Vote yes on Prop 8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I agree wait until the hormones kick in and let them figure it out for themselves.

---

I knew by the end of the fourth grade that I was gay.....

Some people have the hormones kicking in sooner than others. I was crushing on guys by around 6th grade...some of my friends didn't really understand that until high school :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Guys come on, if gay marriage was legal, next people will want to be marrying their slaves.

---

And thats only like half a step away from marrying animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

And thats only like half a step away from marrying animals.

---

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but the "marry animals" argument is absurd. Animals can't even sign the marriage form and if they could by dipping their paws into ink or something they still wouldn't understand the significance of it.

Let's forget religion for a moment.

If Prop 8 passes, it will amend the California constitution with a 50% + 1 vote majority of the people of California. The constitution is supposed to be amended by a 3/4 majority (if I remember correctly) of the California legislative body. I don't even know how Prop 8 got on the ballot.

If the constitution can be amended with a simple majority, we might as well through it out and just have an ever-fluctuating body of laws.

This Prop seems to be setting a bad precedent, no matter what your personal beliefs are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but the "marry animals" argument is absurd. Animals can't even sign the marriage form and if they could by dipping their paws into ink or something they still wouldn't understand the significance of it.

---

You know what man? When people said they wanted to choose who they married it was argued, "Oh yeah, but what's next? People will probably want to start marrying outside their class"

Then, when people wanted to marry outside their class, people were like "what? next you'll want to marry outside your race!"

And then people started doing that, and now they want to marry people of their same gender. Well? What's the next logical step? What is one stop more pervert and corrupt?

Granted, guys have been wanting to marry rich girls, black girls or other dudes for all of human history. I don't know what portion of the population has fallen so in love with their dogs they want to marry them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You know what man? When people said they wanted to choose who they married it was argued, "Oh yeah, but what's next? People will probably want to start marrying outside their class"

Then, when people wanted to marry outside their class, people were like "what? next you'll want to marry outside your race!"

And then people started doing that, and now they want to marry people of their same gender. Well? What's the next logical step? What is one stop more pervert and corrupt?

Granted, guys have been wanting to marry rich girls, black girls or other dudes for all of human history. I don't know what portion of the population has fallen so in love with their dogs they want to marry them

---

Dogs wouldn't be physically able to accept the legal burdens of marriage or any contract for that matter.

The only way that Dogs could marry would be if some radical animal rights movement formed that put animals at the same level as people. Of course at that point we'd all have to become vegans. That would contradict many people's rights to eat meat.

Before you could marry animals you would have to pass bills counting animals as citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by queeniediva

Has anyone noticed how the wife in this video doesn' talk...she just sits there and stares at her husband while he talks LOL...does she not have an opinion? LOL

---

It's because she lives in the ideal "traditional family", where only the man is allowed to talk. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You know what man? When people said they wanted to choose who they married it was argued, "Oh yeah, but what's next? People will probably want to start marrying outside their class"

Then, when people wanted to marry outside their class, people were like "what? next you'll want to marry outside your race!"

And then people started doing that, and now they want to marry people of their same gender. Well? What's the next logical step? What is one stop more pervert and corrupt?

Granted, guys have been wanting to marry rich girls, black girls or other dudes for all of human history. I don't know what portion of the population has fallen so in love with their dogs they want to marry them

---

Have you ever even been to West Virginia? Dogs aren't even first on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

Being gay is mostly geneticly related. If a man is gay enough to not be able to get an erection around a woman, then he is unable to reproduce even if he tried, thus the medical definition of infertile "the inability to conceive and have offspring" fits the gay man.

---

Whoa wait. You just crossed from biology to psychology. Two different things in the eyes of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Bcomp, thankyou for expressing your views in a kind manner even though you know you are outnumbered.

---

Ah thanks man. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Which brings the question, do you believe it's a choice?

---

Hmmm... sort of agnostic on that one. But that's part of my point, that if we don't really know, we shouldn't legislate on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

The amount of unparented children in this country is astounding. When the reproductive couples copulate and don't want their children, where do they go? Possibly the married gay couples can make up for this travesty. We cannot reproduce, so we can take in these children who have no families, no mom or dad, and make them part of something. I find it hard to believe that the amount of gay marriages will outnumber the amount of children in orphanages.

---

As far as I know, anyone can adopt a child, even single people. Marriage really doesn't have to do with that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

You talk about the word marriage being a traditional value and part of our history that has stemmed from a long time ago. Putting the fact aside that it was invented by the pagans, isn't tradition made to be destroyed? People change with the moral zeitgeist of our time. It was tradition to own slaves, it was tradition to stone whores. This changes over time. Gay marriage is nothing but a new issue of our time. It is not destructive or impeding on anyone. It is all about acceptance of a different lifestyle of two adults.

---

Hmmm... see... I'm all about crashing through the boundaries drawn by previous eras and all, but I feel this is almost separate from that. In the same way that a rock is called "rock" and someone from Africa is an "African," I feel the word marriage has always referred to a man and a woman mating.

Honestly, I think it would be so much more empowering if the gay community united and formed a new sort of union with a new name.

A few years ago, I had a very confusing time with my own sexual identity - shifting back and forth between various levels of bisexuality - and I remember thinking during that time: if I did end up gay, would I want to be "married?" I sort of felt like I'd be forcing my way into somewhere I didn't belong somehow, like being gay should be different than being straight.

I ended up discovering I was straight and I'm at peace with it, but I still feel a deep empathy with any gay friends.

Well. Take it as you will, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcc

I don't even see why the state can control people's relationships.

---

Prop 8 doesn't control relationships... just a title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Yes, religion is meant to have no place in politics, but it can't be helped. I think when voting it is very appropriate to ask that you check your religion at the door...but for a person who is religious they will disagree.

---

Well, that's to be argued. I'm hardly religious, but I feel that a person's moral sense, which is often drawn from religion, must play a part in their decision-making processes in office. Thus, it is impossible to divide the two without removing the entire concept of morality from government, which is dangerous.

Yes, American laws are frequently based on Judeo-Christian values, but you have to remember, America was founded on Christian beliefs. In the same way that I would expect an Islam-oriented country like Saudi Arabia to form laws based on the tenants of Islam, so one must expect America to legislate similarly.

Really though, uncorrupted Christianity is a pretty fair moral system, from what I've read. Though I will admit, if people slant, misunderstand, or misuse the scriptures, the effects can be pretty damn disagreeable.

That's why we strive to choose good leaders: men who have the ability to govern fairly and not use religion as a tool to rule with an iron fist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but the "marry animals" argument is absurd. Animals can't even sign the marriage form and if they could by dipping their paws into ink or something they still wouldn't understand the significance of it.

---

Maybe not, but if marriage becomes a legal term based on "love," then what's to stop a man from marrying three women he loves? Or a girl from marrying her cousin? Or her father?

If you make an exception for one group, you have to make it for all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

Whoa wait. You just crossed from biology to psychology. Two different things in the eyes of the law.

---

If the biological factors wire the man to think and function a certain way, then it is biological. It has a biological cause.

I'm not asking what the law thinks, I'm asking you what YOU think.

You said gay men should not be able to marry because they cannot reproduce.
Infertile men also cannot reproduce.

Should both infertile and gay men be able to marry or should both of them not be able to marry?

If you answer with "only the infertile men should be able to marry" or anything along those lines, then it proves you are motivated only by discrimination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

As far as I know, anyone can adopt a child, even single people. Marriage really doesn't have to do with that...

---

You don't know very far on that subject I'm afraid. Adoption is next to impossible for single people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

Yes, American laws are frequently based on Judeo-Christian values, but you have to remember, America was founded on Christian beliefs. In the same way that I would expect an Islam-oriented country like Saudi Arabia to form laws based on the tenants of Islam, so one must expect America to legislate similarly.

Really though, uncorrupted Christianity is a pretty fair moral system, from what I've read. Though I will admit, if people slant, misunderstand, or misuse the scriptures, the effects can be pretty damn disagreeable.

---

First of all, that is a freaking lie. American law has NOTHING to do with being based of off religious beliefs. It is like saying "we say that murder is wrong because religion said it." No, religion says it is wrong because people agreed that it was wrong and people added that to religion. America was NOT founded on Christian beliefs. The U.S. was founded on SECULAR notions, it wanted religion as far away from politics and the law as possible, even though before the Virginia plan religious B.S. was added to the specific states, the federal law has done its best to remove religious bias since before the constitution for the U.S. was being written.

As for "uncorrupted Christianity," you have got it backwards. The only form of Christianity that is a "fair moral system" is corrupted Christianity. Only if you cherry pick the bible can you ever find a system of belief from them that allows for people who are actually good without immoral tendencies.



As for Bcomp, it is hard for single people to adopt, but the point about adoption and marriage is that unless you're married you and your partner aren't both allowed to be the legal guardian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

If you answer with "only the infertile men should be able to marry" or anything along those lines, then it proves you are motivated only by discrimination.

---

My belief is that though infertile men are incapable of producing children, they have aligned themselves with a sexual orientation that is biologically oriented toward reproductive behavior and thus deserve the title "marriage" that has always described these sorts of relationships.

I'm only trying to look at this objectively, since the law is supposed to be objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You don't know very far on that subject I'm afraid. Adoption is next to impossible for single people.

---

Please don't insult me. I know quite well it's difficult for single people - and really anyone - to adopt and I think it would be greatly beneficial to the nation if legislation was enacted to reduce the inefficiency of current adoption protocols. However, I simply mentioned it was possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

America was NOT founded on Christian beliefs. The U.S. was founded on SECULAR notions, it wanted religion as far away from politics and the law as possible, even though before the Virginia plan religious B.S. was added to the specific states, the federal law has done its best to remove religious bias since before the constitution for the U.S. was being written.

---

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
- Declaration of Independence.

"Laws of Nature's God" sounds like religion-based laws are in order.

Note that the concept of "separation of church and state" was developed to prevent the government from mandating a national religion, not to prevent religion from playing a role in government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

As for "uncorrupted Christianity," you have got it backwards. The only form of Christianity that is a "fair moral system" is corrupted Christianity. Only if you cherry pick the bible can you ever find a system of belief from them that allows for people who are actually good without immoral tendencies.

---

Ummm... maybe you missed the part of the Bible where Christians are commanded to "love their neighbor as they love themselves," without precondition. The stricter rules are guidelines for Christians to keep themselves in check, not to throw at non-Christians.

But wait... if you think "corrupted Christianity" is a "fair moral system," then what's the problem? :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
- Declaration of Independence.

"Laws of Nature's God" sounds like religion-based laws are in order.

Note that the concept of "separation of church and state" was developed to prevent the government from mandating a national religion, not to prevent religion from playing a role in government.

---

Actually no, separation of church and state was to keep all religious people from forcing other people, of their religion or not, from having to obey their religion over another religion or non-religion. Like many of the laws created it is to keep the majority from ruling the minority.

Sounds like you don't understand the many of the reasons our country was founded, and you don't understand the difference between deism and how it differs from Christianity.

Break down of deism? The belief that a supreme being exists, he created the universe, but doesn't do anything to it, and the only thing God ever gave man was INNATE reason, not religion or religious texts. So go back and comprehend what deism is, and read your underlined misunderstanding of the term god, and come back to this thread.


"sounds like religion based laws are in order." No you have a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a deist. To fix your hatchet job of what is "in order" I will edit your quote.

"Sounds like reason based laws are in order."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

Ummm... maybe you missed the part of the Bible where Christians are commanded to "love their neighbor as they love themselves," without precondition. The stricter rules are guidelines for Christians to keep themselves in check, not to throw at non-Christians.

But wait... if you think "corrupted Christianity" is a "fair moral system," then what's the problem? :?

---

And maybe you missed the hundreds of things the bible says is acceptable to do that is deplorable, in fact DEMANDS that you do. If your wife does something to lead you astray from your religion not only should you stone her, but yours should be the FIRST hand to strike her. Not only should you not work on the sabboth but should you work you should be killed.

Beat your slave and only be punished if the SLAVE DIES. The slave can be beaten so badly that he lays there for days, but if he gets up you're scott free. If a woman is raped the man who raped her can pay to buy her from her father...

Really? That is SOOOOO moral. While we're at it lets punish people eternally for finite crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

My belief is that though infertile men are incapable of producing children, they have aligned themselves with a sexual orientation that is biologically oriented toward reproductive behavior and thus deserve the title "marriage" that has always described these sorts of relationships.

I'm only trying to look at this objectively, since the law is supposed to be objective.

---

So because infertile men have aligned themselves with a straight lifestyle they should be able to get married? That completely destroys your "reproductive only" marriage argument.

Are there any other arguments your willing to propose in defense for your discrimination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

My belief is that though infertile men are incapable of producing children, they have aligned themselves with a sexual orientation that is biologically oriented toward reproductive behavior and thus deserve the title "marriage" that has always described these sorts of relationships

---

Kind of grasping at straws now for this argument aren't you?

Hm...why do people think there needs to be a rational reason?

If I don't like, say, shrimp...and I gather a thousand other people who dislike shrimp and we all go over and meet with 100 people who do like shrimp to protest, those 100 will be quite outnumbered and have no way of defending their point. They'd "lose".

Wow, I am really terrible at analogies. But the point is...if more people than you and your allies want something allowed or prohibited, they'll get what they want. It's a matter of power. So either you make it your goal to get enough power to impose your will on those others or you sit there and endure it because you are powerless and outnumbered. There's no point in whining about it.

Don't expect the world to be fair when it comes to social ideals.
Equality is for the weak. The kind of universal tolerance we have today will soon bring about tolerating things like rape and crime of all sorts (oh, wait, murderers are already let free all around).
People must fight for what they stand for, not hold hands and pray for peace in the world by allowing everyone what they want. War is in human nature, and that includes social conflicts too, not just using weapons to slaughter your opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlock

Hm...why do people think there needs to be a rational reason?

If I don't like, say, shrimp...and I gather a thousand other people who dislike shrimp and we all go over and meet with 100 people who do like shrimp to protest, those 100 will be quite outnumbered and have no way of defending their point. They'd "lose".

Wow, I am really terrible at analogies. But the point is...if more people than you and your allies want something allowed or prohibited, they'll get what they want. It's a matter of power. So either you make it your goal to get enough power to impose your will on those others or you sit there and endure it because you are powerless and outnumbered. There's no point in whining about it.

Don't expect the world to be fair when it comes to social ideals.
Equality is for the weak. The kind of universal tolerance we have today will soon bring about tolerating things like rape and crime of all sorts (oh, wait, murderers are already let free all around).
People must fight for what they stand for, not hold hands and pray for peace in the world by allowing everyone what they want. War is in human nature, and that includes social conflicts too, not just using weapons to slaughter your opposition.

---

Wow. Just, wow. I dub thee troll.

...do the common posters on DV even know the definition of a "forum troll" anymore?

It feels like it's just being thrown around randomly to avoid further discussion. :eh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlock

...do the common posters on DV even know the definition of a "forum troll" anymore?

It feels like it's just being thrown around randomly to avoid further discussion. :eh:

---

troll


Seriously now, get your old avatar back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcomp

My belief is that though infertile men are incapable of producing children, they have aligned themselves with a sexual orientation that is biologically oriented toward reproductive behavior and thus deserve the title "marriage" that has always described these sorts of relationships.

I'm only trying to look at this objectively, since the law is supposed to be objective.

---

Spoiler: sexual orientation is not a choice. Neither is whether you're black or white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlock

...do the common posters on DV even know the definition of a "forum troll" anymore?

It feels like it's just being thrown around randomly to avoid further discussion. :eh:

---

Well he couldn't possibly be that insane...

"Equality is for the weak" "Tolerance leads to rape."

Yeah...couldn't possibly be a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Well he couldn't possibly be that insane...

"Equality is for the weak" "Tolerance leads to rape."

Yeah...couldn't possibly be a troll.

---

"He"? That was me.

And secondly..."couldn't possibly be that insane"?
Do you not see how ignorant that phrase is?
It basically says, "I'm right, everyone is wrong and insane". *shrug*

I explained everything in that post. Unlimited tolerance is ridiculous. People must fight for what they stand for, for their ideals and principles, otherwise the world grows stale, full of apathy and immorality. There is no "right" or "wrong". There's only power, and whoever wields it is right.