California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[Daredevel7]

You are anti-marriage. I'm saying, "Let marriage be for all." Make a law; create more enforcing of American bedroom politics.

You and I are "on the same side" while I'm from a different idea, it would seem.

Well Im anti marriage because marriage itself is an institution that has too much of a history with religion. So I want a new form of marriage, be it civil unions, or whatever. If a civil union had the same benefits as a marriage, I would want to be unionified rather than married! See Red Fox's post! I agree with it.

 

[web730]

People create babies without being married every day of the week. What the heck does that have to do with anything?

They create babies without marrying isn't what I would recommend, but that's their business. The actual point is that same sexes marrying doesn't make any sense and destroy the family morality. It also confuse our children as role models, too.

Not wise and good way to allow them (same sexes) marry that way. It is immorality!
-----------------

What more it gets baseless for anyone to argue about the prop 8 issue after the fact that all those states' ballots passed to ban them for now and time being, right?

 

[Wokamuka]

Well Im anti marriage because marriage itself is an institution that has too much of a history with religion. So I want a new form of marriage, be it civil unions, or whatever. If a civil union had the same benefits as a marriage, I would want to be unionified rather than married! See Red Fox's post! I agree with it.

Marriage is an excuse for the government to peak into the bedroom. You open that door; you open a Pandora's Box.

 

[Daredevel7]

Marriage is an excuse for the government to peak into the bedroom. You open that door; you open a Pandora's Box.

You're a fan of confusing allegories, aren't you?

 

[jillio]

They create babies without marrying isn't what I would recommend, but that's their business. The actual point is that same sexes marrying doesn't make any sense and destroy the family morality. It also confuse our children as role models, too.

Not wise and good way to allow them (same sexes) marry that way. It is immorality!
-----------------

What more it gets baseless for anyone to argue about the prop 8 issue after the fact that all those states' ballots passed to ban them for now and time being, right?

Same sexes marrying makes a lot of sense for many reasons, the least of which is procreation. One partner having the right to make medical decisions in the case of an accident, insurance benefits, rights to property accumulated during a long term relationship, joint ownership of property, and I could go on and on.

I fail to see how same sex unions threatens family morality in any way. It, in fact, upholds the sanctity of family. One does not have to be engaged in a heterosexual union in order to be moral and to teach right and wrong. In fact, homosexual couples are usually more moral than many heterosexual couples because they actually have it in their hearts to forgive all the homophobic and discriminatory behavior directed at them.

 

[Foxrac]

Oh no I'm sad that there are people in California who wanted to take away others' rights. Now, I am declaring, that in my residence and within range of sight of my person, for non-official purposes, I am not going to recognize any marriage as long as there are people who do not understand that gay and lesbian people are not sub-human.

I am wondering if this goes to the courts, would they use the 14th Amendment, section 1?

Yup, it's very possibly.

 

[web730]

Same sexes marrying makes a lot of sense for many reasons, the least of which is procreation. One partner having the right to make medical decisions in the case of an accident, insurance benefits, rights to property accumulated during a long term relationship, joint ownership of property, and I could go on and on.

I fail to see how same sex unions threatens family morality in any way. It, in fact, upholds the sanctity of family. One does not have to be engaged in a heterosexual union in order to be moral and to teach right and wrong. In fact, homosexual couples are usually more moral than many heterosexual couples because they actually have it in their hearts to forgive all the homophobic and discriminatory behavior directed at them.

Well, people have different views about the morality issues hence mine is different than yours. You and we shouldn't fail to notice the society's moral deprivation in last two decades.

Therefore We cannot afford to allow and allow them do so OR we shall be in a moral bankruptcy as a society which I dread to see it happen.

 

[Wokamuka]

You're a fan of confusing allegories, aren't you?

Pandora's Box is a confusing allegory? For me, it invites a period of confusion . . . not to be, continuously. confused. What are you talking about? If you're confused, don't claim that I am making you confused.

Unless, of course, you're trying to hammer away at another agenda: separation of religion and state.

 

[jillio]

Well, people have different views about the morality issues hence mine is different than yours. You and we shouldn't fail to notice the society's moral deprivation in last two decades.

Therefore We cannot afford to allow and allow them do so OR we shall be in a moral bankruptcy as a society which I dread to see it happen.

Moral bankruptcy is not something that afflicts only one sexual persuasion. Plenty of heterosexuals are guilty of severe moral deprivation. Which is more moral to you, a homosexual couple that stays together for 30 years and raises a child to adulthood that is successful and happy, or a heterosexual that commits murder and robbery?

 

[Wokamuka]

Moral bankruptcy is not something that afflicts only one sexual persuasion. Plenty of heterosexuals are guilty of severe moral deprivation. Which is more moral to you, a homosexual couple that stays together for 30 years and raises a child to adulthood that is successful and happy, or a heterosexual that commits murder and robbery?

What logic that is not found often enough?

 

[web730]

Moral bankruptcy is not something that afflicts only one sexual persuasion. Plenty of heterosexuals are guilty of severe moral deprivation.

True that!

Which is more moral to you, a homosexual couple that stays together for 30 years and raises a child to adulthood that is successful and happy, or a heterosexual that commits murder and robbery?

In this case both are guilty of moral deprivation, anyway!

From my own say, I agree with you that murder is a worse crime, however. But it's not for me to judge them but Him.

 

[jillio]

True that!



In this case both are guilty of moral deprivation, anyway!

From my own say, I agree with you that murder is a worse crime, however. But it's not for me to judge them but Him.

Well, if I had to choose which for my neighbor and friend, I would definately prefer to have a law abiding and responsible gay couple next door, than a murdering, robbing straight couple.

 

[Daredevel7]

Pandora's Box is a confusing allegory? For me, it invites a period of confusion . . . not to be, continuously. confused. What are you talking about? If you're confused, don't claim that I am making you confused.

Unless, of course, you're trying to hammer away at another agenda: separation of religion and state.

First you said this: "TWO ADULTS agree to marry each other. What business is it of anybody's? Why is it the government's business? "

Then you said this: "You are anti-marriage. I'm saying, "Let marriage be for all." Make a law; create more enforcing of American bedroom politics."

Then you said this: "Marriage is an excuse for the government to peak into the bedroom. You open that door; you open a Pandora's Box."

Do you want the government involved or not? If the government does not get involved, then there is no legal aspect of marriage.

 

[Wokamuka]

Well, if I had to choose which for my neighbor and friend, I would definately prefer to have a law abiding and responsible gay couple next door, than a murdering, robbing straight couple.

We decorate better, anyway. That's besides the point, of course.

 

[jillio]

We decorate better, anyway. That's besides the point, of course.

True! Wonderful landscaping and closet organizers!

 

[web730]

Well, if I had to choose which for my neighbor and friend, I would definately prefer to have a law abiding and responsible gay couple next door, than a murdering, robbing straight couple.

Safer (yep)... but I would stay away from both.

But it's up to you, of course.

 

[netrox]

If gays simply rephrase the term, "civil unions" instead of "gay marriage", no one would care.

I hope the court will throw out prop 8 based on illegal Constitution revision.

 

[Wokamuka]

First you said this: "TWO ADULTS agree to marry each other. What business is it of anybody's? Why is it the government's business? "

Then you said this: "You are anti-marriage. I'm saying, "Let marriage be for all." Make a law; create more enforcing of American bedroom politics."

Then you said this: "Marriage is an excuse for the government to peak into the bedroom. You open that door; you open a Pandora's Box."

Do you want the government involved or not? If the government does not get involved, then there is no legal aspect of marriage.

The government should define marriage to be between two consenting adults IS MY desire.

The government, because of the desire of of a GROUP (i.e., religious instituions), will define marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Two consenting adults wishing to be married should a be a respected decision - not based on sexual make-up. Two ADULTS, who decide to commit toward each other, should not subject governmental investigation.

In other words: TWO CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED. That's so secular and non-religious that you can't miss the bullet.

 

[Daredevel7]

The government should define marriage to be between two consenting adults IS MY desire.

The government, because of the desire of of a GROUP (i.e., religious instituions), will define marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Two consenting adults wishing to be married should a be a respected decision - not based on sexual make-up. Two ADULTS, who decide to commit toward each other, should not subject governmental investigation.

In other words: TWO CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED. That's so secular and non-religious that you can't miss the bullet. At least, I wouldn't.

Let me ask you a question. If the religious groups decide to call their type of marriage between a man and woman something different, like.. let's just say "Holy Matrimonified". So from now on, any 2 consenting adults can get married, but only a man and woman can get Holy Matrimonified by religious institutions. But they both are the same thing in terms of legal aspects. How would you feel about that?

 

[Wokamuka]

Let me ask you a question. If the religious groups decide to call their type of marriage between a man and woman something different, like.. let's just say "Holy Matrimonified". So from now on, any 2 consenting adults can get married, but only a man and woman can get Holy Matrimonified by religious institutions. But they both are the same thing in terms of legal aspects. How would you feel about that?

What religious groups do is none of my business (as it is today). What the government do IS my business. I grew up within, what could be called, "a cult" and I know, within my heart's content, the difference. What religious people do is VERY different from what the government do.

These elections, across the board, has religion defining marriage for the government to define.