Proposition 8

peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline

SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Seconded.

Seconded.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
No way! Proposition 8 is

No way! Proposition 8 is important! I mean, we can't just go changing the definition of marriage all will-nilly like that! If we start going down that road, who's going to stop The Gay from declaring marriage as, "A legally binding subservience to The Gay Agenda," ???

Huh? WHO???

 

Only fascist Liberal neo-Marxist communist carpetbagging terrorist atheists are against Proposition 8.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Only

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Only fascist Liberal neo-Marxist communist carpetbagging terrorist atheists are against Proposition 8.

 

When your right... your right >.>

 

What Would Kharn Do?


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
 SAME THING.

 

SAME THING.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Only fascist Liberal

Quote:

Only fascist Liberal neo-Marxist communist carpetbagging terrorist atheists are against Proposition 8.

 

Ironically California was a blue state in the 2008 election.

 

 

 


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Here comes the idiot train

Here comes the idiot train round the bend! The Mormons rejoice...:

Quote:
I hope all you will pray for the supreme court to keep our amendment alive. I'm tired of all this separation of church and state, look what happened to the nephites when they did it. Screw other religions and point of views we have to do what we think is right! If that mean gay people don’t get to be happy, then so be it. Lots of unhappy now means lots of happiness in heaven!

I don't want to be mean, but if Gay Marriage makes it...Its all down hill. It will turn into every aspect of life will have to be accepted in America or you're Politically Incorrect or prejudice. It won't be quick, it will take some time for all these things to come. But I think it will be like sin, it will slowly get worse. (Frog in the cold water and slowly turn on the heat)

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mormon wrote:look what

Mormon wrote:

look what happened to the nephites when they did it.

Yeah, I remember reading that; God got angry and sent rebuke upon them. 

Don't forget to fear the wrath of your omnibenevolent heavenly father.

Quote:
It will turn into every aspect of life will have to be accepted in America

Oh no, not tolerance! Anything but that!

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Quote:It

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
It will turn into every aspect of life will have to be accepted in America

Oh no, not tolerance! Anything but that!

 

 

lol

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
But the gay argument is we

But the gay argument is we don't have the same special rights as married people. In other words, they don't like having to live like single people. So isn't the real problem that marriage is discrimination against single people? So therefore marriage should not be a special condition in the eyes of the law at all?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So therefore

EXC wrote:

So therefore marriage should not be a special condition in the eyes of the law at all?

I support that. Separation of government and marriage. It would be as easy as getting rid of divorce laws and tax breaks for married couples. But I suspect that this would be a politically unpopular stance.

As for Prop. 8: I don't understand why California has rights declared in its constitution at all if people can vote them away. I thought that (part) of the point of a constitution is to enshrine rights that can not be overturned by voters. We have allowed tyranny of the majority and a slight majority thinks that gays should not be allowed to marry. Oh well, I voted no on 8. I feel sorry for commited gay couples, but since a slight majority doesn't like them, the California state constitution now denfines marriage in such a way as to disenfranchise them.

 

Edit: I just remembered: I am a minister and (under California state law) I am allowed to marry people. I never got to perform a gay marriage. Now I wish I had.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But the gay argument

Quote:
But the gay argument is we don't have the same special rights as married people.

Well, no - that's only part of the argument. The other part is that demanding 'proper' marriage to be legally/socially recognized as strictly heterosexual marriage creates a zeitgeist where homosexuals & homosexual behavior is seen as strange, deviant, harmful, immoral, etc. I mean, look at the arguments proponents made:

'We need Prop 8 because without it our kids will be taught that gay marriage / being gay is okay.'

...So, there it is. This line of 'reasoning' has nothing to do with tax breaks or divorce proceedings. Bigots want Proposition 8 as a legal pillar they can point at and say, "See? Our justice system agrees: Homosexuality is a bad thing."

The equivocation between gay marriage and gay people is important to recognize as well; the most 'clever' supporters of the law keep it much more subtle, but it's still always present when you read between the lines. The "We're just protecting the institution of marriage," line is a great and common example. Protecting it from whom? Well, the gay people, of course. So the connotation is actually, "The bad gay people are trying to destroy our institutions, so we have to protect them with laws like Proposition 8," which is quite ludicrous.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...Y'know, just out of

...Y'know, just out of curiousity, are there any secular groups that oppose gay marriage? As crazy as the religious arguments are, I'd love to hear something even crazier, and I think such a lobbying group could provide me with a goldmine

 

EDIT: His Holiness, Google, has answered my question for me:

The Secular Case Against The Gay

 

I'll have to read and comment tomorrow; it's way past my bedtime. The right wing cheerleading gallery has already given up enough lulz for the evening anyway.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Y'know, just out of curiousity, are there any secular groups that oppose gay marriage? As crazy as the religious arguments are, I'd love to hear something even crazier, and I think such a lobbying group could provide me with a goldmine.

 

 

5 second google search

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

 

 EDIT

 

 

Beat me to it. Oh and BTW don't announce it's past your bedtime on the internet.

 

/EDIT

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

...Yeah.

 

From that paper:

 

likely homophobic financial economics student Adam Kolasinski wrote:

"I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy."

 

Okay, I agree with this so far....

 

 

 

low self-esteemed financial economics student Adam Kolasinski wrote:

"Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."

 

Holy leap of faith.

 

The state keeps people from marrying that can't have children? Since when? Wow, that is a far-fetched argument. Also, since when is marriage a requirement for having children? Or even a benefit to people who are ever going to attempt to have children? Where is any of the proof to any of these claims? The entire rest of the paper is just making more assertions, one after another....like elderly people rarely get married so they don't count, and fertility tests are too costly to the government.

 

bigot-approved financial economics student Adam Kolasinski wrote:

"If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?"

 

This is...the conclusion? A slippery slope argument? "Well, if they can do it, then so can these! END OF THE WORLD!" Wow. Just wow. Okay, well...I would say, what is wrong with allowing any of those situations? I don't have a problem with them. They won't effect me in the least. Let them do what they want. Everyone should have the right to live however they wish.

 

 

I hate bigots.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I am convinced Prop 8 would

I am convinced Prop 8 would have passed if it hadn't been worded so ambiguously.

 

Or is that failed?

 

you're right, fuck it.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
bigot-approved financial

bigot-approved financial economics student Adam Kolasinski wrote:

"If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

upon what basis indeed?  upon what basis indeed?  why the fuck NOT???  i mean, polygyny is still legal in some countries of the world and polyandry, while not quite so popular, has certainly not been unknown throughout history, particularly in tribal societies.  as for bro and sis, once again, why the fuck not?  personally, my socially conditioned knee-jerk reaction to the idea is disgust, but my rationality tells me there is no objective reason why the government should be able to tell people no.

on a related note, when debating issues like this with christians, i love watching them squirm when i ask them how the fuck the human race could have propogated itself from two original parents without resorting to incest.  they usually give some vague bullshit answer like, "well, they had to so god didn't condemn it but now there's no need for it so there's no excuse"--shit that CANNOT BE FOUND in the bible.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
GODDAMN MINORITIES!First it

GODDAMN MINORITIES!

First it was blacks complaining about being slaves. CRYBABIES! Then the baby factories bitched that they couldn't vote. CRYBABIES! Ok, so we free the blacks and they arn't happy with their substandard treatment. CRYBABIES! Then we give the baby factories the right to vote. Now the meat smokers and carpet munchers want equality too. CRYBABIES!

MOTHERFUCKER! CHEESE AND RICE ON A CRACKER!

What happened to good ol bigotry?

What really puts my bee in a bonnet is those fucking atheists, they get ticked when you equate them to Hitler and accuse them of having no morals! CRYBABIES!

WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
According to my cat, the

According to my cat, the answer if to rub his tummy.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
I was listening to a story

I was listening to a story on NPR the other day about Prop 8, and the interviewer finally asked a question of a pastor in California that I've been dying to hear an answer to: "In what way does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?"

 

The answer the pastor gave was threefold, and framed in a loss-of-freedoms perspective (sound familiar?):

1) Loss of religious freedom for those who oppose gay marriage;

2) Loss of educational freedom for parents who oppose gay marriage (i.e. they won't be able to teach their kids that gay people are evil if the law legitimizes gay marriage);

and

3) Loss of business freedom (i.e. business owners who oppose gay marriage wil be "forced" to operate in a state with laws they disagree with).

 

Holy crap, what a bunch of lameness. And under the logic of #1, then Christians should really be fighting to restrict marriage for anyone who isn't Christian.

The contemporary existence of homosexuality is a huge problem for Christianity. In the Bible, God struck down those who acted in such a way. Now, not so much.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
some pastor on NPR wrote:3)

some pastor on NPR wrote:

3) Loss of business freedom (i.e. business owners who oppose gay marriage wil be "forced" to operate in a state with laws they disagree with).

This one is a legitimate complaint. It is not legitimate in the sense that it is a reason to ban gay marriages. It is legitimate in the sense that some states do require businesses that give out marriage licences to give them out to any qualifying couple. I believe there was a case in Massachusetts where a church tried to deny gay people marriage licenses and was forced to hand them out. And there was a case in New Jersey where lesbians rented a church pavillion for a civil union ceremony and once the church found out what their intent was, they were denied use of it. They sued and won in court to get to use the church property for non-church approved uses.

Of course, this is no different than complaining that churches that are against mixed race marriages are 'forced' to give marriage licenses to qualifying mixed race couples. In fact let's make our own list here about how allowing different races to marry robs people of their rights:

1) Loss of religious freedom for those who oppose inter-racial marriage;

2) Loss of educational freedom for parents who oppose inter-racial marriage (i.e. they won't be able to teach their kids that mixed-race couples are evil if the law legitimizes inter-racial marriage);

and

3) Loss of business freedom (i.e. business owners who oppose inter-racial marriage wil be "forced" to operate in a state with laws they disagree with).

This sounds about as stupid as I thought it would. The thing that confuses me is why this logic sounds legitimate to some people when applied to gays.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India