Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 696
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong Page 12 of 52    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Given that no one has been able to provide one single instance of damage to an individual, family or marriage due to any one or all of the over 17,000 gay marriages that have already taken place, how about this:

Can anyone make an argument for Prop 8 that does not include "God" "religion" "spirituality""faith" or any other word referring to the practice of religion?
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 697
prop 8
Posted: 11/6/2008 10:47:16 AM
Bob,

I think you misunderstood. I was agreeing with what I thought you'd said--not trying in the least to smear you.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 698
prop 8
Posted: 11/6/2008 11:18:11 AM
State laws that discriminate on the basis of a person's sex are not automatically illegal. (For that matter, even a state law that discriminated on the basis of race or religion might be legal in exceptional circumstances.)



Actually, in California, this kind of discrimination IS illegal.
Here is the reference:

The California Supreme ruled "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples"
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 700
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 11:59:55 AM
^^
Instead of being arguments FOR Prop 8, you have presented several good points for making more stable families and children - without a single reason to deny this kind of relationship to same gender couples, the language of the passages you quoted notwithstanding, as none of them give a reason to exclude same gender couples.

Nice job arguing to allow more people access to the rights and privileges of marriage.

It appears my kids are still doomed, however, as I am too old to procreate and that means they are stuck with a single parent...
 JadeMuse
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 701
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 12:08:06 PM

ALL those are EXCELLENT reasons for GAY MARRIAGE!!!


Yup, Katervina... works either way.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 710
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 3:49:11 PM
Marriage supports responsible mating for the good of a society! That's it! There is nothing more to the issue. Its about biology, not religion--that is a bamboozling method. Don't fall for it.


So, again, you are calling for fertility testing for marriage licenses...


No, WAIT! responsible mating... Hmmmm -- fertility tests AND character tests -- because this is not about love, companionship and doing one's best to be a family in whatever form one finds onesself, it is about YOUR judgement of who is and who is not in a "responsible mating" relationship...

How are those ovaries, Kater? Are you going to be signing off the dating sites when you get to a point that you aren't ovulating regularly? What about when you get into that "over 35" range where birth defects start to rise (it seems to me that that would be the responsible thing to do if you are talking about mating)? Or are you going with the "shacking-up" or civil-union option that you think would be just fine for "non-breeders"?

I mean, it's OK to put those sort of parameters on it, right? You are advocating for responsible mating, right?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 711
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 3:55:04 PM
Can anyone come up with any substantive reasoning for Prop 8 that doesn't include any religious wording?

52% of voters. Hmmmm. Does that mean if 11 out of 20 kids in your child's class decided to beat your kid up that would be OK? Come on, that's majority rule; why should the teacher get involved?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 712
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 5:04:55 PM
Marriage supports responsible mating for the good of a society! That's it! There is nothing more to the issue. Its about biology, not religion--that is a bamboozling method. Don't fall for it.


If that's all there is to it, then why not allow all who want to mate for life to do so? What business is it of yours or mine what they look like under their clothes or whether or not they turn out to be fertile?
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 713
view profile
History
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 5:07:16 PM
"Marriage supports responsible mating for the good of a society"

Go back up to earlier in the thread where the definitions of married were provided.

It is part of the Mormon position .... confirming the Mormon funding of the yes on 8 campaign. did you know that a mormon male doesn't have to stay married to a woman if she doesn't get pregnant fast enough?

Catholicism mandates a woman not denying her husband the marital bed rights and that "the purpose of marraige is the procreation of children"

Under both of those religions a couple who do not and especially if they do not want to or cannot have children are not and cannot be married.

Both of those are traditional beliefs. As such both are subject to change over time.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 714
view profile
History
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/6/2008 5:10:26 PM
" No Pete, I'm afraid you are wrong! Praying does bring results "

Current research has found that this is true with statistical evidence that exceeds chance. Prayer does work ... and it worked even when the person being prayed for didn't know they were being prayed for.

On the other hand, the God of my understanding doesn't take instructions from me.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 716
view profile
History
Civil Rights
Posted: 11/6/2008 5:20:32 PM
"The two sides of this debate won't ever be resolved due to it's very nature being a question of opposing moralities:

--One says it is against God to allow it.
--The other says it is against civil liberty to deny it"

Give unto God that things that are God's --- the religious rituals and ceremonies

and to Cesear the things that are Cesears --- The civil rituals and ceremonies.

In so doing the Christian deonominations that accept homosexual marraiges can do both the religious and the civil ceremonies and those that do not can refuse and those that don't want anything to do with religions can have their civil ceremony.

You see, separation of church and state already assures churches the right to only marry those who qualify to be married under their religion. I cannot go to a Mormon or Jewish temple to be married. A catholic with a civil divorce but no catholic annulment cannot go to a catholic church to marry. The state already support a church's right to discriminate based upon religious rules as to who they marry and who they do not marry.

Churchs do not have the right to impose their morality on people who are not members of their church.
 JadeMuse
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 719
Civil Rights
Posted: 11/6/2008 7:07:12 PM
I feel a need for a unitarian prayer/relaxation/understanding of/coming together of "I don't have to be right" to be Right coming on...
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 720
Civil Rights
Posted: 11/6/2008 7:44:11 PM

America does have a Pope. Now, you don't have to recognize him as your spiritual leader, but he is the leader of the Catholic Church in Amercia, and everywhere else in the world.


Make that SOME Americans have a pope. there are many Americans AND many, many world citizens (that, BTW, outnumber Roman Catholics by a significant amount - do you need me to provide figures?).

As the world gets smaller and the US becomes more ethnically diverse, will you be OK with "majority rules" if a proposition to make being catholic illegal? What recourse would you like to have in place should something like that (heaven forbid, but it could, given world populations) ever happen? Would "the majority has spoken" be the end of the story for you?
 dead fish
Joined: 10/21/2008
Msg: 723
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 11/6/2008 9:55:23 PM
Nobody should care about this whole thing unless you're homosexual.
Everybody else should just go like ok let them do whatever and vote for what they want.
But nooooo, people have stupid make believe belifs and that affect the other poeople who just want to do their own thing.
And what's this their thing of wanting to get married anyway? Marriage is a human invention and half of the time it doesn't even work.
In our "normal" (heterosexual) world, it's the woman's idea of wanting to get married. I wonder who in the other world wants to get married more, the man marrying a man or woman marriying a woman?
Ok, I guess it's time for them to go out and protest as they are doing and also use the law to get what they want.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 727
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 11/7/2008 12:03:26 AM
"Was there violence this Thursday night? "

Los Angeles gays are protesting across the street from a Mormon Temple and there have been a few incidents.

Actually, as I was watching it on the news during the family dinner hour one of my thoughts was "so much for kids not learning about homosexuality and marraige"

Bob raised a very good point. I realize this will not influence those who consider homosexuality a sin and oppose it in their churches. However, there are many christians who do not oppose it. Many straights who do not oppose it. Yet, the protesting is sending a very clear message that it is a bad thing ... at least at the level of complexity of thinking that a child might be expected to conclude.

The cases will work there way through the system. Took 4 years last time. They will have to strike it down again.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 728
prop 8
Posted: 11/7/2008 2:37:27 AM
amusinglisa,

I voted No on Prop. 8. As a conservative, I don't believe restricting same-sex marriages is a legitmate function of government. I'm just chiming in because the legal controversy interests me.

You'd claimed discrimination by sex was illegal in this country, and that no state could make it legal. But that's not quite true.

A state or federal law that's grounded in the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee may discriminate between groups of people on the basis of their sex, sex preference, age, birth legitimacy, or even race, without necessarily violating equal protection. Courts may find that a state law which discriminates by sex, etc. violates it; but they may also find that some other state law that discriminates by sex does not. The SCUS will uphold these laws when governments can show they are "substantially related to an important government purpose." An example would be a state law that limits enrollment at a long-established state women's college to women only.

You're right that the Cal. Court's Prop. 22 decision made at least one type of discrimination by sex illegal. It was not interpreting the 14th Am. equal protection guarantee (where the SCUS is the final arbiter) but the one in the Cal. Constitution. The part of the opinion you bolded shows how radical that interpretation is. It says a person's race, sex, or sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on which to deny or withhold legal rights--period.

I read the case. I think the majority of the Cal. Court overreached by going so far beyond the S.C.U.S.' sex discrimination decisions. And by reaching its decision in such a conclusory and unconvincing way, it practically invited someone to defy it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 734
Food for thought.
Posted: 11/7/2008 8:03:22 AM
""For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. ..."

Now, can someone demonstrate how equal manhood has been denied by those who does not favor same-sex-marriage (without taking to slander)?


In 1852, American society was sexist and so was its language. However, male pronouns and adjectives were meant to be inclusive of women insofar as women were considered at all.

To understand the quote in a modern context, substitute the word "humanity" for "manhood" and I think you will have a better sense of it. Now substitute the word "homosexual" for "Negro," and I think you'll understand how the quote might apply to the current calls by gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people for equal treatment under the law.

Leaving the teachings of the Church aside for a moment, I'm wondering what your personal stake in this is, K? What is it that has you so worked up? There are many many loyal Catholics who are much less invested in this issue, and yet they remain loyal Catholics. Is it just debate fever? Or is there something deeper and more personal that has sparked such passion in you? Why is this your line in the sand when for others it's abortion, and for still others it's missionary work, housing the homeless, etc. Why this and not something else?

Pete, Bob, and others who've taken after K as I have, could you please just hold off for a minute and let her tell her story? I know what motivates me. I know what motivates you. But I don't know what motivates K and I'd like to hear it from her if I could. There must be some kernel of earnestness there or she' never have persisted this long.

Besides, the "you're bad and wrong, ... no you're bad and wrong" debate has gotten tedious and the election is over. So we're either going to come to an understanding of each others' positions--the real positions and not the rhetoric--or we're not.

So everybody, let's take a deep breath and look at what's underneath the conflict. I think it was Einstein who said that you can never solve a problem by looking at it from the level at which it appears. You have to look deeper.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 735
Prop 8
Posted: 11/7/2008 8:08:20 AM

Los Angeles gays are protesting across the street from a Mormon Temple and there have been a few incidents.


It isn't just "gays" that are protesting. The supporters of No on H8 have also been hetero - just with some education and empathy - as well as a sense of justice and a firm understanding of civil rights. Some of us are just appalled that such a costly initiative has passed. That $10M or more pricetag (for the court costs and eventual negating of this nonsense, I am guessing) would go a long way toward may other more useful projects.

I suppose it will be something like another 2 to 4 years for this to go through the system and ultimately fail on the same basis that all the other attempts to discriminate on this issue have failed. Then there will be another collossal waste of time and money spent on trying to force thie illegal and immoral issue on the constitution yet again. Because some people still think "majority rules" should mean that minorities can be discriminated against.

Funny how no one can offer a SINGLE case of harm to an individual, marriage or family that has come from the over 17,000 gay marriages in California or the thousands more in Canada.

Funny, too, how no one can make a case for this outrageousness without invoking "God" "Christian" "faith" or other religious terminology.

Astonishing that no one has yet advocated that 11 out of 20 students deciding to beat someone up should be OK as long as "the majority has spoken."
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 736
Food for thought.
Posted: 11/7/2008 8:13:47 AM

Now, can someone demonstrate how equal manhood has been denied by those who do not favor same-sex-marriage (without taking to slander)?


"manhood" is yet another term that has evolved over time. The Declaration of Independance states that "...all men are created equal..." . Do you want to make that about men only or do you think women might be included as well in this day and age?

And, yes, by denying the rights afforded to a married person to someone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex, their personhood is being denied.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 737
Prop 8
Posted: 11/7/2008 8:24:45 AM

Funny how no one can offer a SINGLE case of harm to an individual, marriage or family that has come from the over 17,000 gay marriages in California or the thousands more in Canada.

Funny, too, how no one can make a case for this outrageousness without invoking "God" "Christian" "faith" or other religious terminology.

Astonishing that no one has yet advocated that 11 out of 20 students deciding to beat someone up should be OK as long as "the majority has spoken."


Let me amend that: No one has advocated that 11 out of 20 students voting to keep one student out of the library (heck, they can go to the public library with their parents, it isn't like we are taking away their access to books!) would be OK.
 JadeMuse
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 744
Civil Rights
Posted: 11/7/2008 10:18:57 AM
Well.... it looks like the protests of the '60's are back!

On a different note:
It cracks me up that it has been suggested in this thread that some posters could have "a personal stake"
in making sure that no American is denied their RIGHTS, how ever it is that they differ from our individual lives,
could be anything BUT personal...

Remember the movieThe People vs. Larry Flynt(1996)?
Larry Flynt: "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you. "

--Civil Liberty for One IS Civil Liberty for ALL.

Yes, it is that simple.
I won't forget it... will you?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 745
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/7/2008 11:10:24 AM

Yes, slooooow down and respect your fellow citizen's beliefs.


Again, I must ask:

so you think that if out of 20 students voting to keep one student out of the library (heck, they can go to the public library with their parents, it isn't like we are taking away their access to books!) it would be OK?

If the majority has spoken in this case, should the student have any recourse?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 748
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/7/2008 12:23:03 PM
Kat, you seem to be ignoring my hypothetical. I imagine it is because you have no answer or you simply think it is ridiculous for a group to single out someone and vote away their rights...?

(just so you don't have to go searching:
Again, I must ask:

so you think that if out of 20 students voting to keep one student out of the library (heck, they can go to the public library with their parents, it isn't like we are taking away their access to books!) it would be OK?

If the majority has spoken in this case, should the student have any recourse?)
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 751
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/7/2008 12:29:03 PM
K,

You have mistaken a peace offering for another debating tactic. I'm done debating you. It is clear that your mind is closed on this issue. Whether or not your heart is too remains to be seen.

For now, you and I will have to remain in disagreement, as our positions and viewpoints are fundamentally different.

I value human rights more than I value tradition, whatever it's source. You appear to value this particular tradition over the rights of others, and there is nothing that can persuade you otherwise. You do not even appear to recognize that human rights might are involved for those who want the freedom to marry like anyone else _in_love._

The way I see it, you have constructed the debate so narrowly that there is nothing anyone can say to you that might broaden your view. That you construe it so narrowly and hold that view so forcefully in the face of such intense criticism is a reasonable thing to wonder about, and I wonder about that.

I have agreed to disagree with you and would like to explore the nature of our disagreement. However, if you have cast me as your enemy because we have so heatedly disagreed on this issue and that's your final take, then there really isn't any more that I can say to you other than, "good luck."

I will continue to try to persuade those who have ears to see it in the light of human rights. I accept that you may never see it that way and I am no longer interested in trying to persuade you one way or another. Others have heard our differing takes on it, and no doubt will continue to do so, and they are free to make up their own minds. We will see how it plays out in the coming years.

Meanwhile, I do wish you good luck. If you ever want to talk about something else, I'll be available, but between us I think we've done this topic to death.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 763
view profile
History
Prop 8 is still bigotry and it's still wrong
Posted: 11/7/2008 11:38:37 PM
Kat: "For example, is a dime and the penny the same?"

They are both coins. They are variations of coins, but they are both coins. Just as the genders of marital partners can vary, but they are still married. To be married is the coin of this land for recognizing that a couple has made a committment to each other to form a family and intimate relationship. The gender of the couple is a variation of the same thing. Humans come in lots of varieties, too. Are you now trying to say that we can discriminate against some of the variations of being human?

The mistake you are making is to consider gender as the defining element of the word and state "married" ... even according to the definition in the dictionary ... previously provided ... gender doesn't have to be part of the definition. The key components are commitment and intimate relationship.

The constitution as of Monday did not discriminate on the basis of gender for the state of being married. The yes on prop 8 people voted to add that discrimination to the constitution. As a result, we all get to pay the legal fees for having it overturned. You cannot pass an illegal law.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >