .
 
  • #44
I've never heard of this. I'd be interested in reading about it if you can provide a source.
I don't have a specific source, but because religious marriage is based upon the rules in a certain religion, interfering with the decision of who the curches will or will not marry is a blatant violation of the first ammendment.

Most likely the bigger problem would be legally dealing with their in class off topic commentary and then not having a legal leg to stand on when parents complain about it.
You're right. Most likely, kids will eventually learn that gay marriage exists and that there are conflicting opinions about it. Most likely it'd be from fellow classmates though. That is when you as a parent step in and talk to them about it. If you truly believe gay marriage is morally wrong, you are completely free to raise your children to also believe it is wrong.

What is the point in having a religion if we don't practice it in our daily lives, which includes our voting? Would you have us Christians NOT vote our conscience? Do you disregard your conscience when you vote? Do you not vote according to your world-view as well?

Perhaps I've made a mistake commenting on this thread. It seems their is plenty of anti-Christian sentiment here.

First of all, I'd like to preface this by saying that I am NOT anti-Christian or anti-religious (I am anti-Scientology, but I consider that a dangerous cult).

That being said, Christianity, at its core, is a religion about loving your fellow neighbor. Look at the teachings of Jesus himself. As far as I know, Jesus was not too much of a fire and brimstone guy. He does not seem like the kind of person who would've forced other people to follow his teachings via legislature.

Here is what I submit to you. If you had not been exposed to Christianity or any other religion, do you think you would have the same negative views of homosexuality? I believe that is how one should vote. Based not on religious conscience, but human conscience.
 
  • #45
IDLF- we have allowed gay marriage for a few years now, there was no "aftermath", again empirical evidence rules the day
This isn't true. I heard about one couple, on the radio, that got married in a church, and then on their legal marriage contract it said "party A" and "party B." They crossed this out and put "Bride" and "Groom." When they got back home from their honeymoon they found out through the mail that their marriage certificate had been denied. Besides, it's not just the cases we know of that are the issue, or even the ones that actually have happened already that we don't know about, it's also the cases that have not come up yet. It's also the fact that we have so many far-left judges here in California that keep pushing the interpretation of the law in a far left direction. The laws aren't static they evolve. They shouldn't but they do on account of our judges here.
HOWEVER once your "faith" starts making you feel entitled to tell others what they can and can't do based SOLELY on the teachings of your faith you have far overstepped the boundaries of what that faith should have been in the first place, a personal guidebook if you will
Then those beliefs would not be absolute would they? And they are then utterly worthless. What would be the point in even having them?
the above warrants a HUGE disclaimer- I tried to clarify it enough there but just in case- in the case of many laws, they exist solely so folks can't use the ignorance defense- if you kill someone, it is fairly easy to judge that as a bad act without having to consult some ancient book- a person has been deprived of their own life due to your actions, anyone who thinks they CAN justify random killings is crazy, religion or no. Thus we have a law saying "if you kill someone, you get punished like so" and anyone who does see fit to kill someone can't claim ANY kind of priveledge.
Then why is abortion legal and funded by our government? If we can redefine right and wrong, life, and even rights any way we want we can justify doing anything, including murder.
The doomsday scenario put forth by the folks with the gay-fearing agenda (and THAT group is real, if informally coordinated) about people being forced to accept public sex-acts, gay themed legislation, a pink paint job on the white house and California getting covered in flows of molten lava is laughable, the "homosexual agenda" if it exists is as stated above, equality and equal rights.

IDLF, I am NOT attacking you, discussion is key to understanding after all
Let me get this straight. The gay agenda is not real but the "gay-fearing agenda" is? Can't you at least see a little hypocrisy in your statements here? Can't you at least see how calling it "gay-fearing agenda" when they don't identify themselves that way but instead as Christians and Mormons is a little inflammatory, disrespectful, and unnecessary? It isn't like I haven't objected to your name calling.
 
  • #46
IDLF- again I am being respectful and am NOT name-calling. I wasn't implying any religion or anything like that, I should have put even more qualifiers on my last post and maybe narrowed it down a bit.

Maybe I can break down the last comment a little bit first- YES the gay fearing agenda is real- the "gay agenda" of wanting to be able to live their lives in peace with full rights is, oddly, PUT FORTH BY GAY PEOPLE. IF there was some substantial gay involvement in the "anti gay rights" side of things I suppose the "gay fearing agenda" would not be an appropriate term for the phenomenon. As it stands, most folks who are down on gays are NOT gay...

Calling the desire for equality "the gay agenda" is EXACTLY the same as calling the entire civil rights movement "the black agenda", - there were a LOT of black folks FOR the movement, and plenty of folks against it- but how many black people were firmly opposed to it exactly?? It wasn't rational thinking on the "NO to the civil rights movement" side, it was fear and hatred
 
  • #47
You're right. Most likely, kids will eventually learn that gay marriage exists and that there are conflicting opinions about it. Most likely it'd be from fellow classmates though. That is when you as a parent step in and talk to them about it. If you truly believe gay marriage is morally wrong, you are completely free to raise your children to also believe it is wrong.
Yes but my job as a parent is a lot harder when I have to compete with authority figures like teachers, who are teaching my kids 7 hours a day 5 days a week from age 5 till they are 18. Not to mention that the far left slant on everything is piled on even further when they go to college. At best, I can realistically hope they will be like the prodigal son.
Look at the teachings of Jesus himself. As far as I know, Jesus was not too much of a fire and brimstone guy.
You evidently haven't read the Four Gospels lately then because there actually is quite a lot of this stuff talked about by Jesus.
He does not seem like the kind of person who would've forced other people to follow his teachings via legislature.
And yet the Bible says he will return to conquer the whole earth and that everyone will bow down to him. I'm afraid your sense of Jesus is a bit off. He's actually a pretty zealous and adamant guy.
Here is what I submit to you. If you had not been exposed to Christianity or any other religion, do you think you would have the same negative views of homosexuality?
No. I would probably have no morals except the ones that suit me at the moment.
I believe that is how one should vote. Based not on religious conscience, but human conscience.
I respect your views. I don't fault you for voting this way.

I have to accept how things are as best I can when what I want to vote for loses but that doesn't mean I won't continue to vote for what I think is right.
 
  • #48
This isn't true. I heard about one couple, on the radio, that got married in a church, and then on their legal marriage contract it said "party A" and "party B." They crossed this out and put "Bride" and "Groom." When they got back home from their honeymoon they found out through the mail that their marriage certificate had been denied. Besides, it's not just the cases we know of that are the issue, or even the ones that actually have happened already that we don't know about, it's also the cases that have not come up yet.

oh and IDLF- I sincerely hope that neither you nor any of your friends nor family suffered too much in the "aftermath" of that clerical error, if there's anything I can do to help I'm here man
 
  • #49
I'd just like to say that the entirity of my teachers throughout public school were very professional people who never mixed politics into class. Yes, in college some professors are a little more vocal, but even then, they usually do not devote class time to irrelevant discussion.

I will also say that no matter what, nobody ever had a bigger voice than my parents.
 
  • #50
Im really torn on this issue..
because it clashes on two positions I feel strongly about:

1. liberals really DO use the courts to try to pass laws "the people" (majority) are against..
I think this is a very bad thing..the people should decide laws, not judges.
so in that sense, I think what happened with prop 8 was "the right thing"..
it was a case of democracy working properly..to cut down a ruling that should have never been made,
because it was made improperly..(how did judges get all this power anyway??)

2. gays SHOULD totally have the right to marry! im sorry "the people" of California dont see it that way..yet..

All we can do is wait for the older generations to die off..
IMO, its really the exact same thing as racial prejudice..
"The people" just elected a black president..which I never expected to see in my lifetime!
Gay rights will also eventually reach the same point..true equality for all.
We just need to wait for the majority to get with the program..

and before anyone says "maybe the majority is right?"
"the majority" also once supported slavery, lack of womens rights, segregation, etc etc..
just because its the majority, doesnt mean its right..

Scot


I agree with this. Actually I find myself agreeing with most of what scottychaos says lately. This never used to happen...
 
  • #51
I would like to know what are "far left" politics exactly?. Don't just tell me to watch the news, you know what you're against make me a list. Since the term "far left politics" has been used 32,000 times in this thread I'd really like to know just how far left I really am with my relativistic way of thinking.



"Conventional people are roused to fury by departures from convention,
largely because they regard such departures as a criticism of themselves."
-Bertrand Russell
 
  • #52
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1


The above link breaks down all kinds of demographics on who voted which way.

What I found most interesting is that the older the age of the voter, the more likely they voted against the ban! It was the younger voters who voted in favor of it!
 
  • #54
You've got it the wrong way around bud lol

Yeah, just saw that. Doh. Still - it's a great link to see who voted what. Lots of data for those interested.

Personally, I take issue with the whole gay issue.

BUT - what two consenting adults do is not up to me. I have no right to impose upon them what I think they should do with their lives. The gov't needs to keep its nose out of peoples personal business. I don't want people telling me how to live, and don't think I have the right to tell others the same.

I therefore would have voted against this if I lived there.
 
  • #55
The racial distribution of yes vs no is something a lot of my fellow far-left travellers don't like to acknowledge. But it's very real. I think the age distribution of yes vs no is fascinating because I remembers polls showing a similar cross-over 20(?) years ago. If true, it suggests that we aren't seeing a situation in which a younger generation is growing up more open-minded about gay marriage. Maybe they'll switch their thinking too. As some comic said - gays should be allowed to marry so they can be as miserable as straight people.
 
  • #56
I agree with you there. However I think many people (black, white, etc) are still today under the belief that homosexuality is a choice and don't understand that it is no different than being born with green eyes or short curly hair. That is just the way someone is in the toss of the genetic dice. One can put on colored contacts or buy hair extensions but that is only a cover, just like a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex and trying to "fit in". I feel that denying ones true nature, or fostering a purveying belief that there's something wrong with themselves because they aren't just like everyone else, will only lead them to a lifetime of unhappiness. But until more people start to realize this there will probably be oppression of the homosexuals from basically all sides, up to and including themselves depending upon their upbringing.
 
  • #57
Veni vidi vinci. :D

I don't understand why it matters so much to some people what other people do in their private lives. ??? Worry about your own path in life and leave others to tend to theirs.

When is affirmation of love and respect between consenting adults ever a bad thing??

???
 
  • #58
When is affirmation of love and respect between consenting adults ever a bad thing??
When it conflicts with the tenets set forth in scripture. Many people tend to feel a need to "correct" what they see as a deviation from their own beholden principles, by enacting laws stemming from those metaphysical beliefs. Most often in an effort to enforce the "correctness" of those beliefs to themselves and "prove it" to the rest of us, by having the authority of a secular law drawn up around it.

As the quote from Mr. Russell indicates, many people believe that when different ideas arise, they feel that either the new idea or their old idea must be the "crazy" one. It never occurs to some people that both ideas (in this thread: lifestyles) can exist side by side, both being equally right as they are being lived by different persons. Legal gay marriage, does not mean mandatory gay marriage, as many anti-gay marriage activists seem to imagine.

On a plus note for civil rights, Connecticut just legalized gay marriage today. :)
 
  • #59
And it's been awful. A few gay people got married and now they're emboldened and spreading their gay agenda everywhere. Husbands are leaving wives and wives are leaving husbands to start homosexual relationships. They never thought about it before, but can't stop themselves now that gay marriage is legal. Kids are being abandoned and most of them are turning gay too. I don't know what's going to happen next. Oh no! One of my male dogs suddenly stopped paying attention to the female and . . . Hey, stop that! . . . he's humping the other male. This sick and twisted gay agenda; it's taking over. Save yourselves!
 
  • #60
"If your wife leaves you for another woman, should you hold the door for both of them?"
-Gallagher


:)



(no watermelons were smashed in the creation of this post)



.
 
Back
Top