Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-26-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: California
37,083 posts, read 42,056,772 times
Reputation: 34919

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
that's odd. just a few months ago the anti-prop 8 faction was decrying a popular vote on this issue.

funny how minds change.
I think it would have been the popular vote had not the LDS spent so much money fighting for it an muddying the issue. Most people don't care if gay's marry, but they have strokes when you tell them their parental rights will be taken away and kids will be taught about gay sex in kindergarten. Which is exactly how it was presented on every street corner in CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-26-2009, 10:25 PM
 
Location: SARASOTA, FLORIDA
11,486 posts, read 15,268,678 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgewalker View Post
Congrats to the CA Supreme court!

It's nice to see the state hasn't completely lost it's mind.

I agree, I think we need a nationwide vote to end this crap once and for it. Make it a federal law and stop wasting taxpayers money on this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 10:39 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,392 posts, read 34,115,484 times
Reputation: 29088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I think it would have been the popular vote had not the LDS spent so much money fighting for it an muddying the issue. .
how did you feel about anti-8 factions? did they also spend too much money?

Quote:
The picture may change when full financial reports are filed in late January, but documents now show Proposition 8’s unsuccessful opponents actually out-raised supporters by about $1.9 million, yet still lost by 504,853 votes, a 4 percent margin.
Quote:
Most people don't care if gay's marry, but they have strokes when you tell them their parental rights will be taken away and kids will be taught about gay sex in kindergarten. Which is exactly how it was presented on every street corner in CA.
is that so?

i have a cousin who live on a corner street in fresno - he never told me about this horror.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 10:46 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,431 posts, read 18,951,081 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrover View Post
Sorry but I don't buy that it is because of the Mormons that the ban was affirmed. It is much more likely that it was due to the large Hispanic population in California who are more likely to have a traditional view of what constitutes marriage. As for the voters not having had a chance to digest the information, are you serious? Voters all had the same amount of "digestion time," on both sides of the issue. As for not having the opportunity to rationally think about what they were doing - whose fault is that? They had exactly the same amount of time as those who voted to uphold the ban. It appears that you want special consideration given to those who are either too careless, lazy, or disinterested. There seems to be nothing "gracious" about your losers.

Sorry but it is a FACT that the mormon and catholic churches paid for miilions of dollars of advertising to frighten the sheeple into thinking that their children would be "taught to be gay and lesbian", that their churches would lose their tax exempt status (and gasp- have to pay taxes like the rest of us), etc. Many of the uneducated ppl (a lot of them in calif, btw) were intimidated into voting "fear", not "logic".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2009, 11:45 PM
 
2,638 posts, read 6,005,786 times
Reputation: 2378
Serious question.

I'd like someone to explain something to me, because the logic escapes me.

Why is it that the homosexual population is not satisfied with "domestic partnership"/"civil union", when they afford, as I understand it...

- The same rights and privileges as a married couple;
- The same ceremony as a married couple, with a few changes that are not notable; and
- The same end result (that being, you are with the person under the law)?

Why are people so hell bent on the word "marriage"? It's a word. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The state has provided you with a viable alternative that is effectively the same thing without abrogating the sanctity of marriage as defined in the various religious beliefs. It'd be like asking a hooker if she'd rather go to a hotel or a motel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 05:56 AM
 
3,282 posts, read 5,189,038 times
Reputation: 1935
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated View Post
Serious question.

I'd like someone to explain something to me, because the logic escapes me.

Why is it that the homosexual population is not satisfied with "domestic partnership"/"civil union", when they afford, as I understand it...

- The same rights and privileges as a married couple;
- The same ceremony as a married couple, with a few changes that are not notable; and
- The same end result (that being, you are with the person under the law)?

Why are people so hell bent on the word "marriage"? It's a word. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The state has provided you with a viable alternative that is effectively the same thing without abrogating the sanctity of marriage as defined in the various religious beliefs. It'd be like asking a hooker if she'd rather go to a hotel or a motel.
If marriage is so inconsequential, then why should the state recognize it at all? If it is so holy and sanctimonious, then why filthy it by getting the state involved in it?

Civil Unions for all, marriages for those who care. And all rights should come through Civil Unions, with marriage being unrecognized by the state. Yet one more system of doing things the French have that is superior to the way we bicker about things...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 06:00 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,935,278 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Most people don't care if gay's marry, but they have strokes when you tell them their parental rights will be taken away and kids will be taught about gay sex in kindergarten. Which is exactly how it was presented on every street corner in CA.
For the record, I dont want my kids taught about ANY sex in kindergarten, when you start pushing "gay sex" to a 5 year old, you lose my support for any avenue on the topic..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
870 posts, read 1,623,216 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
Sorry but it is a FACT that the mormon and catholic churches paid for miilions of dollars of advertising to frighten the sheeple into thinking that their children would be "taught to be gay and lesbian", that their churches would lose their tax exempt status (and gasp- have to pay taxes like the rest of us), etc. Many of the uneducated ppl (a lot of them in calif, btw) were intimidated into voting "fear", not "logic".

hahahahahah....this post is hilarious. you are talking about exactly what acorn did by registering uneducated people so they could vote for obama. i bet you don't have a problem with that do you? didn't think so!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 06:50 AM
 
4,104 posts, read 5,297,696 times
Reputation: 1256
I find it ironic that the Left, who denounce religion as "superstition", are so determined to get marriage acceptable for gays. Marriage is, of course, a religious ceremony. In a purely biblical sense, homosexuality is frowned upon. More importantly, the Church as an institution is against gay marriage. Why are they so determined to include gays in a ceremony in an organization that they do not believe in and condems them? What is wrong with a simple civil union?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2009, 07:11 AM
 
2,638 posts, read 6,005,786 times
Reputation: 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
If marriage is so inconsequential, then why should the state recognize it at all? If it is so holy and sanctimonious, then why filthy it by getting the state involved in it?

Civil Unions for all, marriages for those who care. And all rights should come through Civil Unions, with marriage being unrecognized by the state. Yet one more system of doing things the French have that is superior to the way we bicker about things...
You're using circular logic by dancing around the question.

I asked a very simple question and I seriously want an answer. I'm perfectly willing and open to listen to both sides of the story, but so far I haven't heard a single argument that has any standing. To me it seems like a group of people are ranting on principle: they want to be able to say they are "married" and that's all. But that's illogical.

If my understanding of the law is accurate, there is no de juro difference between "Marriage", "Civil Union", or "Domestic Partnership" in the eyes of the states. The rights and privileges are identical between them. The only appreciable difference is the fact that marriage is a joining under a clearly religious context. GOPATTA2D has already stated the reason why I'm confused; the religion expressly denounces homosexuality, which is why the basic ceremony texts all presume that the joining is between a man and a woman.

So, if it's not a rights issue...it's not a privilege issue...it's not an empowerment issue...what is the issue? What are you fighting for/against? The word "marriage" and that's it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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 - Top