Proposition 8 Supporters are not all bigots (2010, to buy, elementary school)

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by phoenix_talons

Hilarious! A proposition that supposedly limits an institution as only between a man and a woman. Yet at least 60% of Californians that have had marital experience don't respect the sanctity or sacredness of such unions. Because they ended in divorce.

Please, please!

We must respect and honor Rush Limbaugh's three childless marriages that all ended in divorce by stopping gays from marrying ...

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by LovelyinLa

The issue we're having is that, I see the institution of Marriage as a Religious union ordained by God and you see it as strictly a government license.

The marriage license issued by the state is merely a civil contract, nothing more. I was married in a courthouse. No deity was invoked. As much as you might wish to portray my marriage as "ordained by God", it would seem odd that you imagine your god blessing a marriage between two people who think the very concept of its existence as illogical.

However, I did attend a marriage a few years ago. It was in a church and was between two women. This marriage was conducted in Minnesota, which of course did not recognize that marriage. This was a religious marriage, not a civil contract. So was this marriage "ordained by God"? Should it be banned? It cannot be, as the First Amendment guarantees the right of churches to conduct such marriages.

So, one can only wonder at the logic of permitting purely secular marriage, when you claim that marriage must be religious, while on the other hand acknowledging that religious same-sex marriages occur every day and cannot be barred, merely denied official recognition.

You attend church, do you? I have not the slightest interest in seeing churches banned. Quite to the contrary, I love living in a free country. Churches, synagogues, mosques - while I think the logic behind them is lacking, I would much rather live in a country full of such places because people have the freedom to do what they wish, than in a nation where they are banned. It is a shame that some people do not have sufficient love of freedom as to embrace the right of same-sex marriage even if they think it neither wise nor in accordance with their religuious beliefs.

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by Zapparulez

I argued that the state should not be involved at all, but they already are and have been for almost 100 years.

You said you're married. So do you have a marriage license? I'm guessing you do. If you really didn't want the state involved in your marriage, why didn't you just get married in a church and not bother with asking the state to recognize your marriage?

Oh, I've heard it often enough before. Anti-gay marriage people whining that the state should not be involved in marriage ... yet they themselves have a state-issued marriage license.

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by Zapparulez

Equality for some does not mean equality for all.

The estate of George Orwell probably deserves a royalty for that comment.

[antredd]

Originally Posted by clongirl

I don't follow an organized religion or bible. But it doesn't matter at all what I believe to be true, since I don't think it's acceptable to mix religion with government. You won't hear me telling you what to do with your beliefs or what to do with your relationships.

Your point is well taken. But here is the problem, people do mix politics with religion, and, if I am not mistaken, the only christian religion that doesn't mix politics with religion are the Jehovah's Witnesses--they just stay out of politics.

Since I am a christian, and if there is a ballot measure that is endorsing a lifestyle or sin for a christian to vote on, then no one has the right to tell me how to vote on that issue, especially if the issue is against my christian beliefs or interpretation of the bible, nor do I have the right to tell anyone how to vote on a ballot measure, even though I disagree with him or her.

What I found to be quite interesting is that when a controversial measure or proposition is on the ballot there are people encouraging christians not to exercise their right to vote on it. In other words, they are telling christians not to vote at all. How pathetic is that?

What's so scary is the fact that our society is growing increasingly immoral, and when that immorality hits the fan, our society seems to think that we need to show compassion for people who decided to live immoral lives at the expense of people who are trying to be moral. I need to clarify what I mean here so that no one takes what I am saying out of context. What i am saying is that we have many people having children out of wedlock, most of time the single and unwed mother is stuck with raising her baby alone. What ends up happening is that that child, statisically, ends up growing up on welfare at the tax payers expense, not doing well in school, and most likely dropping out of school. I can go on and on with drug abusers and alcohol abusers.

For someone to argue that any christian that votes against something that denies the freedom of others to live a lifestyle contrary to what our religion teaches, then WE THE PEOPLE must end this democracy and turn it over to a dictatorship, where laws are just passed without any vote, and perhaps this will end the debate of whether people of alternative lifestyles are being discriminated against.

Christians that vote against proposition 8 are not bigots. What they are doing is being obedient to the Word of God, no matter what anyone thinks about God's word as truth, fiction or a literature , because the christian vote will, as hard as it is to accept, not be tolerant of certain propositions that are against our faith and teachings.

Now is this fair for someone who is not a christian and just want to live a lifestyle opposite of the christian lifestyle? I would have to say no because the USA is not a christian democracy. But as long as christians are voting in this democracy and some issues pop up on the ballot contrary to what our religions teach, then this will continue to be a debate as long as christians are alive and can legally vote.

[krudmonk]

Word of God? Can you cite your source there? Last I checked, homosexuality was only disparaged in the Bible and that was written by some people.

[antredd]

Originally Posted by Collideascope

The marriage license issued by the state is merely a civil contract, nothing more. I was married in a courthouse. No deity was invoked. As much as you might wish to portray my marriage as "ordained by God", it would seem odd that you imagine your god blessing a marriage between two people who think the very concept of its existence as illogical.

However, I did attend a marriage a few years ago. It was in a church and was between two women. This marriage was conducted in Minnesota, which of course did not recognize that marriage. This was a religious marriage, not a civil contract. So was this marriage "ordained by God"? Should it be banned? It cannot be, as the First Amendment guarantees the right of churches to conduct such marriages.

So, one can only wonder at the logic of permitting purely secular marriage, when you claim that marriage must be religious, while on the other hand acknowledging that religious same-sex marriages occur every day and cannot be barred, merely denied official recognition.

You attend church, do you? I have not the slightest interest in seeing churches banned. Quite to the contrary, I love living in a free country. Churches, synagogues, mosques - while I think the logic behind them is lacking, I would much rather live in a country full of such places because people have the freedom to do what they wish, than in a nation where they are banned. It is a shame that some people do not have sufficient love of freedom as to embrace the right of same-sex marriage even if they think it neither wise nor in accordance with their religuious beliefs.

Collideascope you make some very good points, and I just had an ah ha moment from reading your post. You are 100% right about the difference between a church marriage and a civil court marriage. No minister marries people at a courthouse so in a sense you are right in regard to no divine being was present or involved in your court marriage.

Christians or religious people see marriage in a church as a blessed union solely between a man and a woman since there is no mentioning in the bible of any gay or lesbian couples getting married. With that said, christians, who believe the bible as God's Word, can't accept any marriage that is contrary to the bible.

Also, this creates a dillema for people who want gay marriage to pass. As long as christians are able to vote, each time a gay marriage measure is put on a ballot, christians out of their obedience to God have to vote against it or don't vote on it at all.

You said that you attended a marriage ceremony conducted in Minnesota, which of course was not recognized. It was a religious marriage, not a civil contract. You asked, was this marriage "ordained by God"? 99.99% of religious or christians would say no. Should it be banned? Well if gay churches are popping up as a reason to permit gay marriage and can use the church as a place to loophole through the law, then who in their right mind would try to ban a gay church from marrying gays? As you said, the First Amendment guarantees the right of churches to conduct such marriages.

You said that "it is a shame that some people do not have sufficient love of freedom as to embrace the right of same-sex marriage even if they think it neither wise nor in accordance with their religuious beliefs." Here's the problem with that statement or argument. Religious people do have love of freedom. But you are telling religious people to compromise their beliefs, and in a sense flat out disregard their interpretation of the bible. Isn't that a shame as well to tell religious people that they should compromise their beliefs so that people can have the right to engage in a sin that their religion teaches against?

Religious people can't tell anyone who to have sex with nor who that person can marry. But as long as the bible interpretation of a marriage being between a man and a woman as a blessing from God, it will stand until some one explains away that interpretation in the Bible.

[throwbacks]

I will support same sex marriage because it doesn't hurt me not to. And because I have lots of gay friends that I would love to see as happy as I am in my marriage to my husband.
And the whole "do you want your kids to come home and tell you they learned that they can marry a boy if they want to?" Really? Is that all the "Yes on 8" compaigners can come up with?
Last time I checked, they didn't talk about marriage in schools. Isn't marriage mostly a religious thing? Didn't they ban teaching religion in schools a long time ago? Either way, I don't ever remember being taught anything about marriage when I was in school. Why are they starting to teach it now, regardless of who's getting married? If I'm wrong here, please correct me. I don't have kids yet, so I'm not sure.
Either way, I have a "save-the-date" to my first gay marriage ceremony hanging on my fridge! I can't wait!

[Zapparulez]

Originally Posted by Collideascope

You said you're married. So do you have a marriage license? I'm guessing you do. If you really didn't want the state involved in your marriage, why didn't you just get married in a church and not bother with asking the state to recognize your marriage?

Oh, I've heard it often enough before. Anti-gay marriage people whining that the state should not be involved in marriage ... yet they themselves have a state-issued marriage license.

Blah blah blah...why waste my time with rhetorical questions? It's the law. duh. I wish it wasn't, but the law is the law. Prop 8 is about to become law as well....

[happ]

Originally Posted by Zapparulez

Blah blah blah...why waste my time with rhetorical questions? It's the law. duh. I wish it wasn't, but the law is the law. Prop 8 is about to become law as well....

I afraid you are wrong & when it is defeated what will you do next? [bomb at gay bar? or finally accept that your fear of homosexuality is due to your deep seated attraction to men?