No on Prop 8
- Thread starter mimizone
- 125 comments
- 4,932 views
- 10,838
- Belgium
- bramturismo
Followed the whole first video, I agreed a 100% percent with the bloke.
I don't know anything about America and its religion history, so I just followed the discussion. That christian guy didn't seem to have any proper material to be against gay people though... But hey! My opinion eh
Further on Prop 8: Where there more states than Californie to decide on Prop 8?!
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
No, other states can't vote for other states propositions.
- 10,838
- Belgium
- bramturismo
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
Must be confusing Prop 8 with legal marriages in Arkansas then
Each state has there own constitution, if they want to change it (which Prop 8 is changing the Constitution of California) they do this weird democracy thing... it's weird stuff.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,537
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It's an issue that's going to be voted on by a state to state bases.
Here are the states that recognise gay-marriages:
- Connecticut
- New Jersey
- New York
- Massachusetts
Here are the states that allow same sex unions:
- Connecticut
- New Hampshire
- Oregon
- Washington
- Vermont
You can read more about it here:
http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm
===
Solid Fro, why is it when you post a video everyone has to watch it and if we don't you accuse us of this, that and the other thing, but when someone else posts a video that you do not agree with you just pass it off as wrong? That really makes no sense. Those guys really are no different (ok perhaps the are better) than Bill O'Reilly.
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
Yes mindwise, calling someone a "backward-ass redneck" is not only insulting, it is also wrong. I can't imagine what else this guy has said.
Intolerant is trying to force your political opinion, using judges who legislate from their benches, onto someone's religious opinion.
Put civil unions on the ballot and I guarantee it will pass. Until then, you will continue to fail at this radical activism, and the gay community will suffer for it.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
And who exactly is doing that?
Right. NO ONE.
Nobody is trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples. Read that again in big letters:
Nobody is trying to force churches to marry same-sex couples.
Show me who is trying to force a church to marry a couple that does not meet that church's eligibility requirements. I want to see the text of the proposed legislation.
- 754
- Madison, WI
Get this...
The pro Prop 8 people spent 35.8 million dollars in advertising for Prop 8.
The anti Prop 8 people spent 37.6 million dollars in advertising against Prop 8.
Keeping in mind that there is essentially no difference between a civil union and a marriage in California, 73.4 million dollars were spent arguing over a word.
It is completely silly, and I see no reason why everyone shouldn't enjoy the same rights. I don't think the state has any business legislating marriage in the first place, but using the power of government to deny others their rights makes them want to deny you yours.
The LBGT community can have their cake and eat it too while it is called a civil union (equal to marriage), and the bloodsucking religious groups can keep their "sanctity of marriage". Why not a compromise like this?
Private churches should be able to marry who they want. If certain churches don't want to marry same-sex couples, then it is their loss. The marketplace responds to demands, and there would be plenty of churches that allow same-sex unions.
The pro Prop 8 people spent 35.8 million dollars in advertising for Prop 8.
The anti Prop 8 people spent 37.6 million dollars in advertising against Prop 8.
Keeping in mind that there is essentially no difference between a civil union and a marriage in California, 73.4 million dollars were spent arguing over a word.
It is completely silly, and I see no reason why everyone shouldn't enjoy the same rights. I don't think the state has any business legislating marriage in the first place, but using the power of government to deny others their rights makes them want to deny you yours.
The LBGT community can have their cake and eat it too while it is called a civil union (equal to marriage), and the bloodsucking religious groups can keep their "sanctity of marriage". Why not a compromise like this?
Private churches should be able to marry who they want. If certain churches don't want to marry same-sex couples, then it is their loss. The marketplace responds to demands, and there would be plenty of churches that allow same-sex unions.
Last edited:
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
I'm not a Christian and I do see it that way. I believe just by rewriting the state constitution to include same-sex infringes on religious beliefs. Of course, the state wouldn't had to rewrite the constitution if the supreme court didn't change it in the first place.
Domestic partnership? Anyone? Hello?
Since you're so versed in Gay Whoppers, what do they consist of, Omnis?
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
So, in other words, the people you agree with are entitled to their beliefs, but the people you disagree with are NOT entitled to their beliefs?
Nice. Way to go, Captain America.
You "may not hold" their beliefs but you will fight day and night for them to keep them (as long as they are against gay marriage). Guess what? Gay people also believe they should be allowed to marry, with every bit as deep a conviction.
Why do you not fight for them to keep their beliefs from being attacked too?
Last edited:
- 38,956
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
💡 Why, a large piece of meat between two buns.
Okay, maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but hopefully it served my point. That being that of course people are going to be angry at a small group trying to redefine a term. All marriages are between a man and a woman. No gay unions are between a man and a woman. Therefore, no gay unions are marriages. AEE-2.I don't reckon there would be much of a fuss if they just called it something else.
- 754
- Madison, WI
Solid Fro
I don't see anyone forcing religious people to NOT marry. But I do see religious people forcing other people to not marry.
If you (anyone in general, not necessarily you SF) are a deeply religious person, believe me, they aren't going to be attempting to marry you. So don't worry about it. And you can still go to church on Sunday, since no one is trying to prevent you from doing that.
Don't forget that you can't legislate morality. Whether you like it or not, gay people are still going to be *ohmygod* touching each other and stuff!
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
I want to create a religion that believes that opposite sex marriage is a sin... then Solid Fro would have to support the banning of both of them because it "FORCES" religious folks to accept the other. Then we all just bang each other and everyone is happy.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You keep saying this but you don't explain it. HOW does it infringe? What is it forcing religious groups to do that they are opposed to? This has zero affect on the ability of religious groups to live their life the way they want. Unless you can convince us otherwise I don't see what you're getting at.
And lets look at this concept of legalizing something that some people believe to be a sin.
I know of groups that find using caffeine, smoking, and drinking alcohol to be a sin. But they are legal actions. Have we infringed on that group's religious beliefs? Should we outlaw coffee, sodas, cigarettes, and liquor? No. Why? Because allowing these activities does not force those groups who find them wrong to actually do them.
Some very conservative groups find the use of electricity and industrial technology to be a sin. Have we been infringing on the religious beliefs of the Amish for well over 100 years now? Should we outlaw the use of new technology? No. Why? Because no one is forcing the Amish communities to wire up their houses.
The first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Which means that to Judeo-Christian groups worshiping any other deity is a sin. Should we outlaw all religions that don't worship the god of Abraham (Pretty much anyone outside of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity)? No. Why? Because if my neighbor chooses to worship his dog as a god it does not mean that I can't worship whatever god I want to worship.
Legalizing gay marriage does not affect religious groups in any other way than to make them feel insulted that they must use the same legal term as a gay couple. And as far as I know there is no right to not be offended. Christians who attempt to prevent gay people from being married are doing the exact same thing as an atheist who tries to prevent them from displaying a nativity scene in their yard because it offends him.
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Huh? Don't confuse what the inattentive think the Bible says with what it actually says.
It clearly mentions other people, particularly in the Cain and Abel story.
