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
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 312
Prop 8Page 6 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)
AceofSpace,

I don't recall defending the proposition. I think I mentioned that because I'm conservative, I generally don't favor government intervention in private matters. I've just been responding to some of the statements I've seen on here that aren't true, because I'm interested in the subject--and because I think too much baloney already goes unchallenged. For example, someone a few posts back claimed our government creates rights. As you noted, that just isn't the fact in this country.

I wouldn't want to make the case that the sex of the people involved is relevant to their marriage. But I doubt that matters. I didn't find a supremacy clause in the state constitution, but I know in other states, the constitution trumps the highest court. Assuming that's also true here, if the California constitution's equal protection clause is amended so it specifically exempts same-sex marriages, how can any California court still have jurisdiction over this question? I mean, how could people prevented from marrying others of their same sex claim, any longer, they'd been denied the equal protection guaranteed by the state constitution?

The legislature might have enacted a statute removing jurisdiction over same-sex marriage cases from all California courts--but then the state supreme court might have defied that law by hearing one of these cases anyway. Congress has tried that a few times with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court only deferred once that I know of--not long after the Civil War. Amending the constitution avoids the problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court could always get involved later--it no longer waits until all but a couple states have changed their laws on something that involves equal protection (or due process) to jump in, as it had always done until a few years ago. Now, if a dozen have, that seems to be all the evidence the Court needs that some social change is afoot. And that--since they know best--justifies them in making all the other states fall into line. But even so, 3 out of 50's probably not quite enough even for Justice Kennedy.

I'd never dream of arguing that the Court doesn't have the authority to declare what the law is. What I was getting at is that the Framers never intended the judiciary to lord it over the other two branches. There's something anti-democratic about letting five people decide so often how we should live. Much easier than relying on the legislative branch and the amendment process--and it seems to flatter several of the Justices to realize so many of us have decided they know what's best. They've even turned to European law (not, of course, as a precedent, as they're quick to point out!) but as a guide. Maybe the Brahmans of the Court feel some of the greater sophistication of these more advanced societies will rub off on our laws, to the benefit of us poor, benighted primitives.

You say I should support Roe v. Wade. Count me out. I don't believe Congress should have anything to do with abortion, in the first place, any more than it should control the use of prophylactics. You don't say what individual rights you think were being "trampled," or who you think was trampling them, before the Court came to the rescue. And whatever they are, I wonder just where these rights are described. I certainly don't agree with the majority that the constitution recognizes a right to abortion. The 60's influenced the Court also, and it went on some real trips. Roe is just the best known of a series of cases starting with Griswold, most of them decided on due process grounds. Several times, the Court gazed into the Constitution and discovered strange, disembodied rights that seemed to float in the air. Some of the Justices were so delighted with these fantastic visions they decided to make them the law.

The most common "scare" myth about Roe is that women had no right to get abortions until the Court saved the day. Pure bull. In 1973, about 85% of the states had laws permitting abortions. So I don't buy the propaganda that returning control of abortion to the states would be a return to barbarism, and simply unthinkable.
 prof48
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 316
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 7:36:15 AM

I hear some supproters of Prop 8 say that they don't want gay rights pushed in their face.

Hmmm. Seems to me on another battle not that recently fought I heard a lot about "uppity blacks." That seems to be the trendy thing for weak arguments.

Those who make the "religous" argument are equally weak in their advocacy. Any minister has the right to not marry anyone for whatever reasons they find valid. Indeed some conservative religious regularly refuse to marry couples of different faiths (Catholic and protestant for example) In officiating at a marriage they are acting as an authorized surrogate of the court authorized by the license and the couple. Their role acting on behalf of the "church" is a separate function. Non discrimination on the basis of gender becomes a requirement on the court as a protector of rights not on the church as a protector of spiritual values. The law on marriage is a contract law not a morals law. Now I suppose that one could raise the fear of a woman marrying a snake (as happened in India) but even that is unlikely since a snake, under US law, is not a valid party to a contract. Nor does a marriage contract extend to past or future lives. The death of a party to the contract terminates the contract, even if one could prove that their spouse had been reincarnated as a snake or even as a woman or a man. They would not be valid parties to a contract until they were of age, or had the approval of parents or the courts. If marriage were solely a religious issue, then those getting married would not apply to the state for a license to marry and those of us who are agnostic or athiest would have no marriage "rights." The church, not the state, would be the final arbiter of the termination of the marriage contract. Non of the above is true. I would have to conclude then that the marriage contract is a civil contract not a religious one.

Nor will the introduction of no discrimination of rights based on the gender of the parties to a contract lead to bigamy or polygamy. A marriage contract is an exclusive contract between two people. Termination of one contract is a prerequisite to the creation of another contract. That is true whether the law specifies gender diversity in the parties to the contract or not. I have often heard the religious anti-gay's argue that gays were immoral, among other reasons, because they did not have a consistent relationship. Now they are arguing against giving them the legal basis for a consistent relationship because they are gay.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 320
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 8:36:43 AM
K,

You keep saying over and over that allowing gay marriage would hurt people and institution, but you have yet to name a specific harm that would result.

Yes, you raise all sorts of other scenarios, but you have yet to answer my specific question to you, which is:

In what way will _you,_ personally be harmed by a wedding between two men?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 327
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 9:51:12 AM
Men and Women were designed for each other......those that don't get that need to have a long talk with the stork and understand how procreation works which allows survival and thriving of the species. Motions which undermine or otherwise negate respect of that arrangement undermine all of humanity...hence, everyone is hurt by this.


The persistence of a 10% segment of the population that is homosexual in orientation belies your contention. If, after thousands of years of persecution and suppression a trait continues to be exhibited, there must be a reason for it. There must be some evolutionary advantage to having a certain portion of the human population remain nonbreeding. It is just as effective, from a genetic viewpoint, to have your genes passed on through a brother or sister as it is to pass them on yourself. And if having an extra aunt or uncle around to take up the slack if something bad were to happen to your parents makes you more secure, who cares if they're gay?

If you believe that God designed us, then you have to look at the design as it is. Applying your own human reasoning to create a dichotomy that God didn't make is usurping God's authority. 10% of the population has always been, and will always be, homosexual. That is how it _is._ You might not think that is how it should be, but really, who are you to say? God made 10% of us gay.

And yes, I know what the Bible says about it. But I also know that the Golden Rule supercedes all of those old laws. Does it not? So, if you happened to find yourself in that 10%, or one of your children was so blessed/challenged, how would you want to be regarded? How would you want to be treated? If you weren't hurting anyone, why should you be condemned or your love, in its full physical manifestation, be disdained in any way by anyone?

I'm not asking you to do anything that your Lord and Saviour wouldn't ask of you under the circumstances. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in their shoes.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 330
What is Godwin's Law?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:09:51 AM

No on Prop 8 is not protecting "rights" but a wish to redefine reality. That is social sickness.


So what?

Unless you can tell us about a specific harm that it would bring to you personally, it is harmless. --a disease with no symptoms. And if it's not a problem, what is all the fuss?

WHERE IS THE HARM?

Give me one instance where a gay marriage has actually hurt anyone and I will change my vote. All it takes is one!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 331
What is Godwin's Law?
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:13:16 AM

I am a firm believer that some folks who are only focused on living in the moment with a "live and let live" attitude are like sitting ducks for losing real liberty by supporting laws which look good on the surface but actually cut off their noses to spite their faces.


Me too. Prop 8 looks like one of those laws to me. However, in this case the appeal is to those who prefer the consolation of their religion over the use of their reason--another way to live for the moment without facing consequences.

Are you going to be one of the lucky ones to be raptured away when the consequences of our greed and entitlement come home to roost?
 ohsweetlaura
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 332
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:13:19 AM
This posting is not for the out-spoken opponents that have made their position clear. It is for those who still have reservations about Prop 8, those who feel “yes, marriage IS between a man and a woman” but then feel guilty, uncomfortable or confused because they can’t explain or articulate why they feel that way. I’d like to explain why I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Proposition 8 is a total of 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” When Adam was lonely and wanted a helpmate, God created Eve, not Steve (I know, a cliché). And, in that first week, God designed marriage. One reason God made marriage? To use man’s understanding of marriage to illustrate His relationship to man. There are numerous instances in the Bible where God calls the Church “The Bride of Christ,” demonstrating His unconditional love for us, just as God commands husbands to love their wives, while God commands wives to submit to their husbands, just as the church is subject to Christ. God made man and woman and made each gender to complement the other. And when God made marriage, He made marriage between a man and a woman. That is why I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Not only did God design marriage, God designed sex, specifically between ONE husband and ONE wife. It is not any accident that the male and female bodies “fit” so well together. Yes, God created marriage and He gave us sex, to be enjoyed frequently and heartily, within the framework of marriage, not just for procreation, but also for our pleasure. God loves us, so why would He not want us to enjoy the most intimate, satisfying, and pure love we can share with another?

But while God made marriage and sex, He also gave us rules or laws. Not because God is a killjoy, but because He loves us. He knows us better then we know ourselves and understands what may satisfy or please us today may eventually hurt or destroy us tomorrow. Examples: overeating. It tastes oh so good! but if one overeats continually, it results in obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart problems, esteem problems, etc. And, how many of you parents have pushed away an exploring, tiny hand from the hot stove, not because you get pleasure out of stifling curiosity but because you know it could result in pain and suffering from a burn. Well, God knows that not following His laws will eventually cause us grief and heartache.

One of God’s rules is for man and woman to remain pure. That means no sex until marriage. No sex outside of marriage. No sex with multiple partners. No sex with animals or children. And, no sex with the same gender. Why are we to remain pure? Simple! Because we are created in God’s image. And, God is pure.

Homosexuality is a sin. Premarital sex is a sin. Extramarital sex is a sin. Sin is sin. And, you know what? We all sin. But, sinners justifying their sin by passing laws that tell us sin is natural, a right, or necessary for our happiness does not make the sin any less so.

If you don’t believe there is a God, or believe that the Bible is truth, then of course my position will seem silly, stupid, bigoted, uneducated, or one of many other slurs. But for those who do know there is a God and that the Bible is His inspired Word, hopefully you will vote Yes on Prop 8 with a better understanding of why marriage should be only between a man and woman.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 333
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:16:58 AM
Laura,

I appreciate you for stating your opinion as your own. I respectfully disagree and will vote accordingly.
 prof48
Joined: 3/17/2005
Msg: 337
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 11:12:46 AM

I'm not asking you to do anything that your Lord and Saviour wouldn't ask of you under the circumstances. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in their shoes.

Jesus couldn't get through to her on this forum, she blocks anyone who would message Mary Magdalene or the woman at the well.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 341
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 12:17:45 PM


One can say it hurts no one until their blue in the face but redefining marriage hurts institutions and many, many, many people--now, and in the future


Katerwahl

Name ONE.

Just ONE

Name one, name one, name one

come on. It's been 5 months with gay couples getting married all over the state.

Name ONE hurt to any institition, individual, marriage or family.

You have all these arguments and predictions and not once have you named one single hurt to anyone or anything that is the direct result of one single gay marriage...


Vote No on h8
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 342
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 12:19:02 PM

With all due respect, it is not a "right" to distort what a word means just because some citizens would like to apply the term to themselves at the expense of those who oppose.



Ummmmmmmm -- that's exactly what prop 8 is proposing.

Vote NO on h8
 Miss W
Joined: 12/4/2006
Msg: 343
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 12:41:24 PM
Well when you grow hair on your palms and go blind

I wouldn't wish blindness upon him, but I'd find it mighty amusing to see him braid his palm hair.

You have all these arguments and predictions and not once have you named one single hurt to anyone or anything that is the direct result of one single gay marriage...

No kidding. I would love to see an example myself. In 20 some odd pages there have been many pleas for an example as to how this has hurt anyone or their marriages and we keep getting bigoted answers, beating around the bush, and smoke and mirrors.

I do know of a couple who were married for over 40 years and the husband managed to keep his double life hidden from his wife. I heard that when she finally found out, she was devastated. I am glad that people can now be true to themselves instead of living a lie and hurting someone else.

I'm happy to say that I sent out my absentee ballot earlier this week with my NO on 8!
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 345
What is Godwin's Law?
Posted: 10/31/2008 1:32:04 PM
You know, Pirateheaven, it's really better when you cite a claim, to make the claim and then back it up. Here is the relevant passage from your reference.



First, institutions that support the traditional understanding of marriage may be denied access to several types of government benefits, and individ­uals who work in the public sector may face cen­sorship, disciplinary action, and even loss of employment. Second, those who support the tradi­tional understanding of marriage will be subject to even greater civil liability under nondiscrimination laws that prohibit private discrimination based on sexual orientation, marital status, and gender.[1] Third, the existence of nondiscrimination laws, combined with state administrative policies, can invite private forms of discrimination against reli­gious individuals who believe that marriage involves a man and a woman and foster a climate of contempt for the public expression of their views.


1a. Institutions that don't provide equal treatment under the law to all comers don't deserve public support. If they they prefer to forfeigt their government benefits rather than provide equal access to their services, that is their choice. They aren't entitled to benefit from my tax dollars unless they provide their services fairly. This is the loss of an undeserved advantage, not harm per se.

1b. People who work in the public sector may not discriminate. No change here.

2. Being held accountable for unconscionable behavior is not harm. They have it within their power to avoid bad consequences by refraining from engaging in objectionable behavior. No harm here caused by gay marriage.

3. If people alienate others, that is a consequence of their objectionable speech and behavior, not a consequence of gay marriage. If the climate of contempt shifts from those who are gay to those who behave disdainfully toward gay fellow citizens, those who are disdainful would do well to reconsider their positions. Again, there is no direct connection between gay marriage and such a shift. However, I see no real harm in it if bigots are encouraged to behave themselves better in future.

But all of these are speculative and dodge the question.

Pirateheaven, what specific harm will come to _you,_ personally? Will your property values go down?

If the best you can come up with is that you will no longer be able to put down gays with impunity or turn them away from social services that they should have equal access to, I'm sorry, but I just don't see the harm in that. Do you?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 346
What is Godwin's Law?
Posted: 10/31/2008 1:36:35 PM
My best friend is gay.


You know what? This is the exact same line that so many racists who were in denial about their own bigotry used back in the 50s and 60s. It is called "tokenism."

You really don't get it, do you? What if your best friend decided that he wanted to be married to a man? What would happen to your friendship then? Could you really respectfully disagree with him on that and stay friends with him and his spouse?

I hope so, because in a few years he just might change his mind and want all those legal benefits and protections for himself and his partner. What will you say to him then?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 347
You can't name JUST ONE case of harm???
Posted: 10/31/2008 1:43:39 PM

Harm caused by NO on 8

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2201.cfm


Nope. Not a SINGLE instance of harm caused. Lots and lots of speculation about what might happen -- all along the same lines as have been put forth here -- that are not cases of harm caused, just people going on and on about how everyone should have freedom to believe what they want to believe... then positing that they should take away freedom from others.

Back to my old request

Name

ONE

instance

of

harm

caused

by ANY

gay

marriage.

Just ONE. If it's sooooo harmful, how can it be so very difficult to come up with an example of harm? We have had thousands of gay marriages in the last 5 months. If they are causing harm, surely you can give an example.




No?

Ah well.

Vote NO on h8
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 353
Still not ONE example of a ruined marriage, family or institution???
Posted: 10/31/2008 4:03:50 PM



Hello? YES, we do. As long as married people have special LEGAL rights, you bet we do.

So you want gov to get involved in marriage so that married people have special legal rights? So much for equality.


Married people already have special legal rights: the right to inheritance, the right to make health care decisions -- even in the absence of written health-care proxy, the right to citizenship in the country of their spouse... There are more.

Prop h8 is attempting to take that away.

Like anti-miscegeny laws (based on the "fact" that marriage between races is immoral and against the will of God and that allowing interracial marriage or relations of any sort would be the downfall of society as we know it). Funny how people that are living in the light at the end of that tunnel have so many stones to throw... Betcha someone's mama and daddy are right proud.


Just ONE example of a ruined marriage, family or individual? come on! Just ONE!

Vote no on h8
 MGMLION
Joined: 4/29/2008
Msg: 355
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 4:19:43 PM

Speaking of out...what's so wrong with gay marriage?


Nothings wrong with Gay marriage.
I wish All the men in the world were gay and married.

Talk about Living in a perfect world. All the women I wanted to my self, Now that would be a perfect world for me.
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 356
Just ONE example, please
Posted: 10/31/2008 4:22:12 PM
Answer to Message 508

A recent case from New Jersey illustrates the con­cern about religious institutions losing tax exemp­tions for honoring their beliefs about marriage. In this case, a Christian ministry declined to allow two lesbian couples to use one of its facilities for their civil union ceremonies because of the ministry's reli­gious beliefs about marriage. The lesbian couples filed complaints against the ministry for allegedly violating a civil rights law prohibiting discrimina­tion in public accommodations based on civil union status.[36] As a result, the State of New Jersey has already stripped the ministry of the tax exemption for the disputed facility and could yet impose addi­tional liability.[37]

The revocation of tax–exempt status can result in "staggering financial losses" for religious institu­tions that believe marriage involves a man and a woman.[38] Furthermore, merely the threat of this type of costly government action may be enough to force many religious institutions to adopt the state's position on controversial moral issues like same–sex marriage.[39] Even if courts determined that states were constitutionally permitted to enforce official government viewpoints in this way, the sig­nificant harms to religious liberty must be weighed in any decision redefining marriage to include same–sex unions.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2201.cfm

Game, set and match. NEXT!


This is about CIVIL UNION -- y'all have stated that this would be OK with you. New Jersey does not recognize same sex marriage.

I am asking for ONE example of gay MARRIAGE (of which there are now thousands of examples) ruining a marriage, family or individual.

Just ONE??!! Come ON!!! How hard can it be??? You can't find ONE???

Vote NO on h8
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 359
Still not ONE example of a ruined marriage, family or institution???
Posted: 10/31/2008 4:36:58 PM


Married people already have special legal rights: the right to inheritance, the right to make health care decisions -- even in the absence of written health-care proxy, the right to citizenship in the country of their spouse... There are more.
Why not provide legal docs for couples that would allow for inheritance and the right to make health care decisions? If you give gay and strait marriage special rights then what about anti marriage couples? They will still not have these special rights you talk about. All you will have accomplished is giving one more group special rights but still no equality to everyone.


At least everyone would have the choice.

wanting to abloish marriage altogether needs its own thread, OC.
 blaqman
Joined: 1/27/2007
Msg: 361
view profile
History
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 5:04:49 PM
I don't mind to admit that I will be voting yes on 8. What I will be voting for is what I like the term "marriage" to mean and my vote is only 1 out of 17million. As far as I am concerned, the outcome can be 17,000,000 to one but at least I vote as I truly feel and not by influence of peer pressure or fear of what others may think.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 363
Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 5:40:53 PM
A recent case from New Jersey illustrates the con­cern about religious institutions losing tax exemp­tions for honoring their beliefs about marriage. In this case, a Christian ministry declined to allow two lesbian couples to use one of its facilities for their civil union ceremonies because of the ministry's reli­gious beliefs about marriage. The lesbian couples filed complaints against the ministry for allegedly violating a civil rights law prohibiting discrimina­tion in public accommodations based on civil union status.[36] As a result, the State of New Jersey has already stripped the ministry of the tax exemption for the disputed facility and could yet impose addi­tional liability.[37]


Well, if I were going to be a jerk about this, I would say that it has nothing to do with marriage because the couple in question wasn't married. It was a civil union.

But, let's address the principle of your example. The issue here has to do with equal access to public accommodations. If you're going to offer to rent out your public hall for social events, then when someone shows up with the money to pay for the event, and it's lawful, and it's not likely to damage your premises, you have no legal grounds for denying them access. If you did, you could deny them access on the basis of race, creed, religion, and so on. When marital status was added to the list of protected distinctions by which you could not legally discriminate, that simply followed from the same reasoning that you needed to have a reasonable, relevant basis for denying equal access. So was their act of denying the lesbian couple access to the hall that they rent out to the public one of religious freedom? Or was it illegal bigotry? Would your answer differ if they'd been black? White?

Again, there is a difference between harm and consequence. Of course it is devastating to that organization and I feel for them. But what they did was illegal, they knew or should have known it, and now they're paying the price for it. Had they intended to remain exclusive, they could have limited the use of their hall to their members. But if they want to raise funds for their own use by charging the public for their services, then they have to abide by the law. Your argument attempts to put them above the law, and the Constitution prevents any church from being placed in that position.

You'll have to try again and show how an innocent person, such as yourself, has been or can reasonably expect to be harmed if they abide by the law. Please do if you want my vote--or that of anyone else who is capable of thinking.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 365
Yes on Prop 8
Posted: 10/31/2008 8:27:06 PM
Keep talking K. This is exactly what bigots do when they are confronted. When their arguments don't hold up, they go on the attack.

I believe that in most ways you are trying to be a good, honest, decent, and kind person. But in this matter I believe you have been brainwashed.

So, I'm going to ask you again. What possible harm will come to you, personally, if two gay men marry?

It's a simple question. Please answer it. Otherwise, how can you know yourself whether or not your own position is based on reason or bigotry?

If you don't like that word being applied to you or your value system, it's very simple. I will take it all back, and apologize to you, just as soon as you answer my question. And, I will vote your way.

But please, no more examples of people who believe their faith places them above the law. Jesus said, "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's," meaning that Christians are to comply with the law unless doing so would compromise their faith.

How can renting a hall to perfect strangers compromise your faith?

One simple question: what harm will you _personally_ suffer? Name it, and you win. I will concede your every point and vote with you.

But if you cannot, perhaps you should consider the source of your beliefs--which I believe are dreadfully misguided. And if you will not consider the possibility that you might have been misled, my charge of willful bigotry on your part stands. Sorry, but that's how I see it. I grew up with a racist parent. I know bigotry when I see it.

Can you imagine why I might see you that way based on the things that you've said here?
 amusinglisa
Joined: 5/4/2008
Msg: 367
Say NO to bigoted h8
Posted: 10/31/2008 8:45:27 PM

Ace, examples have been presented.


No, they have NOT.

Not one.

single.

example of

ANY.

harm.

to an individual, family or marriage as the result of thousands and thousands of gay marriages.

Lots of fear mongering, lots of drama, lots and lots of consequences of poor choices LOTS of sticking up for people behaving like bigots (here's a little test for you -- any time you want to complain about something related to not wanting to do business with gays, etc, put the word "blacks" [or, better yet, the "n" word] in there and see if people just might be appalled. If they would be, then that is a bigoted statement, no matter who you are taling about).


Vote NO on h8
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 380
Yes on Prop 8
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:44:19 AM

See Ace, we all have sexuality. Its part of being a human being. State imposed ideas on human sexuality is the final frontier.


Exactly. That is precisely what Prop 8 does.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 381
Yes on Prop 8
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:45:55 AM
We all have preferences, and some kinds of sexual preferences are thought to be destructive while others are not.


By people whose minds are closed, yes. They used to say that people with black skin were inferior. Were they? Exactly what is destructive about two people who love each other showing it in the ways that each intrinsically prefers?
Show ALL Forums  > California  >