Proposition 8 discussion continued

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm just finishing Year 12 as well, so I spose I'm a 'senior', and the same thing happens over here. I've got soo many friends who would be totally against allowing gay marriage, simply for that reason you've stated - that gays are disgusting. That is a terrible reason. One of my mates in particular would be very strongly against it. And I say why? He says well because it's wrong. It's disgusting. "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Well, no. It's not wrong, or disgusting.

My god. If I hear that "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line again I'll have to smash someone. lol. Seriously, it wasn't even funny the first time; why would it be funny the next thousand times. It's not even witty and makes no good point at all. Yet it's all they can come up with. High schoolers....they're all the same :p
 
Because I believe in parental notification rights, separation of church and state, and democracy?

Geez, Melon.
How do you believe in separation of Church and State while championing a religiously inspired ban on gay marriage?

If you supported secularism you would allow gays equal treatment under the law, let them have marriage contracts but while at the same time oppose using state coercion to force churches to give gays religious sanction.
 
My god. If I hear that "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line again I'll have to smash someone. lol. Seriously, it wasn't even funny the first time; why would it be funny the next thousand times. It's not even witty and makes no good point at all. Yet it's all they can come up with. High schoolers....they're all the same :p

And some people never make it past that age intellectually or emotionally. It's even less charming when 35 and 45 year olds say the same crap.
 
The LDS Church seriously miscalculated here. Now they're starting to receive negative PR from other angles as well. The Jews have had enough apparently...

NEW YORK (AP) -- Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice.

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say they are making changes to their massive genealogical database that will make it more difficult for names of Holocaust victims to be entered for posthumous baptism by proxy, a rite that has been a common Mormon practice for more than a century.

But Ernest Michel, honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, said that is not enough. At a news conference in New York City on Monday, he said the church also must ''implement a mechanism to undo what you have done.''

''Baptism of a Jewish Holocaust victim and then merely removing that name from the database is just not acceptable,'' said Michel, whose parents died at Auschwitz. He spoke on the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against Jews.

''We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion,'' Michel said in a statement released ahead of the news conference. ''We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough.''

Michel said talks with Mormon leaders, held as recently as last week, have ended. He said his group will not sue, and that ''the only thing left, therefore, is to turn to the court of public opinion.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Baptizing-the-Dead.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

More and more groups will now see it as open season. Heckuva job.
 
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

Special Comment: The Passage of Prop 8 - The News Hole - msnbc.com
 
The LDS Church seriously miscalculated here. Now they're starting to receive negative PR from other angles as well. The Jews have had enough apparently...



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Baptizing-the-Dead.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

More and more groups will now see it as open season. Heckuva job.

So, let's see

Past and present affiliations with Polygamy
Institutionalized Racism (rescinded by a conveniently timed "new revelation from god" when their tax exempt status was threated and college sports teams wouldn't go to utah)
Funding anti-gay bigotry in other states
Trampling over the memory of Jewish holocaust survivors

who's next ? Scientologists ? now THAT one should be fun !, I'm always up for some loon-on-loon action !
 
The problem with Olbermann is that he's so hysterical most of the time that when he hits the nail on the head, like he does here, no one that the message needs to get to will listen to it.

That may have been his best Special Comment ever, but I see what you mean.

What I found interesting was I can't remember Keith ever bringing up gay marriage on the show before, let alone with that much passion.
 
I agree about Olberman, but as you guys have said, that was a really good special comment tonight.

His point about "what is it to you?" really sums up my feelings about this issue. How are two men or two women getting married - how is that going to impact me in a negative way? In anyway at all. It isn't. Then why should I oppose that? No reason.
 
I agree about Olberman, but as you guys have said, that was a really good special comment tonight.

His point about "what is it to you?" really sums up my feelings about this issue. How are two men or two women getting married - how is that going to impact me in a negative way? In anyway at all. It isn't. Then why should I oppose that? No reason.

I agree, Kelly. I don't understand why some people feel the need to impose their own beliefs on other people. :huh:
 
-from the above video-
We also strongly oppose any attempt to ridicule another person's faith.

But it's okay to ridicule other people's beliefs and who they chose to fall in love with?
This is the same church where Donny Osmond agreed that gay people were welcomed in their church as long as they did not act upon their orientation.

Tolerance :up:

Consider this Catholic an opponent of Proposition 8, so the title of that video is wrong. :wink:
 
I just was trying to figure out if you thought people chose to be homosexual as opposed to it being genetic, that's all. :)

I went on to say what I did about the issue of choice vs. genetics being the root of some people's thoughts around homosexuality because I'd been thinking about that for a while, and I thought it was a good springboard to finally bring it up.
 
3018311748_bd517bb269.jpg
 
I just was trying to figure out if you thought people chose to be homosexual as opposed to it being genetic, that's all. :)

I went on to say what I did about the issue of choice vs. genetics being the root of some people's thoughts around homosexuality because I'd been thinking about that for a while, and I thought it was a good springboard to finally bring it up.

Yeah, just a lazy choice of word. :) I'm also not an expert, so it's not really my place, but certainly I know that yeah, you can't just wake up one day and decide to be gay.
 
I just was trying to figure out if you thought people chose to be homosexual as opposed to it being genetic, that's all. :)

I went on to say what I did about the issue of choice vs. genetics being the root of some people's thoughts around homosexuality because I'd been thinking about that for a while, and I thought it was a good springboard to finally bring it up.
It doesn't make a difference, the choice to engage in gay sex is still a choice.

An argument built from freedom will defend the right to have sex with any consenting party, and grant marriage for every permutation of consensual coupling.

I don't think that arguing for gay rights on the basis of nature is a good way to go, I don't think that an argument from nature should influence how laws are created.
 
I think it does. I think many people who are anti-gay rights feel that, by making as many things about homosexuality illegal as possible, it'll force gays to "choose" to be straight, since they believe it is a choice.
 
I don't think that those facts can change their minds, their position is illiberal regardless of the justification, that homosexuality is natural is factually true but arguments built around individual rights are more justifiable.
 
from the NYT:

Anti-Gay, Anti-Family
By DAN SAVAGE

COUNTLESS Americans, gay and otherwise, are still mourning — and social conservatives are still celebrating — the approval last Tuesday of anti-gay-marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and, most heartbreaking, California, where Proposition 8 stripped same-sex couples of their right to wed. Eighteen thousand same-sex couples were legally married in California this past summer and fall; their marriages are now in limbo.

But while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah — the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 — an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.

That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.

Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn’t be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered “pro-family.”

Most ominous, once “pro-family” groups start arguing that gay couples are unfit to raise children we might adopt, how long before they argue that we’re unfit to raise those we’ve already adopted? If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster children, are they fit to care for their own biological children?


The loss in California last week was heartbreaking. But what may be coming next is terrifying.


talk about a slippery slope.

in some ways, this is even worse than being denied equal protection under the law.
 
Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse."

OK, California could have made that soooo much easier if they'd changed their marriage licenses this way instead of "Party A and Party B" which resulted in the one hetero couple suing because they don't want to be Party A and Party B. It would have been one less crazy pro Prop 8 argument that people latched onto. Of course Connecticut may have learned from CA's mistake and worded their license after having seen the fiasco here.

But "yay!" Go Connecticut :applaud:
 
from the NYT:




talk about a slippery slope.

in some ways, this is even worse than being denied equal protection under the law.

Another example of the Pro Prop 8 and Pro Traditional Family movements being "all about the children". :huh:

Who will suffer here? It's heartbreaking....
 
Back
Top Bottom