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  
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 175
Prop 8Page 5 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)

The point I am trying to make, is that children have no mercy on being cruel. I guess they don't know better.

The way to teach children how to deal with diversity is not to sequester them, it is to make diversity a part of their lives. I got teased mercilessly for being smart. Should my parents have dumbed me down to "protect" me?
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 177
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 1:09:58 PM

Wow, ultimate mega-superstar bullies believe that they have the right to define another's thoughts, beliefs, and values--just before criminalizing them.

Wasn't that the entire point of the Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? The Crusades?

There are Christians who practice toleance, charity, and compassion. You might want to listen to them for a change to find out what your faith is _really_ about.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 178
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 1:16:14 PM
By the way Ace, I deeply resent the comparison of this attempt to redefine marriage and re-shape America's core family values (by way of lawmaking) to the plight of enduring slavery and its long term socially related ramifications...

Resent it all you want. However, unless you can show through reasoning how the comparison _doesn't_ apply, I'm afraid you're going to have to grow up and live with it. Because, ... it's _true._

People's rights are at stake. When rights are involved, preferences and privileges must yield. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. However, at some point I think you'd have to agree that your own freedom and your own guarantee of equality is worth the occasional challenge to your worldview.

Perhaps you can answer me this. Why do you think I'm arguing with you? What is my motivation for advocating the defeat of Prop 8 so sternly? Not being gay myself, why do you think I even care?
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 180
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 1:26:17 PM

Got news for ya, darlin -- there are still people in this country who, believe it or not, don't think women should have the right to vote; don't think blacks should be allowed to go to school with whites; don't think Jews should be allowed to "take over" businesses; don't think they should have to sell real estate to people they don't think are the right race, religion or nationality. Anyone can be as bigoted as they wish -- the rest of us can just shake our heads and deal. No one is going to take that away from you.

Heck, there are plenty of people who think raising kids without a mom and a dad are the scourge of the earth... and we widows just do the best we can to deal with that. Yup. You get to keep that one, too, Kater. Good for you!!

Amusinglisa, this disagreement of opinion about the meaningfulness of marriage does not afford you with an instant right to assign values and beliefs which I do not hold to my person. Who do you think you are, darlin'? I have demonstrated how religious freedom has already been impacted. Your words contridict reality. Being a Christian is not equal to being a bigot. You are out of line.

Wait! YOU said that kids need a mom and a dad. If that is NOT your value, why would you state that?

Ah. But I see it is about religious freedom again, and that seems to mean that religions have to tell us what society needs to do. So, I guess the rest of us, those who do not have the same beliefs as your "Christian", "religious" value system just have to have our freedom impacted by not being allowed to point out where we disagree with the words and thoughts said by those touting these particular views?

OK. I guess you win again. Think we ought to add that to the consitution, too? Let's make sure it isn't OK for people to hear someone say that they think it isn't OK to raise kids without a mom AND a dad and to call them on that.

...unless you bbelieve it's OK for kids to be raised without a mom and a dad...? And if that's OK, then there are som other contradictions I want to point out.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 183
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 2:00:39 PM
There is no comparison to be made between re-defining marriage and the fight for civil rights related to slavery and its fall out. What am I supposed to do with that request? The wish to redefine marriage has nothing to do with being a captive--or living life as a freed slave in America. Perhaps you can demonstrate how the two situations are similar.

They differ only in degree. Marriage is a _legal_ institution that affords people certain rights and advantages. When you afford some people access to rights and privileges and deny them to others on the basis of irrelevant criteria, you are denying them equal protection under the law.

When you deny equal protection under the law, you start down the slippery slope to slavery.

There's how the comparison applies. Now, you tell me how it doesn't. But if the best you can do is wave your hands and say, "no it doesn't," you will have to live with it when you wake up and realize that your position is founded on bigotry and nothing more. Are you willing to face that possibility before the vote?

After all, people of faith--good Catholics no less--condoned slavery and the Spanish Inquisition. And, it was good Christian soldiers who sacked Constantinople--a Christian city--in the Fourth Crusade. Did it ever occur to you that the people who have told you what you ought to believe might be mistaken? That they might have a different agenda? That they might be willing to sacrifice you and your rights for the sake of their own feeling of righteous comfort?

Who else and what else are you willing to sacrifice so that you can stay comfortable?
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 186
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 3:23:53 PM
No one denies anyone equal protection under the law if marriage remains an institution in America which affords benefits to married men and women for the sake of supporting growing families.

If marriage were only limited to that, you would be correct. However, it is not. People who are too old to reproduce can marry. People who are sterile can marry. People who are developmentally disabled can marry.

Marriage also governs matters of inheritance and access to medical care. These are the rights I am talking about.

No one is advocating the downfall of the family here. There is a difference between including more people in the circle and destroying the circle. It is only a narrowness of outlook on the part of those you've been listening to that leads you to think otherwise.

As it is though, no one is denied anything, they are just saying they are being denied because they see themselves as being equal to a male/female partnership, when, well, in reality they are not! Logic affirms that male/male or female/female is not the same as male/female.

Those are your claims, but they are not at all obvious to me. In what way does a gay couple differ from an infertile heterosexual couple if both couples are in love?

Let's hear the logic! Other than your own opinion--based no doubt on what you've been told by those whom you look to for authority--what is the difference? Let me remind you that arguing from authority is not the same as logic. What are the observable differences that might matter in a court of law?

Now, deep seated contempt for Catholics can be revealed by making historical comparisons. However, I already know that there have been periods in history when wicked men have tried to seize control of the Catholic Church for their own political objectives.

So, now you do understand my motives? You can't have it both ways, young lady. But let me be clear. I don't have any animosity toward Catholics. I merely point out that Catholics, just like anyone else, can err when they listen to misguided men who abuse their authority to foster bigotry. How do you know that you aren't being preyed upon in that way right now? The Good Germans who condoned the Holocaust didn't, and that was only 70 years ago.

I bring up those instances not to discredit _you_ or your fellow Catholics, but to remind you to exercise your own God-given judgment rather than simply believing what you have been told. When you think it through for yourself, then you might come to a different conclusion. But if you don't, God love you just the same.

When you hear yourself say that gay marriage is wrong, whose is the first voice that you recognize? Your own, or someone else's?

Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 189
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 4:17:20 PM

Civil unions are fine. Many are being mislead to believe that marriage must be redefined for gay couples to get what they need. That is just not true. And, in time, the rammifications of gay marriage will become more apparent... same-sex laws attempt to reconstruct what has already been constructed. The consequences will be huge, no doubt...

What are these dire consequences? You keep alluding to them, but please, spell them out for us because, frankly, I don't see them. Go to any gay neighborhood and look for signs of civil disorder. Guess what, you won't find them--except for the gay bashers who come in to cause trouble.

Anyway, despite the ongoing attack on the male/female relationship in this country, I hope that moms and dads keep learning how to love each other and stand by their kids. Unfortunately, people don't readily realize the great teaching function that laws possess.

The purpose of the law in a free society is not to teach us any lessons. It is to protect our rights and that is all.

I hope that all adults learn how to love each other for the sake of all our kids--including the 10% of all adults who are gay.

And it will be a big bummer for us all someday if we don't begin to ask ourselves how laws shape us, and not the other way around...

The laws are here to serve us, not the other way around. We are not above the law, but a law that violates our rights cannot be allowed to stand.

What is it, exactly, that I am supposed to learn from a law that is arbitrary, not founded in a recognition of the right to equal treatment under the law, and rooted in someone else's religion?

The great teaching function of the law is that we all need to respect each other's rights, even when we disagree with their choices--such as their choice in partners. Do you actually know anyone who is gay? Have you ever taken the time to listen to someone who is gay? If not, you might find it enlightening.
Joined: 2/4/2007
Msg: 191
view profile
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 5:30:58 PM
Homosexuals 'should not' be compared to discrimination based on skin color. [Huge difference].

Prop. 8 is not about 'legal' rights -- but 'social' acceptance. Homosexuals will not get this by this Proposition failing. Sorry -- but I'm being honest.

I don't concern myself with others sex lives and I do have an Uncle that is gay. He knows I voted 'YES' on Prop. 8 (mail-in ballot already sent). He knows I still love him. He knows that Prop. 8 is about 'social' acceptance and not legal acceptance. He knows that my love for him has 'nothing' to do with accepting his sex life -- but accepting him as a person (his sexual preferences aside).

A ploy of confusion is 'just' -- confusion. It will not stop discrimination.

Voting yes on Prop. 8 doesn't mean you discriminate (discrimination is action). It is not 'even' compariable to color discrimination and it doesn't mean anyone 'hates' another. If homosexuals want 'true' acceptance -- they will not seek it in others (but inside themselves), nor by marriage while holding the same legal right in domestic partnership (now in tax/inhertance laws), but by being contributing members of society like the rest of us (as most are).

A lot of homosexuals who aren't seeking 'acceptance' could care less if Prop. 8 passes and know they are loved as 'people' and not 'married people' -- but for who they are beyond their sex life.
Joined: 8/15/2008
Msg: 197
Prop 8
Posted: 10/28/2008 6:11:04 PM

Bigoted people, regardless of their religion, should not be in the business of placing children with families. Quite frankly, I believe it to be a... um... blessing that some narrow-minded groups are having to pull up stakes. If a place will serve soup to everyone but gays, I say shut the place down. I don't care if some people go hungry for a little while. Bigotry does NOT belong in my world. It has nothing to do with religion or Catholicism, it has to do with bigotry.

Good post. That, I agree with 100%.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 207
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 9:59:07 AM

And then suddenly, out of thin air, Blacks were allowed equality.

It happened as a matter of law.

Ref: The Emancipation Proclamation. 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment etc.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, not a law. I don't believe that Congress ever passed such a statute.

The Amendments came about to ensure that slavery would never again be an issue. But now that we live in a nation in which there is a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law, the courts have their instructions--not just from the legislature or the Congress, but from the People.

We all have to live with equality, and that means marriages between people who we might not think should be married.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 208
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 10:05:03 AM
Our beautiful constitution is indeed eroding if we allow this process of secularizing religion to continue. The secular is not a filter for religion. Religion is not a filter for the secular.


You can practice your faith in any way you want to, so long as you do not violate the rights of others--including their right to equal treatment under the law.

If your faith mandates that you can only provide social services to certain people but not others, then you are violating the rights of those others to equal treatment under the law. If you want to limit your services to members of your faith, you can do that, but then you are engaged in a mutual benefit society, which is also tax exempt.

I'm sorry, this is not a matter of your faith being denied, your church being attacked, or your coreligionists being oppressed. It is about equality vs. exclusivity. If you want to continue holding out that your religious definition of a legal institution should take precedence over a constitutional guarantee of equality, good luck selling it.

If Catholic Charities wants to hold out that they are providing prenatal counseling, but does not inform its customers that what they are getting is religious indoctrination instead, how does that differ from any other cult that uses bait-and-switch tactics to ensnare the unsuspecting? Bamboozle those girls into carrying to term so that you can support your ministry by taking their children from them and adopting them out, all in the name of God? Frankly, it sounds barbaric.

No, any good Catholic girl who gets in trouble and wants to "do right by her baby according to her faith," should have that option. And no one should stop her. And her priest should help her as should the Catholic community. But that's where the Catholic Church's legitimate interest ends. No one else should be subjected to the restrictions they favor. To do so would be to limit the free practice of religion of non-Catholics, including their freedom _not_ to practice a religion.

At this point you'd do better to simply address the issue. How is your position not one of advocating exclusivity over equality under the law?
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 212
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 10:51:37 AM

PeteredOut, your hostility towards religion is really on the surface.

And so is your advocacy of your religion over the rule of law.
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 216
view profile
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 12:05:19 PM
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005 and there has been no social breakdown, no burning of churches, no religions being run out of town, so I have to ask exactly what you believe is going to happen if it is allowed in your country? Specifics please. There were plenty of "chicken littles" in Canada as well, yet there has been no moral collapse here yet. The only issue I believe ahs been about a gay couple that was married before it was legal and now they want a legal divorce, but how do get legally divorced when the original marriage wasnt legally recognized?
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 217
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 1:06:48 PM
At the March 7, 2000 primary election Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%, thus adding ยง 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defines the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California.

This sounds like the rule of law to me. How many times do the people have to vote against gay marriage for it to be upheld?

The majority can NEVER vote away the rights of the minority. NEVER.

The job of the courts is to overturn any and all such laws. That, too, is the rule of law.

If a prohibition against gay marriage violates even one person's right to equal treatment under the law, it doesn't matter how many times people vote for it or how wide a margin it passes by. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that is that.
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 223
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 2:44:25 PM

first, apologies. HOw silly of me to presume that, in using the agency that is closing down because it believes kids need a mom and a dad as an example of moral collapse (even is a state WITHOUT same gender amrriage) , you agree with their opinion.

Second, religions already have the term "Holy Matrimony" How about you keep that one?

You still have not once, not anywhere given a single example of the breakdown of society due to same gender marriage. Not even a hint.

I don't think you would be the first to repeat nonsense over and over in the hopes that people will accept it as truth.

could you take a moment in all your writing and posting and researching and give us just one example of harm caused by any same gender marriage here in CA in the last 4 months? What about one in Canada in the last 3 years???

Just One. How hard can that be with something you are so certain is so awful?
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 224
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 2:46:18 PM

Plus, I don't care who says they are married--just as I don't care who says they are rich, fat, broke or poor.




I thought you were all concerned that gays NOT be able to say they are married...????? Now you don't care????
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 226
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 4:51:42 PM
Bear in mind that marriage as a religious institution reflects a belief system; marriage as a state-granted contract reflects a fact. So the only arguable point is who--as part of the government--gets to define what marriage is, the people or the legislature or the court?

Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 227
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 5:07:26 PM

PeteredOut, no one entitled to be "married" ever needed to change the legal definition of marriage to do it.

And that is NOT necessary now. At this point in time, the question is whether we need to change the legal definition of marriage to TAKE AWAY one group's rights.
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 228
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 5:16:01 PM
The agency in Boston believes it best for children to have a mom and a dad. I agree.

Well, OK. Let's think this one through together, shall we? Here are the choices:

1. Placement with a married heterosexual couple.
2. Placement with a married homosexual couple.
3. Placement with an unmarried heterosexual couple.
4. Placement with an unmarried homosexual couple.
5. Placement with an unmarried woman of adequate means.
6. Placement with an unmarried man of adequate means.
7. Placement in an institution, orphanage, or foster care.

So you are telling me that a child's interest would be best served if the choices were limited to 1 and 7, with 7 being prefereable to options 2-6? Why don't you talk to someone who grew up under #7 and ask _them_ what _they_ would have preferred. Why don't you look at some statistics to see what the likely outcomes are under each of those scenarios?

And when you find that those who have been through the experience and the statistics both confirm that a child would be better off with a homosexual couple than left to the tender mercies of the foster-care system, you will have a choice. You can choose to be compassionate or you can choose to be bigoted. Your choice will determine your status.

But you probably won't even think this through at all. Why? Because you take your orders from those you believe to be in religious authority, and you place their opinion above the rule of law based on reason.

Well, I don't think that you or they have any such authority, so if you'll pardon me, I'm voting NO on 8 and I suggest everyone else who is capable of thinking for themselves do the same. --even if they find the idea of gay marriage to be repugnant.

We don't need a bunch of ditto-heads rewriting our state constitution to conform to their religious sentiments. And, we need to make it clear to them that futher attempts to do so won't succeed. If this thing passes, God only knows what else they'll try to put over on us in God's name. What else _do_ y'all have in your hip pockets there, girlie?
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 229
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 5:17:56 PM

You still have not once, not anywhere given a single example of the breakdown of society due to same gender marriage. Not even a hint.

I'm have no interest in providing hints of the breakdown of a society due to same gender marriage.

And yet you are basing your advocacy for Prop h8 on the premise that to allow same gender marriage is to take away freedoms... What freedoms, exactly? What freedoms are being removed from you? No one is stopping you from practicing your religion as you see fit. No one.

For example, practicing Catholics who work for Catholic Charities in SF had to put a hold on adoptions.

Their choice, based on their religious beliefs. See! No one is taking their freedom away.

In Canada, a Bishop has been judicially harassed for his views on marriage and sexuality.

Hey, people are judicially (what does that mean?) harassed for going to Planned Parenthood (probably another infringement on your rights?) or for being gay (anyone remember Matthew Sheppard?) or on Jerry Springer for being all kinds of bigoted. Is that really what you are afraid of?


THAT makes it worth telling your kids "honey, I voted to discriminate against people, but only some of them, so it's OK"
 The Minister of Dudeness
Joined: 6/11/2006
Msg: 230
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 5:22:11 PM

We don't need a bunch of ditto-heads rewriting our state constitution to conform to their religious sentiments. And, we need to make it clear to them that futher attempts to do so won't succeed.

Ace, I hate to use the C word around you, but you're sounding like a conservative here (I don't mean the ultra-right wing type that is so annoying to everyone). It sounds like suddenly you don't like the idea that constitutions be considered living documents.

Welcome in from the cold dark side!
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 231
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 5:25:50 PM
Ace, I hate to use the C word around you, but you're sounding like a conservative here (I don't mean the ultra-right wing type that is so annoying to everyone). It sounds like suddenly you don't like the idea that constitutions be considered living documents.

LOL!!!!! OMG that was a great one, Sock! Yow!!!!!

I've got no problem with thoughtful people correcting omissions in the constitution to further protect human rights. Prop. 8 goes against the spirit of the constitution, and our fundie friends know it.

There was a reason the Founders set a high bar for amendments. When you change the fundamental rules, there should be a broad consensus, not a simple majority. Maybe we need an initiative to require an 80% majority for future initiative amendments, as opposed to a simple majority for initiative statutes.

You are voting "no" on that nasty proposition, and on 4 too--aren't you?
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 233
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 7:48:07 PM

For all of those who claim prop 8 takes away rights, I'd like to point out only 3 states allow gay marriages (CA, CT and MA). In all three cases, the courts legalized gay marriage, not the legislature, not the people.

Actually, in the case of California (and I believe CT and MA as well, but not positive) the courts did NOT legalize gay marriage. What happened was the California supreme court found that our constitution allows same gender couples to marry under the equal protection gaurantee.

"The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.""

The court specifically recognized that there is no reason that gays have not had this legal right all along and that to deny or withhold those rights is unconstitutional.

The right has been there all along, just like "all men are created equal" took a while to get to the slaves...
Joined: 6/8/2008
Msg: 234
view profile
Prop 8
Posted: 10/29/2008 8:11:00 PM
^^^^ I have to agree. Progressive does not mean blind or ignorant...on the contrary, giving legal status to same sex marriages is the RIGHT of all Americans. There is a long-standing (since the '50s at least) recognition by courts at all levels, and eventually by legislatures, that it is NOT government's business to legislate perceptions of morality or the rights of free Americans to access to all of the legal processes and benefits given to the average citizen. If you deny the right to "civil unions", binding and affirmed to be the same rights as ANY other citizen, then you are, by definitition, discriminating. And that, time and again over the last half century of the social development of this nation, has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts of this nation. As they are supposed to do!

The courts are far more often in touch with the realities of social evolution than legislatures or executive branches. That is precisely why our Constitution was framed to give the Courts the capacity and ability to override the legislative actions....since legislators, all too often, since the days of Jefferson and Adams, have been and are subject to the whims and prejudices of those with the money and resources to "bribe" (read Political Action Committees).

Time and time again in this last century of our history, politicians of EVERY stripe have been found guilty of accepting bribes to influence legislation. (See the latest on Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, found guilty of accepting bribes/favors from the Oil industy). Is our judicial system infallible? Of course not. History is rife with examples of corrupt "justice". But that corruption is far rarer than in the legislative and exectutive branches at every level of government...where money paid as bribes by PACs far too often determines the outcome of elections.

As Nietschze said (in paraphrase) "If you choose to ignore the lessons of history, you will be condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past".

Our judicial system is the sole realistic hope of the desires of the writers of our Constitution to ensure justice for ALL. They realized that legislatures of all levels were all too susceptible to bribery. They hoped (and believed) that an independent and vocal judicial system, from the local Justice of the Peace to the Supreme Court, was the ultimate, final and essential "check and balance" of our tripartite system of law and governance.

What's the point of all this? That those courts, such as California's, that have supported the rights of the indivual citizen, despite the pressures from those in our society who would condemn and demean the lifestyles of a minority (who are STILL citizens!!!) are fulfilling their Constitutional and MORAL right to defend and uphold the rights of ALL citizens of this Democracy.

((placing soapbox carefully back in it's designated corner))
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 238
Prop 8
Posted: 10/30/2008 1:19:09 AM
It passed 85-14 (85%) in the senate and 342-67 (84%) in the house. Naturally none of State Constitutions supported gay marriage. So it never was a "right" until recent times and only in three states.

Some interpretation for the intellectually honest. Governments do not create rights. The Constitution did not grant any. The Constitution RECOGNIZED the rights that the people ALREADY POSSESSED and created rules whereby the government would be restrcted from abridging those rights.

It took us a while to get our minds around the fact that differences in race, creed, color, and religion did not imply differences in treatment under the law. It might well take a bit more time for us to wrap our minds around the fact that differences in sexual orientation don't either.

However, the Courts in 3 states have awakened from their religious indoctrination and made the correct call. And it is their call to make because it is the Constitutional role of the courts to ensure that the legislature and the executive do not combine to use the power of government to deny the rights of individuals--especially those who happen to be members of a minority. One of those rights, is EQUAL treatment under the law--not separate but equal. EQUAL.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >