California propositions thread: Props 1,2,3,8,9,11,12 Pass, Props 4,5,6,7,10 fail

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD

Originally Posted by In The Line For VIIs

Disclaimer: I didn't vote yes or no on 8, i left it blank cuz I really couldn't pick a side. But I'll help out you Yes on 8's.

No on 8 people, do you agree with indecent exposure laws? There's a minority out there that wants to live life nude. Yet they can't, because if they go to school or go to work, they get arrested. Forget about a job. Forget about having a life in any place besides nude colonies. So you're saying if there was a measure that legalized public nudity you'd vote for it? It doesn't affect you right? I mean, if you see a nude person, then you could just turn away. If you work with a nude person then you don't have to look. If there was a nude teacher at your child's school that would be okay right?

Then 20 years down the road, nudists are everywhere. What if all of a sudden your child said, "I want to be a nudist."

Best comparison I've heard on NT..

Problem is, marriage is a civil right already granted by the state constitution.

Are you seriously saying that if you were driving down the street and you saw a gay couple on the sidewalk that you would be able to tell whether they were married or had a civil union? The answer is no. Their marriage would have have no effect on your life. What you're describing is people choosing to go naked (I don't personally think homosexuality is a choice but that's another topic for another thread) and that DOES have an effect on others. You say "Oh they're naked, you can just turn away." That right there is already affecting my life so I have no idea how this is in any way a good comparison.

Comparing nudists to gay marriage. Where's a "reaching" gif when you need one..

Wait what happens if they want to get married at my church but my pastor doesn't agree too it so they start a big ol up roar and my pastor is some how forced to do so or be stripped of

his license?

the difference is that NO ONE has the right to be nude in public so no one is being discriminated against.

What if they fight against the law. Will you support them?

Really this can go on forever. At anytime we can agree to disagree.

No church is forced to marry any couple. When the hell does that ever happen? Are you kidding? Why would a gay couple go to a church that openly rejects them to get married? Most gay couples get married at city hall.

and I'll play along with your ridiculous nudist "argument". No I would not support them. Nobody has the right to be exposed in public so why should they? And like someone else said, if some naked dude ran by me and bumped into me, best believe I'll be calling the cops on him for sexual harassment and public lewdness

Why would Black go and stage sit ins and try to get service at places they weren't wanted? And what happens when they want to get married like a traditional couple in a big beautiful church? They want to be under the Lord roof too.

Wait so your denying their rights because you don't think its right or grotesque?


So you're going to draw parallels with blacks staging sit ins to go to churches they weren't allowed in to gay marriage in churches?Blacks were excluded from those churches at that time based on RACE. The color of their skin. Not because of anything else. You seriously can't see thedifference between that and a church refusing to marry a gay couple? If the church feels that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, they are obviously notgoing to allow any gay weddings in the church. Christians will argue that homosexuality is wrong based on scripture but are you saying that the churches onceargued that it was wrong to have blacks worship in their church because of their fundamental beliefs? Of course not and it's another ridiculous comparison.There are churches out there that have held gay weddings though (mostly Episocopal churches but I digress).

On the second point, it's not about what I believe. I'm going by the law, which is that public exposure/lewdness is illegal for ALL people. That isall.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by In The Line For VIIs

Originally Posted by DL2352

Once again, this is a ridiculous analogy. I don't know why you keep pushing it but I'll help you out by shutting it down for you. Homosexuality is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

Homosexuality Nudity in private is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness Gay marriage / matrimony is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public gay and married. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage Going out in public on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

I can't take you serious at all. I made a mistake playing along with you.

I based everything I said on law. What are you basing what you're saying on? Nudity in private is not against the law? Well of course. Gay marriage is?False. The California Constitution does not distinguish between male and female when referring to marriage. Currently, people DO have the right to be gay andmarried. Going out in public is a civil right? Sure, but going out in public nude isn't

 

[lightweight champion]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by SoHi 23

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by javier5857

Originally Posted by SoHi 23

To me Prop 8 is as black and white as it gets.

Take away rights to certain individuals vs. everyone is given equal treatment.


IMO it doesn't really matter if you think it is wrong, don't agree with it, whatever.
It's just not fair to take away rights.

Seriously, my mom dad & stepmom voted yes..there was no getting to them.

And the Yes rally is infuriating me even more, this doesnt even effect them, the $+$% is wrong with them.

I hate religion.

You know thats where the worlds laws came from right. Well God created rules and regulations IMO. You know humans cannot govern themselves right? You do know there is a God right? You do know people and this earth didn't pop up out of no where for no reason right?

That's your opinion.
What about the person who doesn't believe in God?
Is he just considered wrong?
Or are you going to laugh at him, even though he has just as much proof that it doesn't exist as you have that it does?

America is founded on the serperation of church and state.

A no problem if they don't believe. Thats on them. I won't laugh I'll just ask for his proof so we can discuss both sides.

Let's go further.
*This is hypothetical and does not express my culture/views

In my culture, it is widely viewed that you should only marry within your own race.
If you marry outside of your own race, it is considered wrong and you are looked down upon.

A bunch of people from my culture propose a proposition that is for banning inter-racial marriage.
What do you do?

Would you really vote yes because that's what your culture says for you to do?
Do you really believe that interracial marriage shouldn't happen?

You vote for what you believe. Jesus and God said there will be people of all races in heaven and I never seen anything bible/God related that has state that inter-racial relationships are wrong. He put us all on the same planet.

Wait wait... you do know there's a Santa Claus right? You know humans can't get presents on Christmas by themselves right?

I'm crushed! Why did you take my innocence you big meany?!

Stop setting yourself up for these L's man.

Ever heard the story of The Good Samaritan? I mean, since you read the Bible and all I'm pretty sure you've heard, correct?

Well do you know the reason why Samaritans were considered to be bad? Why the countries around them frowned upon them? It's because back during thosedays inter-racial relationships, much less marriages, were considered to be against the will of God. People back then believed that those who weren't fullblooded in one ethnicity were considered to be not of God's people. And the only place that tolerated inter-racial relationships at that time? Samaria. Yes, the same Samaria where the Samaritan passed and helped the injured man even though everyone else who passed him by did just that, pass him by. Withoutoffering a helping hand.

And here we are centuries later and all of a sudden inter-racial marriages aren't frowned upon by the church anymore, they're widely accepted eventhough back in the day, it was against the word of God.

Try again.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by Lightweight Champion

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by SoHi 23

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by javier5857

Originally Posted by SoHi 23

To me Prop 8 is as black and white as it gets.

Take away rights to certain individuals vs. everyone is given equal treatment.


IMO it doesn't really matter if you think it is wrong, don't agree with it, whatever.
It's just not fair to take away rights.

Seriously, my mom dad & stepmom voted yes..there was no getting to them.

And the Yes rally is infuriating me even more, this doesnt even effect them, the $+$% is wrong with them.

I hate religion.

You know thats where the worlds laws came from right. Well God created rules and regulations IMO. You know humans cannot govern themselves right? You do know there is a God right? You do know people and this earth didn't pop up out of no where for no reason right?

That's your opinion.
What about the person who doesn't believe in God?
Is he just considered wrong?
Or are you going to laugh at him, even though he has just as much proof that it doesn't exist as you have that it does?

America is founded on the serperation of church and state.

A no problem if they don't believe. Thats on them. I won't laugh I'll just ask for his proof so we can discuss both sides.

Let's go further.
*This is hypothetical and does not express my culture/views

In my culture, it is widely viewed that you should only marry within your own race.
If you marry outside of your own race, it is considered wrong and you are looked down upon.

A bunch of people from my culture propose a proposition that is for banning inter-racial marriage.
What do you do?

Would you really vote yes because that's what your culture says for you to do?
Do you really believe that interracial marriage shouldn't happen?

You vote for what you believe. Jesus and God said there will be people of all races in heaven and I never seen anything bible/God related that has state that inter-racial relationships are wrong. He put us all on the same planet.

Wait wait... you do know there's a Santa Claus right? You know humans can't get presents on Christmas by themselves right?

I'm crushed! Why did you take my innocence you big meany?!

Stop setting yourself up for these L's man.

Ever heard the story of The Good Samaritan? I mean, since you read the Bible and all I'm pretty sure you've heard, correct?

Well do you know the reason why Samaritans were considered to be bad? Why the countries around them frowned upon them? It's because back during those days inter-racial relationships, much less marriages, were considered to be against the will of God. People back then believed that those who weren't full blooded in one ethnicity were considered to be not of God's people. And the only place that tolerated inter-racial relationships at that time? Samaria. Yes, the same Samaria where the Samaritan passed and helped the injured man even though everyone else who passed him by did just that, pass him by. Without offering a helping hand.

And here we are centuries later and all of a sudden inter-racial marriages aren't frowned upon by the church anymore, they're widely accepted even though back in the day, it was against the word of God.

Try again.

Oh man. I totally forgot about that story too. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[h4ppytime harry]

i understand that religious people dont want gays to have a religious marriage, and i can understand that. But they do deserve, at the least, a lawfulmarriage, and all the rights that heterosexuals get when they marry. You just dont receive a piece of paper and a happy feeling when you get married, you alsoreceive certain rights and benefits from marriage, why not give gays those benefits?

 

[rko2004]

So you're going to draw parallels with blacks staging sit ins to go to churches they weren't allowed in to gay marriage in churches? Blacks were excluded from those churches at that time based on RACE. The color of their skin. Not because of anything else. You seriously can't see the difference between that and a church refusing to marry a gay couple? If the church feels that gay marriage goes against their beliefs, they are obviously not going to allow any gay weddings in the church. Christians will argue that homosexuality is wrong based on scripture but are you saying that the churches once argued that it was wrong to have blacks worship in their church because of their fundamental beliefs? Of course not and it's another ridiculous comparison. There are churches out there that have held gay weddings though (mostly Episocopal churches but I digress).

On the second point, it's not about what I believe. I'm going by the law, which is that public exposure/lewdness is illegal for ALL people. That is all.
The point I was trying to make is when a group of people want something they will fight to get it.

First gays have civil union. Not good enough because they want the same treatment as a married couple.

Now gays get married in City Hall or select churches(probably not too many). One day a gay couple will be members at lets say "The church of Jesus Christand house of worship". But what if the pastor refuses to marry them? That is one secluded problem. Now lets put it on a national level where hundreds andthousands of churches are being complained about? What is this small secluded problem now? A nation wide problem led by gay rights activist beating down thegovernments' door for equal rights. Hmmm that wont end well.

And before you say it can't happen look at how far blacks came.

Stop setting yourself up for these L's man.

Ever heard the story of The Good Samaritan? I mean, since you read the Bible and all I'm pretty sure you've heard, correct?

Well do you know the reason why Samaritans were considered to be bad? Why the countries around them frowned upon them? It's because back during those days inter-racial relationships, much less marriages, were considered to be against the will of God. People back then believed that those who weren't full blooded in one ethnicity were considered to be not of God's people. And the only place that tolerated inter-racial relationships at that time? Samaria. Yes, the same Samaria where the Samaritan passed and helped the injured man even though everyone else who passed him by did just that, pass him by. Without offering a helping hand.

And here we are centuries later and all of a sudden inter-racial marriages aren't frowned upon by the church anymore, they're widely accepted even though back in the day, it was against the word of God.

Try again.
OOOOO I'll be right back.


Edit: I'M BAAAAAAAAACK!

Wow you almost had me but NO. God said "be fruitful and multiply". Don't recall hearing or seeing "Black child be fruitful with that Blackchild and only that black child". So I'd say its not against the will of God. When Jesus told the story of "The Good Samaritan", He wantedto express that we need to love thy neighbor not sin with thy neighbor. Like I said I have never read or heard God say "Black child don't wed thatWhite Woman". His love is color blind and He loves ALL His children. But he does NOT condone sin. Thats why we repent for them and ask for forgiveness andgo away from that sin and not dwell in it. Now I'm not the perfect person but I try not to just dwell and live in sin.

And to further go in on what Jesus said. If I saw a sinner I'd help him. But I wont sin with him. Thats what He meant. He did not say "If you see asinner, sin with him". But He said help each other out in time of NEED. I see what you tried to do. And I like it. Makes me think and do my research. Butdon't try and twist things.

 

[in the line for viis]

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by In The Line For VIIs

Originally Posted by DL2352

Once again, this is a ridiculous analogy. I don't know why you keep pushing it but I'll help you out by shutting it down for you. Homosexuality is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

Homosexuality Nudity in private is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness Gay marriage / matrimony is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public gay and married. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage Going out in public on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

I can't take you serious at all. I made a mistake playing along with you.

I based everything I said on law. What are you basing what you're saying on? Nudity in private is not against the law? Well of course. Gay marriage is? False. The California Constitution does not distinguish between male and female when referring to marriage. Currently, people DO have the right to be gay and married. Going out in public is a civil right? Sure, but going out in public nude isn't

Okay, here's the timeline step by step:

1. Since forever, being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in private is obviously not illegal.

2. Being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in public is made illegal in 1977 and reaffirmed numerous times thereafter.

2. On March 15, 2008, being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in public is legal.

3. Then Measure 8 says, "Do you want to ban people from wearing only CLEAR PLASTIC in public?"

Would you vote yes or no?

 

[foshizzle]

too much quoting going on for me in this post.

I voted no on 8. Looks loke some people on NT still like to discriminate. At least we have a black prez...I guess its just one step at a time fordiscrimination.

I voted no for po-po funding too, screw the California Po's! (even though I have a friend who's one, haha)

 

[pj and bompton]

Really bittersweet tonight...we get Obama in office then go and TAKE RIGHTS AWAY...

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by In The Line For VIIs

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by In The Line For VIIs

Originally Posted by DL2352

Once again, this is a ridiculous analogy. I don't know why you keep pushing it but I'll help you out by shutting it down for you. Homosexuality is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

Homosexuality Nudity in private is not against the law. Public exposure/lewdness Gay marriage / matrimony is. NOBODY has the right to be naked in public gay and married. It's not a question of what's normal or what's moral. It's against the law everywhere. Marriage Going out in public on the other hand is a civil right of ALL Californians.

I can't take you serious at all. I made a mistake playing along with you.

I based everything I said on law. What are you basing what you're saying on? Nudity in private is not against the law? Well of course. Gay marriage is? False. The California Constitution does not distinguish between male and female when referring to marriage. Currently, people DO have the right to be gay and married. Going out in public is a civil right? Sure, but going out in public nude isn't

Okay, here's the timeline step by step:

1. Since forever, being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in private is obviously not illegal.

2. Being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in public is made illegal in 1977 and reaffirmed numerous times thereafter.

2. On March 15, 2008, being CLOTHED IN CLEAR PLASTIC in public is legal.

3. Then Measure 8 says, "Do you want to ban people from wearing only CLEAR PLASTIC in public?"

Would you vote yes or no?

Okay let's cut the bull. Point #2. I'm thinking you're referring to public nudity. It's ALWAYS been illegal so cut it with theclothed in clear plastic crap you're pushing. I think you're the only one that knows where you're going with it.

Marriage as it is defined in the state constitution does not make a distinction between man and woman therefore gays should have the civil right to marry likeeveryone else. /discussion.

To RKO

Blacks having the right to attend a church is completely different from a church having to marry a gay couple. Separation of church and state goes both ways.Just as religion shouldn't have a hand in influencing how government functions to serve it's citizens, government should not have a hand in influencingreligion. The government cannot force a religious institution to marry a gay couple. The gay couple can protest all they want but it's the decision of thechurch. I'd argue that the whole blacks attending churches argument you're trying to use is flawed too since it was the churches who ultimatelyrealized they were wrong for discriminating against another group of humans created equal under God. Have we so soon forgotten our fundamental right as acitizen to worship as we please without government interference? I think the argument you might have wanted to use was blacks attending white schools duringSegregation. But that of course would back up my argument that although blacks had their own schools, they were no where equal to their white couterparts.There was always something that separated them. Kind of like how you all say civil unions are the same as a marriage license.

 

[scotthallwithapick]

Originally Posted by Viewtiful Mik3

sucks prop 8 passed. But looking at the statistics, seems like the next generation of californians have the right idea. there will probably, hopefully, be a referendum

at the one dude saying inter-racial marriage is a bad analogy

a few pages later...

someone gives an anology using nudists.

you have got to be kidding me.

Like it's

but honestly it's

that people think this way it's like people are blinded by their beliefsit's truly disgusting

Originally Posted by Prince Of Shoes HEAD

Originally Posted by jawnyquest

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD

Yes on 8

die

you gay?

you ignorant?

 

[8tothe24]

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get"married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get "married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

Most of the No on Prop 8 beople here on NT are against Prop 8 because it in essence makes government discriminate against a minority group becausethey go against the personal beliefs of the majority. It's relinquishing a fundamental right for all Californians based entirely on sexual orientation.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

**** discrimination. **** hypocrites. **** Prop 8.

 

[segagenesis510]

I'm so angry right now that the majority of California voted YES On Prob 8. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised that the majority of us were raisedand are RELIGIOUS!

I voted NO on Prob 8. EQUALITY FOR ALL! Why should one person care who the other person is marrying? Or matter of fact, why should someone even care what goeson behind closed doors in every individuals lives? The only defense the YES campaign on Prop 8 has is the bible and how the laws we're under were broughtup from it. Or because it's not natural? BS, not everyones definition of natural is the same.

Read these 8 Reasons on why you SHOULD'VE voted NO on Prob 8:

8 Reasons to Vote No on Prop 8.

1. Supporters of prop 8 say gay marriage is unnatural.
So are fake breasts, nose jobs, dying your hair, piercings, plastic, cars, and if you want to go all the way, clothes aren't natural either.

2. Supporters of prop 8 says gay couples lack a father/mother figure.
So do single parents, yet that doesn't mean their kids are any less successful in life

3. Gay couples raise gay kids. Oh yeah, because straight couples only raise straight kids. Not.

4. Supporters of prop 8 say that gay marriage is wrong because they cant have children
Neither can infertile couples or celibate couples

5. Supporters of prop 8 say gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage
So do divorces and nullifications. yet those are still around.

6. Supporters of prop 8 say children will have to learn about gay marriage in school.
Do we learn about straight marriage? No. And law states children do not have to learn anything of that sort in school, for example sex. ed.
(Yes ON 8 supporters constantly refer to the field trip to a gay marriage as an example of the effect legalizing gay marriage has had on children, when everyone of those kid's parents had to sign a waiver to let their children go on that field trip. This wasn't forced.)

7. Supporters of prop 8 say gay marriage should become illegal because it's against the bible.
Don't we have a separation of church and state? Every single person has "sinned" and America isn't a christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Muslimcountry. It's a democratic, and tolerant country. It is at the most basic line, UNAMERICAN to discriminate against any group of people.

8. Supporters of prop 8 say if gay marriage is legalized iit will encourage a population spike in homosexuals...
Yeah, because it is a disease, not. The only people who say this sort of stuff are the people who don't have enough confidence in themselves and they thinkthey might "turn" gay. They are cowards. But that's just an opinion.

And really folks, religion and phobias shouldn't enter into your political opinion. When you vote, you should think about every person in your state orcountry, not just yourself. What benefits everyone, because benefiting all benefits yourself. One day, you might be on the defensive side, where your rightsare up for decision, and then what? We aren't all one religion, we aren't all one race. We aren't all one gender, we are none of us the same. Buthere, in this country, WE ARE ALL AMERICAN.




And in advance, just because I'm for gay marriages doesn't mean I am gay. Learn to be a bit open-minded for once.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get "married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

Most of the No on Prop 8 beople here on NT are against Prop 8 because it in essence makes government discriminate against a minority group because they go against the personal beliefs of the majority. It's relinquishing a fundamental right for all Californians based entirely on sexual orientation.

And when was this fundamental right determined. It was never an issue before because, until recently, it was accepted that marriage was between aman and woman. Voters of California already voted to define marriage as between a man and woman, and 4 California justices decided the people were wrong. Prop 8 set to restate what voters already voiced their opinions on by amending the state constitution.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get "married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

Most of the No on Prop 8 beople here on NT are against Prop 8 because it in essence makes government discriminate against a minority group because they go against the personal beliefs of the majority. It's relinquishing a fundamental right for all Californians based entirely on sexual orientation.

And when was this fundamental right determined. It was never an issue before because, until recently, it was accepted that marriage was between a man and woman. Voters of California already voted to define marriage as between a man and woman, and 4 California justices decided the people were wrong. Prop 8 set to restate what voters already voiced their opinions on by amending the state constitution.

You stated where the fundamental right was determined. In the California Constitution. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman in thestate constitution. The California Justices you mentioned ruled that the constitution extends those rights to all since it didn't specify who could orcould not marry. That's kind of why we have all this commotion right now

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get "married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

Most of the No on Prop 8 beople here on NT are against Prop 8 because it in essence makes government discriminate against a minority group because they go against the personal beliefs of the majority. It's relinquishing a fundamental right for all Californians based entirely on sexual orientation.

And when was this fundamental right determined. It was never an issue before because, until recently, it was accepted that marriage was between a man and woman. Voters of California already voted to define marriage as between a man and woman, and 4 California justices decided the people were wrong. Prop 8 set to restate what voters already voiced their opinions on by amending the state constitution.

You stated where the fundamental right was determined. In the California Constitution. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman in the state constitution. The California Justices you mentioned ruled that the constitution extends those rights to all since it didn't specify who could or could not marry. That's kind of why we have all this commotion right now

Exactly my point. Marriage was just assumed to be between a man and woman. It hasn't been until the social acceptance of gays/lesbians hasthe issue risen. Prop 8 defines in the State Constitution what the definition of marriage is.

 

[scotthallwithapick]

ahah well he got done before i could response so im a ask this can any1 explain abc . com cause an x by the answer means it won and right now it says

Updated: 2:28 AM PT
State Prop 8 - Same-Sex Marriage Ban

* Yes
*
4,605,065
* 52%
*
* 83%

* No
*
4,293,068
* 48%
* X

Updated: 2:24 AM PT


So did it not pass?

 

[kicktionair]

It passed.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DL2352

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

^people blinded by their beliefs? Some people believe gays should be allowed to be "married," some people believe gays should not be allowed to get "married." Or do you mean people that don't believe what you believe are blinded? That seems to be true for most of these political posts on NT.

Most of the No on Prop 8 beople here on NT are against Prop 8 because it in essence makes government discriminate against a minority group because they go against the personal beliefs of the majority. It's relinquishing a fundamental right for all Californians based entirely on sexual orientation.

And when was this fundamental right determined. It was never an issue before because, until recently, it was accepted that marriage was between a man and woman. Voters of California already voted to define marriage as between a man and woman, and 4 California justices decided the people were wrong. Prop 8 set to restate what voters already voiced their opinions on by amending the state constitution.

You stated where the fundamental right was determined. In the California Constitution. Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman in the state constitution. The California Justices you mentioned ruled that the constitution extends those rights to all since it didn't specify who could or could not marry. That's kind of why we have all this commotion right now

Exactly my point. Marriage was just assumed to be between a man and woman. It hasn't been until the social acceptance of gays/lesbians has the issue risen. Prop 8 defines in the State Constitution what the definition of marriage is.

And here is where the division begins. You've got one side who is okay with stripping civil rights from a group because they don't sharethe same values and you've got one side trying to uphold civil rights for all. I have my own religious views also and I admit that I'm conflicted onthe topic of homosexuality but never has it crossed my mind that it would ever be okay for me to push my personal values onto another person. Never did itcross my mind that it would be okay to tell someone that it's not okay for them to do something when everyone else deemed "normal" can. Iunderstand the concept of a separation of church and state. That's why I don't think I could ever support Prop 8 or any version of it that ever pops upever again.

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by segagenesis510

And really folks, religion and phobias shouldn't enter into your political opinion. When you vote, you should think about every person in your state or country, not just yourself. What benefits everyone, because benefiting all benefits yourself. One day, you might be on the defensive side, where your rights are up for decision, and then what? We aren't all one religion, we aren't all one race. We aren't all one gender, we are none of us the same. But here, in this country, WE ARE ALL AMERICAN.




And in advance, just because I'm for gay marriages doesn't mean I am gay. Learn to be a bit open-minded for once.

I'm not perfect or sinless but I refuse to sit there challenge God like that. I screw up in life but I'm not going to push His buttonslike that. I'm already in enough poo too be doing something like that. Nope not going to go down that street. Yeah it could comeback to hunt us (Idon't live in Cali and plus I didn't vote). As a matter of fact maybe people will get fed up with Christians/Christ followers and start to act outtoward them. Who knows. But I wont let this world break me.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by DL2352

And here is where the division begins. You've got one side who is okay with stripping civil rights from a group because they don't share the same values and you've got one side trying to uphold civil rights for all. I have my own religious views also and I admit that I'm conflicted on the topic of homosexuality but never has it crossed my mind that it would ever be okay for me to push my personal values onto another person. Never did it cross my mind that it would be okay to tell someone that it's not okay for them to do something when everyone else deemed "normal" can. I understand the concept of a separation of church and state. That's why I don't think I could ever support Prop 8 or any version of it that ever pops up ever again.

Civil rights are those rights defined within the U.S. Constitution. The right to marriage is not stated within the U.S. Constitution. Thereforeit is up to the people of the State to define and determine what "marriage" is. That definition and determination is made upon societiesmorales which you are confusing as church. Church does influence morales,but you assume only church going individuals voted yes on Prop 8. There are secular individuals that define marriage as between a man and woman as well. Soit comes down to what the State society wants to and is willing to accept.

 

[dl2352]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by DL2352

And here is where the division begins. You've got one side who is okay with stripping civil rights from a group because they don't share the same values and you've got one side trying to uphold civil rights for all. I have my own religious views also and I admit that I'm conflicted on the topic of homosexuality but never has it crossed my mind that it would ever be okay for me to push my personal values onto another person. Never did it cross my mind that it would be okay to tell someone that it's not okay for them to do something when everyone else deemed "normal" can. I understand the concept of a separation of church and state. That's why I don't think I could ever support Prop 8 or any version of it that ever pops up ever again.

Civil rights are those rights defined within the U.S. Constitution. The right to marriage is not stated within the U.S. Constitution. Therefore it is up to the people of the State to define and determine what "marriage" is. That definition and determination is made upon societies morales which you are confusing as church. Church does influence morales, but you assume only church going individuals voted yes on Prop 8. There are secular individuals that define marriage as between a man and woman as well. So it comes down to what the State society wants to and is willing to accept.

Let's not kid ourselves. The vast majority backing Yes on 8 are those who cling so tightly to their religion they can't let go for amoment to even consider the other side of the argument. To be in the shoes of those discriminated against. I truly feel this isn't a morale/religious issueat all. The bottom line is, Prop 8 will deny a minority group rights because the "moral majority" feel they shouldn't have that right.

 

[kix4kix]

I would like to thank NT for changing my views on this issue.