Explain Yourself

Okay, I will “explain myself”. I proudly voted yes on 8. In fact, I campaigned, called, walked, and gave money to ensure that it passed. And hallelujah, we did it. The constitution is amended. It is done.

I happen to believe the bible, which is clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. It is an opinion, not a “phobia”. Now, don’t start with the name calling. I have yet to engage in a debate with a single person who voted “no on 8” that did not end up in a name calling fit. We are adults and can speak reasonably to each other, no? I am not a bigot, am not intolerant and I do not hate anyone. I hold an opinion that is different than yours. You don’t need to call me names to make your point. I have heard your reasoning and I disagree, okay? For a group that is so insistent of tolerance, I don’t see much of that with respect to other opinions.

Forty four states have laws identical to Prop 8 and no state has ever voted for gay marriage. In fact, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd all voted for it and Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”). It contained language identical to Prop 8. Should we label these men intolerant? Why did these champions of “civil rights” vote for legislation that the “NO on 8” supporters would have us believe was an act of intolerance and hate? Because the truth is that neither DOMA nor PROP. 8 are about those things.
Why such large majorities, conservative and liberal, supporting measures similar to PROP. 8.? David Popenoe, a prominent sociologist, gives one reason: “Study after study supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is key for human development and that the contribution of mothers and fathers to child rearing is each unique and irreplaceable. Children raised in homes with a mother and a father perform better in every measurable way, academically, behaviorally, etc.” I happen to agree with him. Again, it is an opinion, not a phobia. Every objective study that I have seen supports him.
Lastly, I agree with your right to boycott whomever you wish. I know that the lists you produce of businesses you boycott are being distributed to those who voted yes with the commitment to move business to them. So, I am not sure of the effectiveness of boycotts on either side of the issue.

Myths and Facts about Proposition 8
MYTH: Proposition 8 enshrines discrimination in our Constitution.
FACT: Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays; it simply restores the meaning of marriage and protects it as an essential institution that has benefited mankind since the beginning of time. Every culture in the world understands that marriage is between a man and a woman. Californians from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds, whether religious or not, agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Proposition 8 does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian domestic partners. Gays and lesbians in California can already enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. The California Family Code says, “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits” of married spouses. There are NO exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change that.
MYTH: Allowing gay couples to legally marry does not affect anyone else.
FACT: The narrow decision of the State Supreme Court effectively renders all civil marriage meaningless and will result in tremendous confusion for children. The state Education Code (§51890) requires that teachers instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. If the gay marriage ruling becomes permanent, teachers will have little choice but to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
We should not accept a court decision that results in public school teachers teaching our kids that gay marriage is acceptable. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It should not be forced on us against our will.
MYTH: This proposition is the work of right wing radicals and extremists to attack the rights of gays.
FACT: Proposition 8 is supported by a broad range of organizations and individuals, including faith leaders representing virtually every faith in California – and those who subscribe to no faith at all. People from every walk of life believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Over 1.1 million Californians signed the petitions to put Proposition 8 on the ballot.

I love you and care you all.

You obviously don't "love me" because you fail to realize that, as a gay man, I am hard-wired to be the person who am I. I couldn't change my sexual orientation insomuch as you can change the color of your skin. And don’t tell me it’s a choice because why would anybody in their right mind *want* to be associated with such a marginalized and misunderstood segment of society…so what I am saying to you “i_love_you” is that this is not a matter of your religious faith (which, by the way, is a choice you make in life), this is about my sexual orientation (which, I *can’t* change) and, by extension, becomes a matter of my civil rights and human dignity. Your desire to strip me of my rights is a direct attack on my very person. You should feel completely ashamed of yourself because your righteousness belies your bigotry, fear, and ignorance. And your argument that “over 1.1 million Californian signed the petitions…” is weak and puts you on the wrong side of history. If you took high school civics, you would know that we live in a constitutional republic form of government which protects individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority because---guess what?---the majority may not always be right…think the Salem Witch Trials, Japanese internment, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, slavery, …the list goes on and on…There are checks and balances here that will eventual resolve your fervent and misguided belief that effectively diminishes my human rights and those of my lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brethren. I call on you to practice real love and understanding and accept and embrace me for who I am. I certainly don’t intend to take away your rights, your happiness, or your ability to marry who you wish.

Thowser:
C'mon, I know you can do it. Make your reply without calling those with a different opinion names. Give it a try...it will be a first, but I know you've got it in you. I have lots of gay friends, I am not intolerant, not hateful and not a bigot. So, try again.
There is enough data now on the other side of the "hard-wired" idea (in other words, it is a choice), to have a meaningful debate on the subject. But I understand that the gay lobby has been extemely effective in presenting the idea that the "science is settled" (It is not.) And the majority (not all) of the data (as I point out above) shows that children are better off with a mother and a father. So, if homosexuality is a choice and children are better off in heterosexual relationships, it does become a moral issue to place children in a situation where they will be less well off than otherwise. That is one of the reasons why I fought so hard for 8 to pass. It is about children.

Ok, If I get the loving logic here, the question of Roe V. Wade is settled.

So is prayer in school and the hanging of the Ten Commandments in courthouses...

I do also believe that the Morman church should be subject to income taxes now as the have decided to intrude quite effectively into the secular running of government. Agreed? (where's the IRS when you need them?) We could probably settle the national debt if we could get ahold of all that Catholic money!

While we're at it, how many children and down and out hetro couples could you help with the tens of millions spent on the Prop 8 campaign?

First, regarding the California State Education Code 51890, it says:

(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects:

. . .

(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

I think the MYTH here, is about what the kinds are supposed to be "confused" about, regarding marriage.

The code addresses "the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage", NOT about what constitutes marriage. And, by the time a child is old enough to partake in a class which teaches such responsibilities, then I doubt very much that they would be confused by a "straight" marriage, and a gay one.

Also, I have posted after other recent articles, about the rights afforded to a couple with registered, Domestic Partnership status, but unfortunately it still fails the "equality" test: A couple can REGISTER for D-P status, and receive true spousal rights, and they can also have a "civil union" ceremony, but while these together may appear to achieve the same results as a "regular" marriage, the issue is that they are still "separate but equal", which invalidates the very concept of equality. (Besides, since two elderly couples can become domestic partners, and not be considered married, then it's not *marriage* then, is it?)

Stranger, the more I see the "definition of a word" argument, the more I also see a disconnect in the communication. For example, the Yes-on-8 group says that the word "marriage" means a joining of a man and a woman (for the sake of this, ignoring whether its a religious or civil/state ceremony). I could understand that, IF it were necessary to have a word for a man-man, or woman-woman, joining--and even then, would it then be necessary to have separate words for each? But that's ridiculous, as the important part is that it's a loving couple in matrimony. As male-male and female-female relationships are combined as "gay", then all of the pairings should just fall under "marriage".

The only thing that I find somewhat confusing, is what to call the husband/wife in a same-sex marriage. Are they both husbands, and both wives, or does one become the designated gender [applying the word "gender" as to mean the socially constructed role, not to be confused with the "sex" of a person]. . .I'm thinking that we stick with "marriage" for all couples, "husband" for each male, and "wife" for each female. This would also be helpful in social situations, by letting people know the public status of a couple, while downplaying any awkwardness. For example, if some woman at a party introduces another woman as her wife, then you know they are gay and married--simple, and not confusing.

If we cannot bash on The Gays, then we will have to worry about the Economy and the War instead.

Also, why have a Judicial branch of Government?

http://www.independent.com/blogs/santa-b...

Here is a challenge for all the church bashers:
Do a survey of the population of California about their "religious" beliefs & how it affects their way of thinking.
I bet $$$ to doughnuts that you'll find the majority of voters in CA are mainly of the agnostic (doubting) mindset, many will also be atheist (seriously non-believeing) or lossely knit believer w/ no affiliation to any church or temple.
W/ that said, look @ the result of the vote: 52/48. How much of that was religious based? Well, if the research poll #'s from the above survey conducted some time back are correct, the majority of that vote is of the non-believeing to lossely knit belief range.
Sure, organized religion played a huge part in the funding of prop 8, but it ultimately came down to the voters.
Mentioned it MANY times before, I'll say it again: It came down to social attitudes mainly & those attitudes were affected by taunts such as Gavin Newsom's "It's gonna happen... Whether you like it or not!" comment effectively used in the yes on 8 campaings.
Before 11/4/08 there were many people sitting on the fence about it w/ an unfavorable view of prop 8. Then the comment got out in those ads & it was seen as a gloating taunt that was translated as "You can vote against it, but the courts will negate your vote."
It was the hubris of some of the no on 8 camp that ruined it.
This shouldn't have even been on a ballot. It would be like putting a measure on the ballot to reinstate slavery & we know that won't fly.
I don't like the state in my bedroom or my church, some folks don't like the state overturning their votes, it's a complex equation that goes beyond religious beliefs/norms.
It comes down to human nature & the only constant there is the inconsistency of said nature :) henry

OK Loveforall let's talk about the bible even though it has no place in creating legislation.

BTW, I've never used name calling & have attempted to converse with you before but it appears you'd rather cling to your believe that all prop 8 no voters are name callers.

Show me exactly where this book specifically condems committed homosexual relationships. Please don't bother to provide me with quotes about homosexual acts because the bible also condems heterosexual acts.

Furthermore, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality at all.

I was raised a Chrisitan & am appalled at what has been done & continues to be done in the name of Christianity.

I remember when interacial marriages were condemed. And now we have a president elect who not only is the product of such a marriage but was raised by a single parent.

In time, this prejudice against homosexuality will finally become as socially antiquated as interacial marriages or women being allowed to vote. And those who proudly supported this ammendment will, hopefully one day, wake up to the fact that this ammendment passing was one more sad moment in the history of the struggle for human rights.

River:
First, you are wrong about the bible not being part of creating legislation. Most of our basic laws come from the Judea - Christian teachings of the bible. "Thou shalt not kill". Sound familiar? You cannot seperate the two. Although, these days, the atheists are trying.

Second, I did not say that all No on 8er's were name callers. Just the ones I have spoken to. But congratulations, you managed to respond without calling me a single name. Way to go!

Third, c'mon, you have got to be kidding, right? There are at least a dozen or more references in the scripturres condemning homosexuality. You must have fallen asleep in Sunday School. Try Romans 1:27 and 1Tim 1:10, for starters. You are correct in that we do not have, in our current set of records, the words of Jesus himself about homosexuality. But his designated spokesmen, the Apostles, were clear about it and he never disagreed with them in the writings. We do have Jesus being clear about the importance of marriage between a man and woman. He also talked about the importance of fidelity in marriage.

Lastly, I am not prejudice against homosexuality. Prejudice is defined as an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. My opinions on homosexuality have been formed with a great deal of thought and reasoning for many years. And they are based on the teachings of bible, which I hold as sacred scripture. It is not a phobia, I have many gays friends, it is an opinion. We disagree. That's okay. There is room for everyone.

What else you got?

That's right, Loveforall. when you run out of reasons to try to prove your point, just use semantics. You just confuse the issue with your rhetoric.

This passage of 8 will be be overturned eventually as this is a civil issue and should not be decided by emotional people that it does not affect. Tell us, or better yet, don't tell us, how your life is affected by your homosexual neighbors wanting the same legal protections that you would have if you are married.

After prejudice is bigotry. Another word might be discrimination. And all must be legislated out eventually.
We are making headway.

I'm a woman and I can vote. I did not "choose" to be a woman-that's the gender I happen to be from birth--determined at conception.

I am married to a wonderful man who cannot mark "caucasion" on any form that requires it.
I did not set out to have an interracial marriage, but love got in the way and yes I did choose to go with that committed love.

Why should anyone place constraints on another's pursuit of happiness if it does no interfere with society's pursuit of happiness.?

LFA,

In Sunday School I was taught about Jesus's love, not about the condemnation of homosexuality.

It is a shame that so many consider themselves to be Christians but are followers of Paul (author of Romans) rather than Jesus. Paul, as a self appointed apostle, perverted much of Jesus's teachings.

This is very common with many religious movements where there is first a visionary who attracts many people. After the visionary's death, someone else comes a long who tries to codify the visionary's teachings & in doing so perverts the original intent.

We don't know who wrote Timothy but we do know that there are numerous intepretations of the passage you are referring to, and many do not agree that it refers to homosexuality. It all centers around one greek word & many versions of the bible have gone far afield in their interpretation.

I think if you are going to quote the bible, & follow its teachings you should learn more about this book, how it came into being, how some parts were omitted, the debate about various translations etc etc.

I did not realize that "thou shall not kill" had recently been put into law in this country. I relieved to hear that our government will no longer be sanctioning war or capital punishment.

Speaking of legislation & the bible, here is a famous quote by one of the most influential of our country's founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson-

"Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Savior.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."

I understand the imperative here. Kill the messenger. You must eliminate Paul from the discussion in order to justify yourself. I get it. That's okay. But ninety-nine percent of the Christian world revere Paul for who he was, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was called to the position by the Resurrected Christ himself. And he had some pretty clear views on homosexuality. Which I happen to agree with. I am happy that I do not have to stretch as hard as you do, to get the bible to mean what it says. So you and I can agree to disagree.

bajamama:
Run out reasons? I have not even started. I gave you two reasons in my first post, that you and all the others are choosing to ignore. I will let you respond in a reasoned way to those, before I give you some more. You can't just stomp your feet and say, "your data is wrong." No it isn't. Come back with something we can discuss. I won't just keep making my original points over and over.

LFA,

I have not eliminated Paul from this discussion, in fact I introduced him to this discussion.

It is difficult to have a reasoned discussion with someone who believes the bible (which version?) is sacred truth because there are so many interpretations of this text & many that condradict others & many that have totally mis-translated words to mean something that linguists say are not true.

There is no imperitive, I have no need to justify anything about myself nor am I stretching in the slightest. I am sharing what I have learned by studying theology for years. This is all very common knowledge.

I suggest you refrain from pointing fingers at the person you are having a discussion with & stay on topic. After all you are the one who has called for a reasoned discussion. Attributing motivation to the person you are having a discussion is closely related to name calling. It derails a rational discussion.

99 percent of Christians revere Paul? Show me the rescource for this number please. Somehow I was not included in this amazing survey.

Regardless, of whether you believe Paul was self appointed or not, he has certainly defined a lot of modern Christianity. But in doing so, he has contradicted some of the teachings of Jesus. Even so, it is a myth that there is any clarity regarding Paul's view of homosexualtiy. At the heart of this debate is the meaning of one greek word. There is no consensus as to its definition.

Personally, I find the religion of Jesus to be a much more compassionate one than that of Paul.

That's the point, river, the religion of Jesus was the religion of Paul. Jesus called him and taught him. Paul was his biggest defender and in fact gave his life for his testimony of Jesus. And as I said, you need to rationalize the crystal clear teachings of Paul about homosexuality to justify the lifestyle. For if Paul was called by Jesus, taught what he was told to teach and defended the teachings of Jesus and was a divinely commissioned Apostle of Jesus, then you are in trouble. So, you must make Paul something less than he was in order to be safe.

I understand that. But at least be honest about it.

LFA, The discussion has turned far away from being a reasonable one because

1) you continue to ignore the fact that many of Paul's teachings contradict Jesus's teachings &

2) you continue to ignore the fact that there are numerous translations of Pauls' & other biblical writings.

Biblical translations are anything but crystal clear. I assume you understand they were written in another language?

I suggest you continue with your bible studies. It is a fascinating journey & does not have to threaten your core religious beliefs but instead may even deepen them.

Good luck.

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron George wrote in his May opinion about same-gender marriage that, under the California Constitution, "the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

The true bigots here are the gay people who are crucifying and trying to guilt people who don't think like they do.

Sure it's ok to have different views, as long as they are the same as yours.

I am all for gay rights, but why do we call "Same Sex Marriage" just that? Why is there "Same Sex" appended to the front of the word marriage? Well because it's NOT the same thing. If it was, we wouldn't have to say "Same Sex Marriage".

We didn't change the meaning of the word "Vote" when our elected officials gave minorities and women the rights to vote did we? We don't say "Women Votes" or "White Men Votes" do we?

I for one think it's irresponsible for our generation to change a centuries old institution to fit with what we think is right today.

And no, I'm not religious. But that doesn't change what the institution of marriage is, or that because I'm not religious I have to shut my eyes and ignore where it came from or respect what it means to other people.

The people opposed to Prop 8 don't really care what other peoples views are. They are "right", period. That is the true definition of a Bigot, exactly what they are saying they are against.

Pot, kettle, black...

Of course bronc is correct. There is no room for any other opinions in the world of the "no on 8" crowd. You are either with them or you are intolerant, a bigot or hateful.

And "river" is semi-delusional (oops, forgive me, I called someone a name) about what is in the bible and accuses me of ignoring the commentary. Hello, is not that exactly what river did? Of course river must ignore large parts of the bible and discount who Paul was in order to justify the homosexual lifestyle. You are correct that some parts of the bible are not clear. Unfortunately, Pauls (and others) commentary on homosexuality is not one of them. Does is mean what it says or not? C'mon river - you want to debate the bible - let's go. Give me some examples of Paul contradicting Jesus and I will explain them. What this has to do with what Paul said, I still don't know. Pick whatever translation of the bible you want. Let's go to the original greek (NT) for all I care.

And as for David Pritchett quoting a Supreme - thankfully, that is one mans opinion. This exact question of law has been ruled on in several other states and has come down the opposite way every single time. So, when this comes again to the California Supreme Court in March, they will be bucking the precendent of every single one of those cases to overturn the will of the voters of Prop. 8. I will be shocked if it is overturned. And if it is, it will go to the US Supreme court, where they love to overturn the crazies of California.

LFA,

This is my final post in response to you on this subject. I am disappointed that you resorted to name calling given your many previous complaints toward others you claimed did the same.

It is juvenile & antagonistic & does nothing to support your argument or further the discussion. So, I'll reserve my time for those who show the intellectual & emotional maturity to debate difficult subjects without resorting to such tactics.

If you are truly interested in learning more about what theologians have been discussing for decades regarding the discrepencies between Paul & Jesus, the variety of translations that are common knowledge regarding the bible, or the many other fascinating events that went into forming this book over the years, you can easily do the research yourself.

That's why god made google. 8>)

Or consider enrolling in the world class Religious Studies department at UCSB.

To claim that Christian values are inseparable from current laws is incorrect, especially by simply citing "Thou shalt not kill." I'm fairly certain this concept was around before Christianity.

Yes, we did have separate names for voting, it was called Women's Suffrage. Once the commotion over something so radical died down, it was simply called voting again. This is very similar to what happens anytime a new concept enters into public consciousness, it's why my mother no longer makes air quotes when she says "e-mail."

Marriage is hardly just a Christian tradition. It wasn't Jesus presiding over Zeus and Athena's ceremony.

This whole issue is just another changing of the guard, same as whenever a radical king made divorce a part of the institution of marriage centuries ago, same as we changed a honeymoon into a consenting vacation as opposed to an abduction of the "bride" from her family, same as interracial marriage, same as it ever was, same as it ever was... Gay marriage will be accepted, it's inevitable, and later generations will never have any clue of the fuss. The larger issue of this isn't about losing the right to marry. What's hurtful is the happiness people got from taking it away.

Stay sharp.

I would direct LFA to the following for significant evidence that Proponoe is full of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parent...

Just lifting a tidbit from the American Psychological Ass.:

"First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002)."

So, opinions are one thing, but trying to back them with scant evidence is another. Just stick to your opinion and leave it at that. And ask your many gay friends whether they "chose" to be gay or not. Then ask yourself if they didn't choose to be gay, why are you discriminating against them? Then think about changing your opinion based on reality. Reality-based opinions tend to move humankind forward.

: : : Best comment in these many post-Prop. 8 debate threads?

Hands down, look at the one two spots up by "truestories." Game, set, match. Good night now.

I want my marriage to my wife to be called a gay union - is that okay?

Tegrat:
You are kidding, right? You refer me to Wikipedia, which is written by and edited by the LGBT community to refute a respected scientist like David Popenoe? C'mon you can do better than that.

Second, the American Psychology Association has long been known and acknowledged as a far left organization, that has been shepherded along by the gay community. Every objective scientist takes everything they publish with a grain of salt. Me too.

I have had countless discussions with my gay friends on the subject of "nature vs. nuture" and it is about fifty-fifty. Some feel they were born that way, others clearly a choice. So, we debate it. So you don't need to lecture me on opinions and how they affect my position on Prop 8. Go back and read the first post on this thread.

We have words to communicate differences.

Homo and Hetero
Boy and Girl
Black and White
Same-sex Union and Marriage.
Alcoholic and non.
Handicap and non.
ADD and non...

It's the differences that make the world so interesting and beautiful.

If only we could recognize them and cherish them for their differences, and not try to hide them with less words.

Some words describe sinful choices and some God given differences - but does it matter how we classify the difference?

Separate can be equal.

We have separate boys and girls bathrooms and we are now treating girls much more equally then ever in our history of the world, many times completely equally. But we will never call girls, boys, as kindergartners do.

Unless we regress to the kindergarten foolishness of the No on Prop 8'ers.

Ps. I do love you thowser. I will call you thowser and non other, for the awesome creation that you are.

Here's a difference you forgot to list: Church and state.

We're talking about LEGAL differences, and the beautiful word that describes LEGAL differences? Discrimination.

AShaw:

Your interesting pedophilia narrative is not a solid argument because it leaves out one important aspect of modern society: consent. We have a legal framework in place that declares that minors (especially very young children) are not capable of fully comprehending the magnitude of certain actions, and we therefore protect them from the consequences of poor choices. Two adult men or women living their lives as they see fit is an entirely different matter.

Good posts truestories.

History provides us with so many wrongs done to others in the name of humans thinking they were right about their personal interpretation of biblical scripture.

And over the years, some have quoted the writings of Paul to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. Some currently continue to use his writings to oppress women & limiting their role in the home, church & society.

And yet history provides us with examples of humans who have had the courage to reverse their self admitted limited views on issues they once were so sure they were right about - the apostle Paul is one example, Jerry Falwell is another.

Once upon a time, Galileo was proclaimed a heretic by a Pope quoting scritptures, because he dared to support the view of Copernicus who claimed all planets, including the earth, revolve around the sun.

One day, these ignorant views on homosexuality will seem just as ridiculous as those who believed, because the bible told them so, that the earth did not move.

I think you're getting it truestories.

Homo and Hetero
Boy and Girl
Black and White
Same-sex Union and Marriage
Church and state

Separate but equal. No discrimination.

And truestories, I love you too.

For the love of differences without discrimination, please preserve marriage for heterosexuals.

And preserve same-sex unions for homosexuals.

Make them equal, legally but not use the same WORD.
Do not mess up the Church with the State. Yes truestories they are separate.

yon8

Oh for the love of god (truly) what is the deal with the need to preserve a damn (the devil made me write that) word.

I'm claiming matrimony as the new Word which is welcome for all to use as long as you are consenting adults- regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, bank account, employment status, planet of origin, number of children, favorite color, height, weight &/or age.

Jesus has told me so, so there.

If you disagree then that proves you are the devil's food cake.

8 > )

i_love_you:

"Make them equal, legally but not use the same WORD.
Do not mess up the Church with the State."

This has nothing to do with the Church. We are discussing the civil term "marriage." The religious institution is not under the jurisdiction of the law. And because it is a different word, it implies a difference, and a need for separation. Hence, inequality and discrimination.

There he/she goes again. River keeps trying to discount the teachings of Paul on the subject of homosexuality. Because weak humans have used Paul's writings to justify bad things, does not make the writings bad. Paul condemned homosexuality and was extremely clear about it. Sorry, River, I know he makes life difficult for you but Paul is not going away, despite your best efforts.

Ok typo, thank you, we’ll stay focused on the civil term "marriage."

River and typo, why would you discriminate on AGE and use consent as the foundation of your argument for marriage? Isn’t this bigotry? I know that you are NOT bigots.

In the great country of Ethiopia and some areas of West Africa, some girls get married as early as age 7. Who are you to judge them and decide what is right for them if they move to America?

If we change it as river wants to “I'm claiming matrimony as the new Word” and also as river wants to not discriminate against “height, weight &/or age.” then this is exactly what Ashaw was warning us about when you criticized him.

Also, why would you discriminate against pedophiles? One can argue that they do not have a choice and that there exists consent.

Why not consent as adults to kill each other – like the wild west! Is that ok? Remember, don’t be a bigot or discriminate. Where do you base your “morality”?

As you know, all derivatives will rise up, just like homosexuals to be included in “marriage”. And it will start with some “progressive” judges in San Francisco legislating from the bench. Going against the will of the people!

As our friend Ashaw stated “An incremental slow process is the degradation of morality ...step by step...”

Our fallen nature of human depravity makes us behave as if we are spineless jellyfish with no morality nor discipline. Please get into worship of your higher power – your creator or whomever you wish and prayerfully ask for direction on this matter.

If you care not to worship or pray on this then get out your history book and read again what happened in Rome and other civilizations. Again as Ashaw stated “Same as happened in Rome.”

I ask that we stay focused on wisdom and discernment.
Peace to you.

Jesus says he's sure Paul meant well although they never met.

Jesus says its time to remind everyone to get back to the basics.

river....remember I asked that we stay focused on wisdom and discernment.

Of course the Creator met Paul silly, He created him and his words.

Also river, let's honor the non-religious argument for a moment as typo wanted "This has nothing to do with the Church. We are discussing the civil term "marriage.""

Since we are not a religious state, let’s steer clear of this argument for a while if we can.

River says, "Jesus says he's sure Paul meant well although they never met."

Try this - King James Version: Acts Chapter 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he afell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

Never met? Try again.

I'm starting to agree with Ashaw - two men choosing to have anal sex gives them a civil right? It is insulting to the civil rights movement.

Jesus says yes LFA you are getting warmer. Many many have had these visits in dreams, in visions. To this day. And the question still remains, "why do you persecute me?"

i_love_you:

"In the great country of Ethiopia and some areas of West Africa, some girls get married as early as age 7. Who are you to judge them and decide what is right for them if they move to America?"

In this country, it has been established that persons under the age of 18 are not yet fully capable of making certain decisions with full understanding of the ramifications. This is based on the mental, social and emotional development of children, which is manifested in increasing intelligence and maturity. These developments do not end precisely at age 18, but it is a rough compromise that protects children and ensures rights for adults. If you believe that children as young as seven are capable of making such a monumental choice as who they will be spending their life with, then you may very well support the laws of Ethiopia. I do not.

"Also, why would you discriminate against pedophiles? One can argue that they do not have a choice and that there exists consent."

While I do believe it is probably that there is some amount of inherent desire that drives pedophilia, the fact is that due to the minor status of victims, our laws do not consider the possibility of consent in instances of pedophilia.

"Why not consent as adults to kill each other – like the wild west! Is that ok?"

That is an interesting thought. Should duels be legal? Of course, there would have to be signed agreements between parties absolving the other of responsibility, but that's another topic entirely and I'd like to stay on subject.

"Where do you base your 'morality'?"

Are you implying, by the quotes, that I have an inferior set of morals? I try base my morals, like our laws, on logic, because if I cannot justify my beliefs, then it is likely that they are not reasonable.

"Our fallen nature of human depravity makes us behave as if we are spineless jellyfish with no morality nor discipline. Please get into worship of your higher power – your creator or whomever you wish and prayerfully ask for direction on this matter."

It is evident that we have differing ideas of what is depraved and moral and disciplined. You are feel to think and act as you believe you are directed, but others who are directed otherwise should not be subject to your decrees, unless they are firmly grounded with a logical basis that is not beholden to any religion.

"Again as Ashaw stated 'Same as happened in Rome.'"

Did the fall of Rome have anything to do with homosexuality? Or the creation of a progressive society? The fall of the Roman Empire had many causes, but neither of those are likely suspects.

"...FREE to think and act..."

Not "feel." My mistake.

Ah, the fall of the Rome! Civilizations come and go. Not neccessarily good or bad, more due to the cyclical nature of things. Empires overeach, then implode.

The fall of the Roman empire, as was taught in in high school world history (hopefully) was due to many intertwined factors including Christianity, debauchary, public health problems, political corruption, inflation & unemployment, lack of technological invention, military spending, decay of cities, overpopulation (vs resources to sustain).

Finally, during its civil war, Italy was invaded by Germany, the empire was overthrown & Rome was kaput.

Being hetro and single, I don't really have a dog in this hunt but I will say this about that...

All of you who quote the bible as a reason for civil rules are no better than the Taliban.

I don't mind who or what you worship but you should keep it to yourselves.

If you have 2008 reality reasons for law making than put them on the table. To quote 2000 year old fables as justification is just wrong. It's been proven wrong time and again throughout history. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Should we be hunting down and burning the Wiccan next?

Have you checked with the Buddists and the Hindus? I think they make Abrahamics an also-ran in the religion game...

Thank you showing us your logic river. "In this country, it has been established that..."

Therefore we can use your words and your same logic and safely make a conclusion then:

"In this State of California, it has been established that persons of the same sex are not to be married but rather use the term same-sex union."

Game over - checkmate. Prop 8 won. The results have been counted - now respect the will of the people.

Thank you river....In this country, it has been established that...

In this country, it has been established that...

ILY, I have no idea what you are ranting about, I never wrote what you've attributed to me

I suggest you get in touch with your inner jesus & get a grip

river:

"ILY, I have no idea what you are ranting about, I never wrote what you've attributed to me"

He/she's quoting the opening of my response to the argument involving marriage in Ethiopia. The phrase he quotes, however, is the least important part of my post. Following it, I explain logically why it is established in this country to not allow minors to marry. i_love_you then uses the same generic introduction, assuming it will somehow validate the claim which s/he does not attempt to logically defend.

The point being, merely saying something is established in this country is meaningless. Unless you can explain logically why it is a necessary establishment, you have nothing to say.

sa1:
“Quoting the bible for civil rules”…hmmm…you mean like “thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal”. What you fail to understand is that most of our “civil rules” have their roots in the moral principals of the scriptures. “Don’t legislate morality” you say…without realizing that we do that everyday in our society, with rules based on the morals of the majority. Are there “civil rules” against killing people and stealing? Of course there are and they came from the bible.

You certainly are entitled to believe that the bible is “2000 year old fables”, but to the vast majority of Americans, it is God’s word. Weak humans choosing to justify evil acts does not make the word less true.

Here we go again: as usual the 30% or so of the most religious among us must again try to turn America into a theocratic state with a rigid cultural conformity rivaled only by the Muslim world. How ironic! They're doing their darndest to make us just like the folks they love to hate.

But seriously, the battle may be lost but the end game is going to be won by the enlightened majority. Its clear that same gender (and transgender) marriage will become a fact of life. Its already law in many western industrialized nations and as with other civil rights issues, it will be decided on the reality of the diversity of humanity. Why should that surprise the cultural stragglers who always drag their feet kicking and screaming into tomorrow? Think about how different YOU are from the majority of people with a positive 'live and let live' philosophy toward others!

Hey, 'Yes on Prop 8' supporters, look on the bright side. When you find out that you have a sibling, a friend, a co-worker, a child, grandchild or great grandchild who turns out to have a different sexual orientation (as did Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich), you'll be invited to their wedding! To ease the pain of watching their happiness you can at least drown your bitterness in their champagne. Cheers!

Loveforall:

"Are there “civil rules” against killing people and stealing? Of course there are and they came from the bible."

No, they followed logically out of the vision of an enlightened society, where laws are based not in subjective morality. Murder and stealing are both harmful to innocent people, and therefore cannot be tolerated. This is an instance where logic and religious morality lead to the same conclusion, but such is not always the case.

"...with rules based on the morals of the majority."

As the founding fathers knew well, the will of the majority could not be trusted to maintain freedom, and that is why they established the judiciary, with "activist judges" empowered to override the people's will when it was deemed oppressive and unconstitutional.

Hey Empty:
"the end game is going to be won"...Who is delusional? You lost in the most liberal state in the country, with turnout of the liberal base the highest in history who elected the most liberal senator we have as President, finallly broke the color barrier by electing an African-American, had the highest turnout of arguably the most"civil rights" minded folks among us (the African-Americans, God bless them), kept the liberal Democrats in power in congress and almost gave them a blank check with power (60 in the Senate) and with all that momentum you STILL could not get gay marriage passed. It has never happened in the history of our country in any state that has ever voted on it and if you could not do it in the perfect storm of November 2008 - as they say - fugetabotit, ain't gonna happen. You had your perfect chance and blew it.

"...if you could not do it in the perfect storm of November 2008 - as they say - fugetabotit, ain't gonna happen. You had your perfect chance and blew it."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hang on, gotta catch my breath.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

And I suppose when I fell off my bike I never rode again? When Rosa Parks got arrested everyone gave up? When the first Jew was put in a concentration camp everyone gave up? When the first Christian was fed to a lion everyone quit believing? And most importantly, I suppose on 11/5/08 history stopped being written?

You've had 2000 of years of Christianity, 250 years of the USA, 8 years of Bush, and somehow gays still exist? And you think because we suffered a setback during the election, the first of many setbacks we've overcome, that this is over, done, ain't gonna happen?

Fugetaboutit!

Obama is hardly the most liberal senator. He is quite centrist in many ways. Which is why so many republicans voted for him.

I never said the battle is over. Read carefully between laughs. I understand that the fight is on. I was pointing out that this issue has never had (nor will have) a better chance at passing than November 2008 in California. And you could not get it passed.

The folks are not buying your "civil rights" argument. If they were, the African-American community would have voted overwhelming against the ban. Instead, they voted overwhelming for it. Equating how you choose to have sex to civil rights is an insult to the civil rights movement. Most reasonable people see that, despite all the effort to sell it as a civil rights issue. Hence, Prop 8 passes.

I have no question about your passion in getting this done. I experienced it first hand campaigning for Prop 8. I am sure you will be back. But your best opportunity may have just been missed.

Oh and hey river is back. Way to go, river. Wrong with the facts as usual. Strictly on his voting record in the Senate, Obama was by far the most liberal senator. Many Republicans voted for him because he sold the message of a new start. I did not vote for him, but I am rooting for him, as we need a new start.

It is a mistake to believe that that because Obama won, it was due to liberal voters who might vote against Prop 8. Obama appealed to a wide range of voters. Prop 8 won for the same reason that GWB won a second term (beside the voter fraud) - the campaign played into people's ignorance & fear.

I believe this issue will, hopefully soon, become a moot point, similar to interracial marriage. As more younger voters join the ranks, it will change the cultural viewpoint. As a rule, it is largely the older generation who have grown up in a world where homosexuality was kept in the closet, that seem to have the most misconceptions & fears about such diversity.

There are many studies about who is the most liberal voter in the senate & they don't agree. So there are no 'facts' to be right or wrong about. One of the studies placed Obama at about 10th but a voting record is not the only criteria to judge someone's political orientation.

However that requires more intellectual exertion than some people have in them.

Do you have a problem reading? I did not say "that because Obama won, it was due to liberal voters who might vote against Prop 8."

I said November 2008 brought a record number of liberal voters to the polls specifically to vote for their hero - Obama. Even with all of those new liberal voters in the booth, and with all the momentum and excitement of electing our first African-American President, you still could not defeat Prop. 8. Why not?

I give the folks much more credit than "fear and ignorance as reasons.

They are not buying what you are selling.

LFA, that snipey immature comment on my reading ability is quite ironic since it appears from your response that my point sailed right over your head.

May you find the way to love that your handle proclaims.

What is that sad lesson?