General Mayhem

[Lautakwah]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

sounds like its gonna pass.  i dont' get it, with a 66% divorce rate in cali what r they trying to protect again? 

[Rhox]

imma play the devil's advocate and tell you the Christian take on it.. i might not be 100% accurate.. but here's the gist of it..

1. Homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.  therefore, marriage between people in sin is sin in itself.  Even though people voted no for gay marriage, liberal supreme court judges decided to cross out "marriage between man and woman" part out.  Prop 8 is putting that part back in for marriage to be between man and woman.

2. Marriage is for creation - making babies. two people of the same sex cannot do this.  this is the portion where they are talking about "protecting marriage."

i personally think that Morality is something the government should NOT be messing with.  if people choose a gay lifestyle, that's their choice.  if those people want to get married, that's their choice as well.  its like trying to force a "religion X" onto people and that isn't going to work.  Let people do what makes them happy.

[wizll]

---

Rhox wrote:

imma play the devil's advocate and tell you the Christian take on it.. i might not be 100% accurate.. but here's the gist of it..

1. Homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.  therefore, marriage between people in sin is sin in itself.  Even though people voted no for gay marriage, liberal supreme court judges decided to cross out "marriage between man and woman" part out.  Prop 8 is putting that part back in for marriage to be between man and woman.

2. Marriage is for creation - making babies. two people of the same sex cannot do this.  this is the portion where they are talking about "protecting marriage."

i personally think that Morality is something the government should NOT be messing with.  if people choose a gay lifestyle, that's their choice.  if those people want to get married, that's their choice as well.  its like trying to force a "religion X" onto people and that isn't going to work.  Let people do what makes them happy.

---

you don't have to be married to make babies. oh.

[Rhox]

---

wizll wrote:

you don't have to be married to make babies. oh.

---

yes, precisely.. and there's adoption as well..

[Gimgi]

The Prop 8 opposition needs to re-package their argument, it's going to be a constant uphill battle trying to convince people to change their definition of marriage.

[onions]

---

Rhox wrote:

imma play the devil's advocate and tell you the Christian take on it.. i might not be 100% accurate.. but here's the gist of it..

1. Homosexuality is immoral and is a sin.  therefore, marriage between people in sin is sin in itself.  Even though people voted no for gay marriage, liberal supreme court judges decided to cross out "marriage between man and woman" part out.  Prop 8 is putting that part back in for marriage to be between man and woman.

2. Marriage is for creation - making babies. two people of the same sex cannot do this.  this is the portion where they are talking about "protecting marriage."

i personally think that Morality is something the government should NOT be messing with.  if people choose a gay lifestyle, that's their choice.  if those people want to get married, that's their choice as well.  its like trying to force a "religion X" onto people and that isn't going to work.  Let people do what makes them happy.

---

being gay isn't a matter of choice.

[Rhox]

---

onions wrote: 

being gay isn't a matter of choice.

---

ah.. ya i guess my "choice" of words were bad.  you are right.  its like saying, being born asian was not a choice.   but they should not have the government make decisions for them, and allow true freedom.

[Lex]

---

being gay isn't a matter of choice.

---

 

That statement is a matter of opinion by the same people who hold the viewpoint presented by Rhox. 

[Kevorkian]

All I have to say is that it's a sad and twisted irony that gays are being systematically persecuted by the very same people who purport to hold Christ as their role model...the same Christ who would try to embrace and uplift the downtrodden. Holier-than-thou indeed.

That this hypocrisy is invisible to the hypocrites is one of the countless reasons why I've grown disillusioned in the faith I was raised with.

[Lautakwah]

http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2008/10/arkansas-vote-for-initiated-measure-1.html

guaranteed this is where we're going next.  considering so many people voted for obama I'm surprised how many socially conservative laws passed this election year. 

[Dracus]

If passed, the measure will ensure that vulnerable children have the best chance of being placed in the stability and security of a married home.

since when did one equal the other?

[oskibear]

I'm in the minority position of being a practicing Catholic who voted "no" on 8, but this is my analysis of what happened.

I think a large reason the proponents of Prop 8 were successful had to do with how well they packaged their ads.   On the opposite spectrum from the extremist religious fundamentalists who want to impose their vision of what a God fearing nation should be are the extremist atheist/agnostic forces of those who would prefer that organized religion not exist at all.   Neither of these sides is willing to "live and let live" and does everything in their power to impose their will and beliefs (or lack thereof) on the other.

I read that in the beginning of the Prop 8 campaign that polls showed "no" running 17% ahead of "yes" and that the population at large, while perhaps not supportive of gay marriage, would be ok with it happening anyway.   How was the gap closed and yes got 4% ahead when the final tally was done?   It's my opinion that certain members of the gay supporting community probably shot themselves in the foot by forcing the agenda taking their students to their lesbian weddings for "teachable moments".   While it's one thing to allow gay people to be married, it's another thing to shove it in everyone's (and their children's) face "whether you like it or not" as quoted by S.F. mayor, Gavin Newsome.   They probably would have been better off quietly marrying and integrating into the community to allow it to settle in and normalize at its own pace.   Once time passed and people got more comfortable, it might not seemed as threatening.

Seeing the material from Yes on 8, a lot of it was devoted to showing examples where churches had their tax exempt status removed for refusing to allow gay couples to use their grounds and facilities.   According to the website, this was an example of those groups trying to tax religious groups out of existance.   One could argue that this is an example of the state imposing its will on a church violating the separation of church and state.   It also had examples of how teachers were actively promoting gay themed stories in their teachings.   The No on 8 forces probably would have done better if they were better at providing assurances to the religious community that a gay themed agenda would be more of a quiet thing that happened around them rather than something shoved in their faces.

[wtghaha]

some good quotes I've come across

"Californians are willing to pay—and tolerate some risk to the state's agricultural industry—to ensure farm animals their rights. They're also willing to pay to take them away from gays and lesbians when those rights have no real-world effects on heterosexuals"

"Key difference: Chickens can procreate, homosexuals cannot. Natural selection at work here."

[wizll]

---

wtghaha wrote:

some good quotes I've come across

"Californians are willing to pay—and tolerate some risk to the state's agricultural industry—to ensure farm animals their rights. They're also willing to pay to take them away from gays and lesbians when those rights have no real-world effects on heterosexuals"

"Key difference: Chickens can procreate, homosexuals cannot. Natural selection at work here."

---

i'm not buying $6 eggs! f that.

[oskibear]

---

wizll wrote:

---

---

i'm not buying $6 eggs! f that.

---

No worries, crammed chickens will just be moved to others states or Mexico.

[pansy]

you can't discriminate against gays when it comes to employment, housing, first amendment, etc. when you commit a crime against someone who is gay, it's liable to be a hate crime.

but gays can't get married because they're gay.

instead of that being the law now, that should be a hate crime. it's discrimination. easy as that.

damn those crazies on the right. i was really hoping that california would come thru. afterall, we lead the way for the rest of the nation on social issues. (YES WE DO P, stop making fun. it's way better for us to think everyone else is crazy rather than the other way around).

in the end, however, if we all wait long enough, gavin newsom is right, it's going to happen eventually.

as for the chicken thing, i don't care if they have to start clucking in spanish, $6 eggs/bacon/milk is gonna suck. ty for your times. 

[wtghaha]

---

pansy wrote:

you can't discriminate against gays when it comes to employment, housing, first amendment, etc. when you commit a crime against someone who is gay, it's liable to be a hate crime.

but gays can't get married because they're gay.

instead of that being the law now, that should be a hate crime. it's discrimination. easy as that.

damn those crazies on the right. i was really hoping that california would come thru. afterall, we lead the way for the rest of the nation on social issues. (YES WE DO P, stop making fun. it's way better for us to think everyone else is crazy rather than the other way around).

in the end, however, if we all wait long enough, gavin newsom is right, it's going to happen eventually.

as for the chicken thing, i don't care if they have to start clucking in spanish, $6 eggs/bacon/milk is gonna suck. ty for your times. 

---

pansy just because you are prone to mistaking men with long hair in leather pants for women at costco, doesn't mean you are a leader in social issues. It just means you have a natural affinity for the same sex.

we aren't going to be paying that much for eggs. we will import our eggs from elsewhere at a slightly higher price than currently and all the egg farmers in california will just move to another state that doesn't have this law or go out of business.

[Kevorkian]

---

wtghaha wrote:

some good quotes I've come across

"Californians are willing to pay—and tolerate some risk to the state's agricultural industry—to ensure farm animals their rights. They're also willing to pay to take them away from gays and lesbians when those rights have no real-world effects on heterosexuals"

"Key difference: Chickens can procreate, homosexuals cannot. Natural selection at work here."

---

Yup that was another brain dead prop that went through.

I voted no across the board on all propositions. High speed rail, children's hospitals, animal rights, drug rehab. Oh you want money? Fuck all of it IMO. 90% of them required funding, and money's not something the state has in abundance right now.

[oskibear]

---

Kevorkian wrote:

---

wtghaha wrote:

some good quotes I've come across

"Californians are willing to pay—and tolerate some risk to the state's agricultural industry—to ensure farm animals their rights. They're also willing to pay to take them away from gays and lesbians when those rights have no real-world effects on heterosexuals"

"Key difference: Chickens can procreate, homosexuals cannot. Natural selection at work here."

---

Yup that was another brain dead prop that went through.

I voted no across the board on all propositions. High speed rail, children's hospitals, animal rights, drug rehab. Oh you want money? Fuck all of it IMO. 90% of them required funding, and money's not something the state has in abundance right now.

---

While in principle voting yes on better animal treatment might sound good, if we can (and will) just import eggs where they don't have such regulations, what's the point?

Fail for not voting yes on 11.   While I have no illusions about that being the solution to the current Gerrymandering bullshit that enables politicians to choose their voters rather than the other way around, I say ANYTHING is better than what we have now.   It's too bad 11 won't redraw the federal Congressional districts because some chickenshits (I'm looking at you, Pelosi) are afraid that their districts might become competitive.   The way California voted, I'm sure this would stay a blue state, just make the politicians a bit more afraid for their jobs like their constituents are.

Message Edited by oskibear on 11-05-2008 04:35 PM

[oskibear]

From LA Times:

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds

12:10 PM, November 5, 2008

A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? The Associated Press exit polls show that African Americans and Latinos backed Proposition 8 in good numbers. Details here from AP:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.

Message Edited by oskibear on 11-05-2008 04:43 PM