What do you guys think of proposition 8?

punter · Oct 31, 2008

hmmm The no fairy marry bill?

I'm against it. The bill that is. I'm not exactly for fairies but they should have the same rights.

I wish they wouldn't kiss in public its sorta disgusting.

punter · Oct 31, 2008

Daheavy1 said:
Just wondering....why would homosexuals want marriage? They already have domestic partnerships in California which allow them to file jointly, carry each other on insurance, have access to privacy information and all the other benefits of being married. What is the true benefit of a "marriage" for gays?

They want to have divorce attorneys just like the rest of us.

Daheavy1 · Oct 31, 2008

I guess I just don't see the benefits for the gays since they already have domestic partnership benefits. Then I see the following letter in my local paper which causes a lot of grief for religious groups:

Fast forward and pretend for a moment that Prop. 8 is defeated. What would be the consequences?

Freedom of speech: Consider the pastor of a church who gives a sermon from the New Testament on Paul the Apostle's admonition against homosexuality. In the brave new world of California, post-Prop. 8, could not that pastor be prosecuted for "hate speech"?

Consider the rabbi who refused to marry a same sex couple for religious reasons. Could not the rabbi be prosecuted in a similar manner?

Consider the teacher who, based on religious conviction, refuses to teach that same sex marriage is culturally and morally equivalent. Could not that teacher be fired?

Consider the religious adoption agency that, for generations, has been placing children, according to faith, with a mother and a father. Could not that institution be forced to close its doors? Consider the private, religious university that refuses to provide student housing for same sex couples. Could not that university be forced to comply?

Freedom of association: Consider the physician who, based on religious reservations, refuses to perform an in vitro fertilization procedure for a lesbian couple. Could not this doctor be sued? If you think all of this is Orwellian, think again. In Canada, where the law sanctions same sex marriage, ministers who teach/preach against same sex marriage are subject to fines for "hate speech."

Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a San Diego physician was liable for failure to perform an in vitro fertilization procedure for a lesbian couple.

In Boston, Catholic Charities, after generations of faithful service of placing orphans in good homes with a mother and a father, opted to shut their doors, rather than comply.

Freedom of the press: In a post-Prop. 8 world, do you think this letter would be published? I think not; so much for civil liberty.

barman · Oct 31, 2008

D2bets said:
gtc, do you really want to be aligned with the likes of Zit?

:smoker2:

barman · Oct 31, 2008

All good...Even ZIT will drop his rabid silly objections to gays being married once his own kid reaches adulthood and decides to marry someone of the same gender.

kingbill · Oct 31, 2008

nimue77 said:
I think the government should stop recognizing any marriages. It's totally unfair to punish single people and reward marriage. If you want to be married by a religion, or sign a contract, or have some private ceremony that is your business.

Agreed...

mamatried · Oct 31, 2008

Daheavy1 said:
I guess I just don't see the benefits for the gays since they already have domestic partnership benefits. Then I see the following letter in my local paper which causes a lot of grief for religious groups:

Fast forward and pretend for a moment that Prop. 8 is defeated. What would be the consequences?

Freedom of speech: Consider the pastor of a church who gives a sermon from the New Testament on Paul the Apostle's admonition against homosexuality. In the brave new world of California, post-Prop. 8, could not that pastor be prosecuted for "hate speech"?

Consider the rabbi who refused to marry a same sex couple for religious reasons. Could not the rabbi be prosecuted in a similar manner?

Consider the teacher who, based on religious conviction, refuses to teach that same sex marriage is culturally and morally equivalent. Could not that teacher be fired?

Consider the religious adoption agency that, for generations, has been placing children, according to faith, with a mother and a father. Could not that institution be forced to close its doors? Consider the private, religious university that refuses to provide student housing for same sex couples. Could not that university be forced to comply?

Freedom of association: Consider the physician who, based on religious reservations, refuses to perform an in vitro fertilization procedure for a lesbian couple. Could not this doctor be sued? If you think all of this is Orwellian, think again. In Canada, where the law sanctions same sex marriage, ministers who teach/preach against same sex marriage are subject to fines for "hate speech."

Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that a San Diego physician was liable for failure to perform an in vitro fertilization procedure for a lesbian couple.

In Boston, Catholic Charities, after generations of faithful service of placing orphans in good homes with a mother and a father, opted to shut their doors, rather than comply.

Freedom of the press: In a post-Prop. 8 world, do you think this letter would be published? I think not; so much for civil liberty.

All valid concerns. But I don't think Prop 8 has anything to do with any of them. The whole argument seems to be that you want to deny a group of individuals their rights because there MIGHT be some attempt to deny rights to others. It's a non sequitur. There is nothing in the law that requires any religious official to marry people they don't want to (most priests won't marry non-Catholics and some rabbis won't marry non-Jews), or for a private charity to place children in homes they deem unfit or for a doctor to perform any procedure to which he morally objects. And besides, these things could happen even if Prop 8 passes.

IMO, none of these issues is any of the Government's business, and people should be free to marry whom they choose and practice religion as they choose and espouse their beliefs as they choose. As long as no one else gets hurt. (And I don't mean gets their FEELINGS hurt.)

kingbill · Oct 31, 2008

mamatried said:
All valid concerns. But I don't think Prop 8 has anything to do with any of them. The whole argument seems to be that you want to deny a group of individuals their rights because there MIGHT be some attempt to deny rights to others. It's a non sequitur. There is nothing in the law that requires any religious official to marry people they don't want to (most priests won't marry non-Catholics and some rabbis won't marry non-Jews), or for a private charity to place children in homes they deem unfit or for a doctor to perform any procedure to which he morally objects. And besides, these things could happen even if Prop 8 passes.

IMO, none of these issues is any of the Government's business, and people should be free to marry whom they choose and practice religion as they choose and espouse their beliefs as they choose. As long as no one else gets hurt. (And I don't mean gets their FEELINGS hurt.)

I much prefer it when we agree on a topic...all great points

gynecologist · Oct 31, 2008

I'm voting YES..

festeringZit · Oct 31, 2008

barman said:
All good...Even ZIT will drop his rabid silly objections to gays being married once his own kid reaches adulthood and decides to marry someone of the same gender.

Fuck you Barman.

roadreeler57 · Nov 1, 2008

Same sex Marriages should not be allowed.... It sends a message to kids that homosexuality is OK & thats flat out wrong.Put it back in the closet where it belongs.Also I believe same sex couples should not be able to adopt.

D2bets · Nov 1, 2008

roadreeler57 said:
Same sex Marriages should not be allowed.... It sends a message to kids that homosexuality is OK & thats flat out wrong.Put it back in the closet where it belongs.Also I believe same sex couples should not be able to adopt.

By the same token...
- We shouldn't have special education classes because it sends a message that being slow is OK
- We shouldn't have wheelchairs because it sends the message that it's OK not to walk
- We shouldn't allow people to drink because it sends a message that it's OK to be an alcoholic
- We shouldn't allow gambling because it says it's OK to lose all your money gambling.

I know homosexuality is not a choice because I could never choose to BE homosexual. Why punish people for how they are, or if you're so inclined, how they were created by god? That's immoral.

festeringZit · Nov 1, 2008

D2bets said:
By the same token...
- We shouldn't have special education classes because it sends a message that being slow is OK
- We shouldn't have wheelchairs because it sends the message that it's OK not to walk
- We shouldn't allow people to drink because it sends a message that it's OK to be an alcoholic
- We shouldn't allow gambling because it says it's OK to lose all your money gambling.

I know homosexuality is not a choice because I could never choose to BE homosexual. Why punish people for how they are, or if you're so inclined, how they were created by god? That's immoral.

If homosexuality is not a choice, why do I know multiple cases,
personally of people who have left that lifestyle, and now live
normal heterosexual lives?

And don't give me this bullshit about them still being closet homos,
that's just not true.

bblight · Nov 1, 2008

roadreeler57 said:
Same sex Marriages should not be allowed.... It sends a message to kids that homosexuality is OK & thats flat out wrong.Put it back in the closet where it belongs.Also I believe same sex couples should not be able to adopt.

Also I believe same sex couples should not be able to adopt

What a bigoted statement!

If a few guys want to adopt a sex toy, who the hell are you to say no!

And puleeeez don't bring up anything about background investigations - the government and busybodies such as you have no right to investigate a man just because he wants to adopts a cute assed little boy and make sure he's well fed (and well fukked).

Did you ever think that maybe heterosexuality is the perversion and all of the other sexual tastes are the norm - there's nothing wrong with fukking a goat or a little boy - some men like goats and little boys (or girls).

whalewager · Nov 1, 2008

you guys ever play smear the queer on the playground

fun times

Buster · Nov 1, 2008

roadreeler57 · Nov 1, 2008

D2bets said:
By the same token...
- We shouldn't have special education classes because it sends a message that being slow is OK
- We shouldn't have wheelchairs because it sends the message that it's OK not to walk
- We shouldn't allow people to drink because it sends a message that it's OK to be an alcoholic
- We shouldn't allow gambling because it says it's OK to lose all your money gambling.

I know homosexuality is not a choice because I could never choose to BE homosexual. Why punish people for how they are, or if you're so inclined, how they were created by god? That's immoral.

Thats a weak bullshit arguement