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.
Was homosexuality ever illegal? Now it is accepted. For many years it was looked down by the majority. Now it is accepted. Even those that are attracted to the same sex for many years wouldn't admit it because of the public not accepting the life style.
Now we have people that practice polygammy. Others that have old men marring young girls. Individuals that are in to beastiallity. When you say no to a proposition that defines what marriage is you open it up to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Remember that a defeat of the proposition allows open interpretation to marriage. Anyone can marry anyone or anything that they want.
So you have a problem with people being accepted for who they are? Even though it doesn't harm anyone in any way.
Polygamy has been around for a while and has been illegal for a while for various reasons. Old men marrying young girls are NOT two consenting adults. People into bestiality are NOT two consenting adults. Do you understand what "two consenting adults" is?
Proposition 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand. Saying no to it removes the idea about what marriage is about. Who will then define what marriage means? Anyone that chooses to marry can then decide what marriage means or what the family means to them. Two men living together raising a child does not make a complete family unit. Two women doing the same does not make a complete family unit. Can those people give a loving home for the child? Sure. Does that make it complete? No.
Many have addressed the issue of not allowing all to have their civil liberties by keeping them from marring the person they choose. The same can be said about the pedophile that wants to marry a young boy or girl. Don't they have civil liberties also? Some say that the law is about consenting adults. What will it be about in two years? Eventually the goal is to do away with what was once known as the traditional family unit, attending church, and beliving in God. Change what marriage means and some where along the way it stops meaning anything.
Im voting no on 11. Redistricting should be done by our elected representatives, Dont like the outcome? Manifest your opposition at the ballot box. I am a huge opponent of term limits for the same reason-too many great leaders have been sidelined too soon.
I respect your opinion but have to completely disagree. Redistricting should not be done by elected leaders, that's why were in this California Budget mess to begin with. Our leaders are so partisan that if the Republicans vote for any tax increase they'll be removed in a primary, and if any Democrat resists the enviornmentalists, teachers, nurses lobbyists they will face serious opposition in a primary. Our political leaders need to be more accountable to the people. There able to be staunch right or left wing, and not represent any moderate view points. Both the state representatives and the federal House members both are drawn in extremely safe districts, it's called Gerrymandering and it's been around a long time.
Look at Janet Napolitano's(D) District or Loretta Sanchez's(D) District, both completely take the Latino Vote out of the area. Loretta Sanchez paid $20,000 to Michael Berman who drew the district for her, Howard Berman's (D) San Fernando brother in 2001 after the Census. Mary Bono(R) and Gary Miller (R) also have distinctly drawn districts for re-election. Out of 495 Races in California since 2001, only 2 have changed hands. Two words, GERRYMANDER CENTRAL!!! Yes Prop.11 is supported by AARP, ACLU of SoCAL, Steve Westly, Los Angeles Times, The League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and California Forward those are not exactly Schwarzenneger's best friends. Fabian Nunez wanted to change the politician boundaries in California, and he got an earful from Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic Leadership is not happy to see Prop.11 on the ballot, because they want to cozily stay in their seats. Prop.11 will draw fair boundaries with California State Reps. with an independent council and it will make certain guidelines for drawing House Seats. YES ON PROP 11!! End Corruption.
Proposition 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand. Saying no to it removes the idea about what marriage is about. Who will then define what marriage means? Anyone that chooses to marry can then decide what marriage means or what the family means to them. Two men living together raising a child does not make a complete family unit. Two women doing the same does not make a complete family unit. Can those people give a loving home for the child? Sure. Does that make it complete? No.
Many have addressed the issue of not allowing all to have their civil liberties by keeping them from marring the person they choose. The same can be said about the pedophile that wants to marry a young boy or girl. Don't they have civil liberties also? Some say that the law is about consenting adults. What will it be about in two years? Eventually the goal is to do away with what was once known as the traditional family unit, attending church, and beliving in God. Change what marriage means and some where along the way it stops meaning anything.
What about those that do not believe in your 'g-d'? What about the buddhists, the taoists, the wiccans, the pagans, the athiests and agnostics out there?? They shouldn't be allowed to marry? Tradition hasn't exactly worked well the past couple hundred years... adultry is rampant, divorce is 50% or more and kids are abused by straight, g-d fearing couples as much as anyone else if not more.
Personally, I doubt anyone is going to come out and say that marrying a young girl or boy or animal or car etc. is right, and if they did they would be in the extreme minority which is certainly not the case here.
Proposition 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand. Saying no to it removes the idea about what marriage is about. Who will then define what marriage means? Anyone that chooses to marry can then decide what marriage means or what the family means to them. Two men living together raising a child does not make a complete family unit. Two women doing the same does not make a complete family unit. Can those people give a loving home for the child? Sure. Does that make it complete? No.
Many have addressed the issue of not allowing all to have their civil liberties by keeping them from marring the person they choose. The same can be said about the pedophile that wants to marry a young boy or girl. Don't they have civil liberties also? Some say that the law is about consenting adults. What will it be about in two years? Eventually the goal is to do away with what was once known as the traditional family unit, attending church, and beliving in God. Change what marriage means and some where along the way it stops meaning anything.
NO the same cannot be said at all. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS - what don't you understand about that? Marrying an underage child is illegal b/c it's child abuse. A pedophile is abusing and victimizing children causing HARM to them, that is why it's illegal. <--- can you seriously not understand the difference there? Yes they do have civil liberties and that is why its illegal.
Your "reasoning" is based of lies and absurd examples using criminal acts. This is nothing more than false fear tactics used, you have absolutely nothing that proves or indicates anything you claim.
NO the same cannot be said at all. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS - what don't you understand about that? Marrying an underage child is illegal b/c it's child abuse. A pedophile is abusing and victimizing children causing HARM to them, that is why it's illegal. <--- can you seriously not understand the difference there? Yes they do have civil liberties and that is why its illegal.
Your "reasoning" is based of lies and absurd examples using criminal acts. This is nothing more than false fear tactics used, you have absolutely nothing that proves or indicates anything you claim.
It wasn't too many years ago when people felt the same way about same sex attraction. Now it is considered accepted in society. Does it make it right because something is accepted?
It wasn't too many years ago when people felt the same way about same sex attraction. Now it is considered accepted in society. Does it make it right because something is accepted?
YES it does. Does it make it right that we allow blacks and whites to marry despite it being illegal and not accepted before? Just look at CIVIL RIGHTs and WOMENs RIGHT'S if you really don't understand this basic concept. Would you like to go back to the day where the woman's place was only in the kitchen/house or where blacks couldn't attend schools with whites?? It's called PROGRESS, something many for prop 8 are against. It just absolutely amazes me the amount of people in this country that want to move the country backwards.
Sorry to be frank, but anybody wanting to deny gays marriage are either downright ignorant in a way that is totally embarrassing to California or are so entrenched in primitive fundamentalist\evangelical belief as to be considered a nut. They are so out of sync with "normal" Californians that one wonders how they even ended up in our state & why they would be better off returning home [ie. Mississippi]. They don't belong here.
Proposition 1A: I am voting no
Reason: The state’s budget is currently short of planned expenses. I will wait until the budget is balanced then I will consider high speed rail.
Proposition 2: I am probably voting yes.
I grew up on a farm where the animals has all sorts or room to roam. The assembly line method of raising beef and poultry sure make production easier, but it is bothersome to me. The probable consequence of this proposition passing is that food costs will go up, and this is why I am not decided. I can afford to pay a little more or shift my diet. I am concerned that many of the poor may not be able too.
Proposition 3: I am voting yes.
I recently spent a day with a young man that I know as a result of my volunteer efforts. He was involved in an auto accident that took the life of his legal guardian. He went in the late-morning and waited until 8 PM until a bed could be found 75 miles away (in the metropolitan LA area) that could accept his need for neurological expertise. There simply needs to be more beds for patients in California as I discovered. This proposition protects the most innocent of victims.
Proposition 4: I voting yes.
The psychological impact of an abortion can be profound. In most cases having a waiting period to discuss things with parents is a good thing. By a tremendous majority parents are truly vested in the wellbeing and overall success of their children. It is my opinion that a 48 hour period between parent notification and an abortion is a good thing. It offers an opportunity for all options to be discussed.
Proposition 5: I am probably voting no.
I am all for rehabilitation of those who have committed non-violent drug crimes. I go back to my opposition to proposition 1a. The state’s budget is currently short of planned expenses. I will wait until the budget is balanced before I approve more spending.
Proposition 6: Undecided
This proposition creates too many alterations to existing law for me to be confident one way or the other in voting for this with out an in-depth review of the actual proposition.
Proposition 7: I am voting No
I am all for renewable energy, but this law is very constraining. In the dynamic world of emerging technologies I don’t want California to be hamstrung by the over-specificity of this proposition. This proposition also demands a huge cost to develop infrastructure in a relatively short period of time during a period of economic turmoil.
Proposition 8: I am voting Yes.
I know many on this board don’t share my opinion. I am still going to share my reasoning though. It comes down to the parental prerogative to determine the education and rearing of their children. As I have researched the consequences of the legalization of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts I have read many (for lack of a better term) case studies of parents who have been deprived of their rights to determine how and what their children are taught. I think this is all important. In Massachusetts the rights of parents are being stripped away by governing bodies of one sort or the other.
I admit that I have an inherent distrust of government. Who could blame me? Ideally, in a republic we are to vote for an individual who mostly closely shares our ideals. Nowadays we vote for an individual who is most likely to be courted by the lobbyist we most closely share ideals with.
In almost all cases parents have the best interest for their children. I doubt that a greater majority or equal majority of governing bodies and politicians are concerned about the best interests of the children. Otherwise the national debt would not have passed ten trillion dollars, and the California state debt would not be trying to borrow seven billion dollars. Do you know what one days interest is on seven billion dollars is? Assuming a savings account interest rate of 1.5% it is $287,671.23. That’s not even considering compounding interest. Assuming the same interest rate, if the state pays the loan back in May (a month after tax day) $15,678,223.92 of our tax dollars will have evaporated. I am sorry. I just can trust the government financially or with the children.
If the homosexual community want to better define their rights it is my opinion that they should do that by altering the rights availed to those people who enter into a civil union.
Proposition 9: I am voting yes.
Victims have rights, and I fear that they are too often overlooked in the current judicial system.
Proposition 10: I am voting no.
Once again, I am all for renewable energy, but in a economically stressful time I’d rather the government figure out tax-breaks rather the monetary rewards for moving to renewable energy.
Proposition 11: I am voting Yes.
It has always bothered me to see legislative districts drawn in non-sensible ways by the party of the majority simple to maintain their majority. This proposition attempts to prevent this. I found the “proof in the pudding” when I recently looked at the district maps for southern California.
Proposition 12: I am voting No.
I am holding off on voting for further home ownership programs until the banking crisis and the apparent corruption in both the corporate banking leadership and governing lending bodies and leadership is resolved.
Last edited by MyHumbleOpinion; 10-14-2008 at 05:06 PM..
Proposition 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. How hard is that to understand. Saying no to it removes the idea about what marriage is about. Who will then define what marriage means? Anyone that chooses to marry can then decide what marriage means or what the family means to them. Two men living together raising a child does not make a complete family unit. Two women doing the same does not make a complete family unit. Can those people give a loving home for the child? Sure. Does that make it complete? No.
Many have addressed the issue of not allowing all to have their civil liberties by keeping them from marring the person they choose. The same can be said about the pedophile that wants to marry a young boy or girl. Don't they have civil liberties also? Some say that the law is about consenting adults. What will it be about in two years? Eventually the goal is to do away with what was once known as the traditional family unit, attending church, and beliving in God. Change what marriage means and some where along the way it stops meaning anything.
Who are you to say what family is "complete"? The only issue that most kids raised by same sex couples is that they have to deal with discrimination by people that think that their family isn't "complete". The majority of research into children raised by same sex couples shows that the children are just as well adjusted as anyone else. Like I mentioned before the issue that does come up is kids having to deal with people with thoughts similiar to yours.
You have mentioned people marrying cars,animals, and children and i'm still waiting for you to tie this somehow to same sex marriage. How this compares to two consenting adults exchanging vows is beyond me. As I lived through this right wing propaganda 5 years ago in Canada none of your points are new. I must say though I have yet to hear about someone marrying their goat or their mustang just because gay people can marry. Shockingly, civilization did not crumble here. Children still cannot marry adults, and cars are still just for driving. The right wingers here have nothing to add to the debate any longer as all their "predictions" were shown to be absurd.
Lastly your arguement about churches having to marry gays has no legs. churches are free to make whatever rules they want in regard to who gets married in their church. I don't know anyone who would want to get married somewhere that made it clear it didn't want them.
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.
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.
? Even though it doesn't harm anyone in any way.
YES ON PROP 11!! 111% Percent
They don't belong here.
