n1ywb
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Green Mountains
Prop 8 is such a joke. If you really want to protect marriage, criminalize adultery, and ban divorce.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
Prop 8 & others
- Thread starter tharlanjr
- Start date
Sweet argument you got there...
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
and valid too.
EXCEPT...marriage is a religious institution adopted by the state. Religions following the Ten Commandmants abided by "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" Catholicism marriages state, What God has joined, let no man break apart (or something like that) that is their way of stating in the ceremony, No Adultry! & No Divorce!
The state (meaning ruling authority, not just California) latch onto the idea of marriage for "Property Rights" through dowry's and inheritances.
I thought long and hard before casting my vote on Prop 8. It came down to this...."What would Jesus do?"
Last edited:
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is indeed a crime. That was one of the things I liked about the military.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Rarely enforced.
n1ywb
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Green Mountains
I just find it ironic that a state with a 75% divorce rate is telling people they can't get married because it would hurt the institution of marriage.
I disagree that marriage springs from religion. Many species practice monogamy. Humans have been primarily monogamous for time immemorial. The state and church have always had different ideas about what marriage is exactly.
Anyway the state will probably just call it "civil union" instead and it will basically be the same thing under a different name. A duck is still a duck.
I disagree that marriage springs from religion. Many species practice monogamy. Humans have been primarily monogamous for time immemorial. The state and church have always had different ideas about what marriage is exactly.
Anyway the state will probably just call it "civil union" instead and it will basically be the same thing under a different name. A duck is still a duck.
xj_dummy
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- reedley, ca.
X2
- Location
- Southern Maryland
First a disclaimer, I do not live in Calif or any other state dealing with the issue AFAIK.
My political position is that neither the states nor the federal govt have any need to interfere with unions of any kind. This means gay marriage, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or all of the above. I do not believe the government should sanction any kind of personal relationships; to the extent that such relationships need to be recorded for the purpose of survivor benefits or tort, the govt can act as a simple registrar, not a licensor. This is my political position, which is based on my opinion of the appropriate role of our government.
My personal position is quite a bit different. Generally speaking I find that advocates of gay marriage are promoting extra rights for themselves and not pursuing equality. Furthermore I find that they are typically engaging in the "we're queer and we're here" in-your-face politics that backfire, and therefore get what they deserve. In particular, I've asked several advocates of gay marriage if they support polygamy, and every single one of them have said no. Don't you support equality? Oh there are all kinds of problems with polygamy like X, Y and Z. So you want extra rights for gays not equal rights?
In fact, prohibitions against polygamy are more easily challenged, since they constitute a ban on religious practice. Let the homos fight the laws from that angle. They won't do it though, since they are interested in gay rights not equal rights.
Finally, I also think the political process has played out about like it should. The appropriate resolution to these conflicts is to allow the people to choose the kind of laws they want to live under, which is ultimately the whole point of democratic regimes. To be sure, I do not favor having the courts mandate that some kinds of exceptional relationships are allowed while others are not.
My political position is that neither the states nor the federal govt have any need to interfere with unions of any kind. This means gay marriage, polygamy, incestuous marriage, or all of the above. I do not believe the government should sanction any kind of personal relationships; to the extent that such relationships need to be recorded for the purpose of survivor benefits or tort, the govt can act as a simple registrar, not a licensor. This is my political position, which is based on my opinion of the appropriate role of our government.
My personal position is quite a bit different. Generally speaking I find that advocates of gay marriage are promoting extra rights for themselves and not pursuing equality. Furthermore I find that they are typically engaging in the "we're queer and we're here" in-your-face politics that backfire, and therefore get what they deserve. In particular, I've asked several advocates of gay marriage if they support polygamy, and every single one of them have said no. Don't you support equality? Oh there are all kinds of problems with polygamy like X, Y and Z. So you want extra rights for gays not equal rights?
In fact, prohibitions against polygamy are more easily challenged, since they constitute a ban on religious practice. Let the homos fight the laws from that angle. They won't do it though, since they are interested in gay rights not equal rights.
Finally, I also think the political process has played out about like it should. The appropriate resolution to these conflicts is to allow the people to choose the kind of laws they want to live under, which is ultimately the whole point of democratic regimes. To be sure, I do not favor having the courts mandate that some kinds of exceptional relationships are allowed while others are not.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
1) Marriage may be a function of the Church, but what's to prevent gays from forming their own Chuch? Problem solved.
2) If gays want to be able to get married like straights; again, what's the problem? I don't see it.
3) How does gay marriage "attack" conventional marriage? If you want to prevent marriage from being "cheapened," perhaps we should forbid anyone residing in Hollyweird from getting married. Entertainers seem to get married more often than I buy new boots (annually, by the by.) That, and it kinda reminds me of a line from a Tim Wilson song - "Been married nine times? Hell, maybe it's you!"
4) I don't see how a gay couple can be more or less "monogamous" than a straight couple. Case in point - I know a gay couple that has been together for the fifteen years that I've known them, and they were together a few years before that. Publicly, they get along like oil & water - but there's got to be something there - they're going on 20 years, if they haven't passed it already. Considering what I see of straight marriages, 20 years is admirable (there are plenty of people who thought my wife and I wouldn't be together six months and get married - much less the twelve years together we're working on right now... We exchange ten-year rings next year.)
5) "Marriage" does not necessarily equate to "monogamy" - while it usually does in a circumstantial sense; they are not, strictly speaking, sematically equal. There's nothing at all wrong with polygamy, bigamy, polyandry, polygyny, or any other relationship of more than two people - the principal purpose of a "marriage" is to provide a stable and supportive home for the participants and any progeny. If I were to find out about a group of four guys and four girls that were all "married" to each other (polygamy,) were all happy, and all provided a stable and loving home for each other and their children - I don't see a problem. If one woman wants to marry two guys (polyandry) and can make it work for all concerned, what's the problem? Frankly, I don't care anyhow - the key to me is "is everyone happy?" If they are, then it must be working. There's certainly nothing morally or ethically wrong with any variety of "multiple marriage" - be it polyandry, polygyny, polygamy, or "line marriage." (Economically, the "line marriage" would be good - since the "marriage" isn't dissolved by death - as long as one participant of each gender is still involved - estate taxes and suchlike would probably be out the window. As they properly should be - you've already paid taxes building the estate, why should you have to pay taxes again when you pass it along?)
A multiple marriage likely isn't for everyone - but there are, I'm sure, people who could make it work and be happy doing so - so why deny them the opportunity?
But, if we want to "preserve" marriage, then let's go with what has been mentioned - raise the bar for divorces, and perhaps forbid Hollyweird marriages. It's mainly the recent crop of entertainers - Bob Hope was married for something like 60-70 years, wasn't he?
2) If gays want to be able to get married like straights; again, what's the problem? I don't see it.
3) How does gay marriage "attack" conventional marriage? If you want to prevent marriage from being "cheapened," perhaps we should forbid anyone residing in Hollyweird from getting married. Entertainers seem to get married more often than I buy new boots (annually, by the by.) That, and it kinda reminds me of a line from a Tim Wilson song - "Been married nine times? Hell, maybe it's you!"
4) I don't see how a gay couple can be more or less "monogamous" than a straight couple. Case in point - I know a gay couple that has been together for the fifteen years that I've known them, and they were together a few years before that. Publicly, they get along like oil & water - but there's got to be something there - they're going on 20 years, if they haven't passed it already. Considering what I see of straight marriages, 20 years is admirable (there are plenty of people who thought my wife and I wouldn't be together six months and get married - much less the twelve years together we're working on right now... We exchange ten-year rings next year.)
5) "Marriage" does not necessarily equate to "monogamy" - while it usually does in a circumstantial sense; they are not, strictly speaking, sematically equal. There's nothing at all wrong with polygamy, bigamy, polyandry, polygyny, or any other relationship of more than two people - the principal purpose of a "marriage" is to provide a stable and supportive home for the participants and any progeny. If I were to find out about a group of four guys and four girls that were all "married" to each other (polygamy,) were all happy, and all provided a stable and loving home for each other and their children - I don't see a problem. If one woman wants to marry two guys (polyandry) and can make it work for all concerned, what's the problem? Frankly, I don't care anyhow - the key to me is "is everyone happy?" If they are, then it must be working. There's certainly nothing morally or ethically wrong with any variety of "multiple marriage" - be it polyandry, polygyny, polygamy, or "line marriage." (Economically, the "line marriage" would be good - since the "marriage" isn't dissolved by death - as long as one participant of each gender is still involved - estate taxes and suchlike would probably be out the window. As they properly should be - you've already paid taxes building the estate, why should you have to pay taxes again when you pass it along?)
A multiple marriage likely isn't for everyone - but there are, I'm sure, people who could make it work and be happy doing so - so why deny them the opportunity?
But, if we want to "preserve" marriage, then let's go with what has been mentioned - raise the bar for divorces, and perhaps forbid Hollyweird marriages. It's mainly the recent crop of entertainers - Bob Hope was married for something like 60-70 years, wasn't he?
bigalpha
Moderator
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
Marriage is not ONLY a religious thing.
As for "common-law marriage" this site shows only 9 states actually "have" common-law marriage. You can't get common-law married anywhere else.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm
The state should have no say on WHO I feel I want to be "married" to. Equally, I don't feel as though the state should force a particular entity to perform a marriage that goes against their beliefs (Church).
As for "common-law marriage" this site shows only 9 states actually "have" common-law marriage. You can't get common-law married anywhere else.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm
The state should have no say on WHO I feel I want to be "married" to. Equally, I don't feel as though the state should force a particular entity to perform a marriage that goes against their beliefs (Church).
logdog
NAXJA Member #703
- Location
- Riverton, UT
So what do you call it when my opinion is "voted" onto others? It seems that many peoples opionions were forced upon me by choosing a different candidate than me.
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
5-90
There are power in words. "Civil Union" does not equal "Marriage" and those that fight for the "right" for Homosexuals to "wed" know this.
"Civil Union"= Legal Status
"Marriage"=Acceptance by Society
Those that seek only to legally share their property, debits, and family obligations do not object to the "Civil Union", which is the roughly the same as being wed by the local Judge.
Those that crave Society's acceptance of their sexual proclivity shout for "Marriage".
Society is under no obligation to grant either of these so called "rights" to those who break society's taboos. Those who do not wish to grant a Religious Marriage to those who clearly do not share that Religions beliefs are not obligated to.
As pointed out, there are no "Rights" to fight for here. Homosexuals are not treated as 2nd class citizens. As individuals they are afforded every single right any other human being is afforded in the US. The "Gay Rights" movement is about money, property, and acceptance of a lifestyle, not rights. It always has been. To deny that is to missunderstand the purpose of the Gay Rights Movement.
There are power in words. "Civil Union" does not equal "Marriage" and those that fight for the "right" for Homosexuals to "wed" know this.
"Civil Union"= Legal Status
"Marriage"=Acceptance by Society
Those that seek only to legally share their property, debits, and family obligations do not object to the "Civil Union", which is the roughly the same as being wed by the local Judge.
Those that crave Society's acceptance of their sexual proclivity shout for "Marriage".
Society is under no obligation to grant either of these so called "rights" to those who break society's taboos. Those who do not wish to grant a Religious Marriage to those who clearly do not share that Religions beliefs are not obligated to.
As pointed out, there are no "Rights" to fight for here. Homosexuals are not treated as 2nd class citizens. As individuals they are afforded every single right any other human being is afforded in the US. The "Gay Rights" movement is about money, property, and acceptance of a lifestyle, not rights. It always has been. To deny that is to missunderstand the purpose of the Gay Rights Movement.
- Location
- Southern Maryland
fixed
ok - Ill Chime In ---
First Off - I don't consider myself religious
I personally don’t care what 2 people do by themselves. I’ve been on the internets for a while now and have seen some truly sick shit. So as long as they keep it to them selves – I’m Cool... I know it happens – I just don’t want to see it. This goes for straight people too. I’m ok with people kissing goodbye – straight and gay. But that’s just me...
The first time around I voted for the gay marriage (prop 22 I think) because if they want to get married, what do I care...
But in California – we don’t always get what we vote for...
We voted for Medical Marijuana – they tried to get the courts to reverse it.
We voted not to provide illegals with public services like education – they did reversed it.
We voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman – they reversed it.
I’m tired of “the people” deciding things and having be told ‘no you’re not going to do that’
I know most of ‘the people’ are retarded. I’m ok with that.
So this time I voted for 8 the on principal that it had already been voted on.
It seems we can make any law we want that doesn’t conflict with the constitution or the bill of rights.
This is where the problem is.
In Colorado – they tried to define life as starting as conception (defeated).
Our laws are dependent upon definition of our language – (remember what the definition of ‘is’ is?)
The definition of marriage has always been between a man and woman. Gays are trying to change the definition marriage. Not get equal rights. A piece of crap will always be a piece of crap even if you call it a muffin. Hence a civil union between a man and a woman can be a marriage. A civil union between a man and a man can not by definition be married...
BTW – I thought this was the Prop 8 & OTHERS
Comments on the others?
· Arkansas
· Adoption: Initiative 1 would mandate that only married couples can adopt a child or be a foster parent of a minor.
· California
· Abortion: Proposition 4 would require a waiting period of 48 hours after parental notification before allowing a minor to terminate a pregnancy.
Colorado
· Affirmative Action: Amendment 46 would prohibit discrimination by the state or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
· Rights For the Unborn: Amendment 48 would define the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization.
Massachusetts
· Decriminalize Marijuana: Passage of Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
Michigan
· Medical Marijuana: A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions.
· Stem Cell Research: Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to allow an expansion of the use of stem cells from human embryos for any research permitted under federal law (subject to certain provisions).
Washington
· Allow Medical Suicide: Measure 1000 would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.
First Off - I don't consider myself religious
I personally don’t care what 2 people do by themselves. I’ve been on the internets for a while now and have seen some truly sick shit. So as long as they keep it to them selves – I’m Cool... I know it happens – I just don’t want to see it. This goes for straight people too. I’m ok with people kissing goodbye – straight and gay. But that’s just me...
The first time around I voted for the gay marriage (prop 22 I think) because if they want to get married, what do I care...
But in California – we don’t always get what we vote for...
We voted for Medical Marijuana – they tried to get the courts to reverse it.
We voted not to provide illegals with public services like education – they did reversed it.
We voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman – they reversed it.
I’m tired of “the people” deciding things and having be told ‘no you’re not going to do that’
I know most of ‘the people’ are retarded. I’m ok with that.
So this time I voted for 8 the on principal that it had already been voted on.
It seems we can make any law we want that doesn’t conflict with the constitution or the bill of rights.
This is where the problem is.
In Colorado – they tried to define life as starting as conception (defeated).
Our laws are dependent upon definition of our language – (remember what the definition of ‘is’ is?)
The definition of marriage has always been between a man and woman. Gays are trying to change the definition marriage. Not get equal rights. A piece of crap will always be a piece of crap even if you call it a muffin. Hence a civil union between a man and a woman can be a marriage. A civil union between a man and a man can not by definition be married...
BTW – I thought this was the Prop 8 & OTHERS
Comments on the others?
· Arkansas
· Adoption: Initiative 1 would mandate that only married couples can adopt a child or be a foster parent of a minor.
· California
· Abortion: Proposition 4 would require a waiting period of 48 hours after parental notification before allowing a minor to terminate a pregnancy.
Colorado
· Affirmative Action: Amendment 46 would prohibit discrimination by the state or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
· Rights For the Unborn: Amendment 48 would define the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization.
Massachusetts
· Decriminalize Marijuana: Passage of Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
Michigan
· Medical Marijuana: A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions.
· Stem Cell Research: Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to allow an expansion of the use of stem cells from human embryos for any research permitted under federal law (subject to certain provisions).
Washington
· Allow Medical Suicide: Measure 1000 would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.
GrimmJeeper
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Gardena, CA
if your opinion is afffecting the way of life of other people based on thier age/sex/religion/ethnicity/orientation then yes, i call that discrimination.
when did people start ignoring this: :dunno:
The Declaration Of Independence said:
what about seperation of church and state? enacting a law, based on religious beliefs, goes against that very idea. the whole system is, for lack of a better word, fucked. law should have nothing to do with religion and religion should have nothing to do with law. passing a law that those of a certain sexual orientation cannot marry, is wrong. what blows me away is the fact that people that are for this proposition seem to ignore the similarity to the civil rights movement of the 60s. "you cant drink from this water fountain because you're not like me" sure sounds alot like "you can get married because you're not like me"
:dunno:
- Location
- Southern Maryland
That's not what it means.
The people can choose the kind of society that they live in, regardless of how those opinions are formed. IE, opposition to streetwalkers and drugheads in your neighborhood can be founded on religious belief or anything else. If you believe otherwise, you're a closet tyrant.
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
Why do chickens have MORE rights than gays do? I'm sorry, but i need to know
I really hope you're joking...
FarmerMatt
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Down on the Farm
You & me both! :wave1::farmer:
GrimmJeeper
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Gardena, CA
what it means is the laws governing the people should not be based on religious beliefs, but equal representation for everyone. this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in europe, in case you forgot that.
