Proposition 8 in California, 2008 page 4

1207 posts

Flag Post

Alright Orzo, that’s quite enough. I’m calling you (and everyone else who supports Prop 8) out. I defy you to provide any (non-religious) legitimate reason that Prop 8 should be passed. I’ve yet to hear a single one from you or anyone else supporting it, and I’m tired of listening to you attempt to shoot down arguments without actually providing one of your own. If you believe it, you should be able to support it with a logical argument. Let’s hear it.

 
Flag Post

Fine, if i have to find non religious proof using the all knowing Google, then you have to find religious proof to back your statements. That’s not quite fair that you can cut off half of what the American life is ruled by (state and church).

edit: Also, im not a ringleader. I just like playing devils advocate. Everyone else who supports Prop 8 is probably a religious fanatic and possibly crazy.

 
Flag Post
Aids Kerby Anderson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerby Anderson is the president of Probe Ministries International. He received his B.S. from Oregon State University, M.F.S. from Yale University, and M.A. from Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Genetic Engineering, Origin Science, Living Ethically in the 90s, Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope, and Moral Dilemmas. He also served as general editor for Marriage, Family and Sexuality. According to this guy: *The HIV virus is transmitted through the exchange of infected bodily fluids. Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users.* So what I'm trying to say is I am for prop. 8 because teaching children that same sex marriage is normal is not a healthy approach to the future.
 
Flag Post

WHy would someone who is not religious (I’m guessing,) need to find religious “proof?” What’s the point of religious proof when the goal is a secular society? Do I get to pick the religion? Because I can think of a few that have no rules against homosexuality off the top of my head, though I am a follower of no religion myself. Does showing other examples of parts of the xtian bible that are considered ridiculous (and come from help at all or is that not the same thing?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Seriously, when you get to college, take a critical thinking and logic class pretty please.

Is anyone else amused by the oxymoronic nature of the phrase religious proof?

Probe ministries huh? Nothing scientific there, sorry.

 
Flag Post

Marriage is a religious subject, if you cannot comprehend that, then you also cannot comprehend that what the gays want is to remove the religious part. By doing this, they have something other then religion, life partners anyone? They weren’t happy with that, and pushed it too far and now California is threatening to take it all away. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

By non religious proof i suppose you mean scientific, because factual proof is non existent, this has never happened before and we cannot compare it to any standards. Homosexuals are feeling the need to press their agendas on everyone and now that the government gave them too much, they are taking some away and it is infuriating only those who like to appose authority. Go fight the man somewhere else, it’s not funny anymore.

Edit: Millahnna you are possibly mentally damaged if you think that because you are not religious you can avoid all aspects of anything close to religion. This is the serious discussion forums, not the “I only have to do X because I am Y” forums, all aspects of everything related to life is in play.

 
Flag Post

I didn’t say proof, I said argument. Some sort of logical reason for why you should be violating the rights of others. Google should not be involved, and I can’t comprehend why you want me to provide a religious reason – the whole point is that there is a clearly stated separation of church and state in the US. You cannot use religious reasons to justify law – it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

To address what little you did say:

Marriage is a religious subject

Wrong. Marriage is both religious and legal, because the legal system happened to use the same wording. If the government only recognized civil unions, and never used the word “marriage”, this would be easier. However, they made the poor, and confusing, choice of saying “marriage”, so now people have the (false) impression that somehow religion is involved. Once again, religion and state are separate.

then you also cannot comprehend that what the gays want is to remove the religious part.

First off, removing the religious part would be the Constitutional and American thing to do. Secondly, there are lots of gay Christians who want to keep marriage religious.

By doing this, they have something other then religion, life partners anyone?

Recall that we are guaranteed the right to freely practice our religion. There are numerous religions (including many sects of Christianity) that in fact do support gay marriage – thus you are in fact denying the rights of those Christians to practice their religion. You have this entire thing backwards. Allowing gay marriage does not limit the rights of anyone, at all. Forbidding it unjustly denies rights to millions of Americans. Gays are not trying to take anything away – all they are asking for is equality.

Homosexuals are feeling the need to press their agendas on everyone and now that the government gave them too much, they are taking some away and it is infuriating only those who like to appose authority.

So, to sum up your argument, you claim:

a) Gays shouldn’t have equal rights with straights.
b) The California government was “nice” enough to give them some, but not all, rights that straights have.
c) Gays weren’t happy with only some equal rights, asked for full equality, and were clearly out of line.
d) Because of this indescretion, we are going to punish them by removing their rights.

Is that correct?

And for the record, do you truly believe this, or are you just playing “Devil’s advocate” as you mentioned earlier?

 
Flag Post

I’m starting to get the sense that we are aruing with actual homosexuals here, rendering this topic utterly useless. Sigh.

 
Flag Post

Yes that summed it up pretty clearly even with the twist of offensive words. I’m going out to lunch, I did read what you said though and i’ll type a response later today. marriage is just a small part in what I disagree with, I disagree entirely with anything “gay”

 
Flag Post

So it’s basically bigotry in religious clothing. No surprises.

 
Flag Post

Phoenix here’s one good reason:

If we don’t let the gays marry, we’ll spare them the bitterness of divorce… =)

 
Flag Post

Agent_86: If we don’t let the gays marry, we’ll spare them the bitterness of divorce… =)

While I know you were joking, this actually makes an interesting point. The Christian Right loves to whine and moan about gay marriage destroying the “sanctity of marriage” (something you should already know is wrong, since “sanctity” has no place in government), but it’s already obvious that marriage isn’t exactly taken seriously by Christian anyway. Rather hypocritical in my book.

Orzo: I’m going out to lunch, I did read what you said though and i’ll type a response later today.

I look forward to it.

Orzo: marriage is just a small part in what I disagree with, I disagree entirely with anything “gay”

And, as much as I hate it, I can understand that (at least if you’re religious – I can’t understand non-religious dislike for gays). However, let’s assume for a second that you do dislike homosexuality. You still have to ask yourself: do my views justify removing the rights of others? Is this law that I’m supporting Constititutional? Does it uphold the American ideals of freedom? Even if you dislike gays, I can’t imagine you thinking that you have the legal justification to deny them rights. This is not a matter of personal preference.

Keep in mind this is a Constitutional Democracy, not a true Democracy. The reason is that our founders knew that a true Democracy would lead to rule of the majority and oppression of the minority. While the majority can choose, it must do so within the Constitutional limits that were set up – limits that were created in order to protect people’s rights. Otherwise, the majority can literally do whatever it wants to the minority. Think Mexicans are a scourge on our economy? Let’s put them all in prison. You say Jews are cheating people out of their money? Let’s tax them double everyone else. You don’t like black people? Let’s start up slavery again. Frankly, banning gay marriage is starkly un-American. It violates the very principles upon which this nation was created.

 
Flag Post

ElliotNess – Drop the ad hominem. Your argument that certain diseases being common in the gay community as an excuse for trampling on the rights of gays can go both ways. A good biologist or virologist can use that argument to systematically prove no human is worthy of any rights. Try again. This has more to do with safe sex than anything, which simply means better education (which starts by acknowledging the issue to begin with).

Orzo – No need to devolve into ad hominem either. If you are unable to do some basic research or find yourself constantly disproven, just move on.

this has never happened before and we cannot compare it to any standards

As for the bit about this not having a precedent, it actually does. Homosexual marriage was once allowed in the Roman Empire, then was banned under Christian Emperors. So there is a precedent in that regard. Also several countries have been through this whole process, some leading to complete prohibition, others to complete legality.

Homosexuals are feeling the need to press their agendas on everyone and now that the government gave them too much, they are taking some away and it is infuriating only those who like to appose authority.

What exactly is this “too much” they have been given, and why is it suddenly a bad thing (pressing your agenda on others) when fighting for basic rights? Should we conclude that civil rights and suffrage were the same “pressing of agendas”?

I would also suggest you look at the history of marriage. It is not, and never was, a primarily religious endeavor.

Some history for you

However Redem hit the nail on the head there, a point which our resident trolls were eager to prove.

 
Flag Post

Well, also, I think most of the uproar is about money.

Here’s my theory:
No matter how the politicians in Sacramento feel about marriage, they are $10 BILLION in debt.
If they can get more marriage registrations, they can get more money, however little it is…

 
Flag Post

Well, also, I think most of the uproar is about money.

Errr, no. It’s very much about civil rights and equality. This is not something particular to California – every state is going to have to deal with this until the Surpreme Court recognizes that all of it is tremendously unconstitutional.

 
Flag Post

“the Surpreme Court recognizes that all of it is tremendously unconstitutional.”

They are not going to.

 
Flag Post

Because a generalized statement without supporting reasoning makes for a conclusive argument, does it not?

 
Flag Post

I’m sorry but accepting gay life as perfectly normal and ok will never happen. It will brain rot our children. Edit: Phoenix you just erased your post making it look like I’m crazy. Why did you do that?

 
Flag Post
Originally Posted By ElliotNess:

I’m sorry but accepting gay life as perfectly normal and ok will never happen. It will brain rot our children.

Yes, because generalized statements without supporting reasoning obviously make for a conclusive argument.

That is, judging by how often you’re making those statements.

 
Flag Post

Well there’s an unfounded claim if I’ve ever heard one. First off, homosexuality has been accepted in other civilizations in the past, so clearly it can happen. Secondly…“brain rot”? What in the hell are you talking about? Is homophobia really so prevalent and so virulent in this country that people think that being nice to gay people will somehow harm them?

EDIT: I erased the post because I realized that the statement was about as unfounded as your previous post was. I didn’t see the post you just made before I erased it. It was not intended to make you look crazy.

 
Flag Post

To Jabor: Excuse me but where is your big argument? It appears one sentence is all you’re good for.

 
Flag Post
Originally Posted By ElliotNess:

To Jabor: Excuse me but where is your big argument? It appears one sentence is all you’re good for.

I am merely pointing out that you are not making any reasonable argument, simply unfounded statements.

I don’t need to actually debate with you until you can put together enough of an argument for it to be worth rebutting.

 
Flag Post

Fags are gay.

 
Flag Post
Originally Posted By ElliotNess:

Fags are gay.

“Gay” is not a derogatory term. Nor is it a reason for discrimination.

 
Flag Post

ElliotNess – Derogatory, and specifically hateful, speech and slurs are not tolerated on this website. If you’re going to participate, keep your statements academic and logical in nature, and avoid racial/homophobic slurs.

 
Flag Post

…How did we get to talking about what “gay” means?!