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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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...
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..
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!!
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?
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?
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.