Southern California Club Xterra
Southern California Club Xterra => Off Topic => Topic started by: onewaysoldier on October 09, 2008, 12:32:00 PM
-
Just trying to figure out how y'all think.
What are you voting on 8?
I'm voting yes.
-
which one is 8? The power plant one?. I know 2 is the gay marriage and 7 is the animal one.
-
8 is the gay marriage on. Yes means it's not legal. No means it's now legal.
-
i beleive in the right to........ but im strongly against it. and dont support it. its simply a matter of choosing between sacred morals and politcal morals
-
you've got it wrong.... the Courts have said that the State Constitution provides equal rights to everyone... what the pro-8 people want to do is take those rights away from some people just because they don't agree with who they want to marry... it used to be Jews and Blacks and Catholics that "good Christians" couldn't marry... maybe they'll start in on the left-handed or the blond next!!!
-
I will vote for the right to carry a gun so I can shoot all the people that dont agree with me.
-
I will vote for the right to carry a gun so I can shoot all the people that dont agree with me.
Oy!
-
"that's funny, you don't look bluish!" (The Blue Meanie in Yellow Submarine)
-
Since you asked... :) my .02
I believe that the bible says gay love is a sin. It also says gambling, lying, getting drunk, cheating on ones mate, sex before marriage, and I could go on...are all sins also. So I got my sins, and they have theirs. I don't see a problem with them getting legal recognition to share insurance, or retirement benefits etc. I'll teach my kids right from wrong, and hope the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Geez, my mom would flip if she hear me saying this. Well like I said... You asked :)
-
Since you asked... :) my .02
I believe that the bible says gay love is a sin. It also says gambling, lying, getting drunk, cheating on ones mate, sex before marriage, and I could go on...are all sins also. So I got my sins, and they have theirs. I don't see a problem with them getting legal recognition to share insurance, or retirement benefits etc. I'll teach my kids right from wrong, and hope the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Geez, my mom would flip if she hear me saying this. Well like I said... You asked :)
I agree completely, I think homosexuality is a sin as well, however it's not a "worse sin" than looking at pornography. Which is why I get quite upset at stories of churches turning away homosexuals and transgenders. I mean if you're going to turn someone away for sinning then the church would be completely empty. I mean, if you told some one to leave because of sin, you'd be sinning your self (denying someone access to the house of God), and as appropriate should leave!
here is an a awesome sermon on homosexuality from the church I attend: http://www.vmc.net/con_sermons.cfm?c=1001218&bl=sermon
I do have one question, I have read that the domestic partner status offers all the same legal benefits as marriage. Is this true? I keep going back and forth, because 1) There is no reason a gay couple they should be denied legal benefits. 2) I do believe marriage is is a bonding between man and woman.
-
although we don't all agree on the "sin" question (my thought is that HATE is the biggest sin) I am happy to see that most of you see this as a civil rights issue and will vote NO on Prop 8...this just confirms that Xterra owners are pretty smart and not easily conned!
-
although we don't all agree on the "sin" question (my thought is that HATE is the biggest sin) I am happy to see that most of you see this as a civil rights issue and will vote NO on Prop 8...this just confirms that Xterra owners are pretty smart and not easily conned!
I believe all sin is equal.
Still, if prop 8 is passed, then what? How does that effect Gay couples? What benefits would they loose? I mean if it's just a title, then I could care less.
-
if 8 passes some (but not all) people will not be allowed to marry the person they love but will be limited to marrying only those people that are "acceptable" to the proponents of Prop 8... gay couples married between June and the effective date of Prop 8 would still be married but the rest would have to again settle for domestic partnership (the next target for the Haters)... now you are correct that the legal rights of married couples (straight) are the same as domestic partners (straight and gay) but that is like the "separate but equal" argument that justified racial discrimination well into the 1970's... I realize that most of you are too young to have lived in a world where racial and religious discrimination was a matter of law but when I was young it was illegal in many states for blacks to marry whites and even for Jews to marry Christians... this is the same kind of thing... a marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!
-
The government will do whatever it wants to do on the matter - no matter what us peons vote - one way or the other. Fundamental rights are removed and changed at the stroke of a pen. This one will be too. The Constitutions, both state and federal, aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The republic is long dead. :-\
-
if 8 passes some (but not all) people will not be allowed to marry the person they love but will be limited to marrying only those people that are "acceptable" to the proponents of Prop 8... gay couples married between June and the effective date of Prop 8 would still be married but the rest would have to again settle for domestic partnership (the next target for the Haters)... now you are correct that the legal rights of married couples (straight) are the same as domestic partners (straight and gay) but that is like the "separate but equal" argument that justified racial discrimination well into the 1970's... I realize that most of you are too young to have lived in a world where racial and religious discrimination was a matter of law but when I was young it was illegal in many states for blacks to marry whites and even for Jews to marry Christians... this is the same kind of thing... a marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!
First, I'll tell you I'm not a particularly religious man at this point in my life, although I was brought up to be. Because of my earlier exposure I have a respect or tolerance for it. And, as an American I certainly respect their right to worship as they see fit.
"Marriage" began and has existed as a religious act. I don't care where in the world you travel, this is an unavoidable fact. Most of the worlds religions view it as " a union ceremony witnessed and approved of by and before God".
A "Civil Union" defined as having equal rights under the state would be "a union ceremony witnessed and approved of by the majority citizenry of a state". And, I believe our constitution could provide all necessary protections to both unions. But, this does not appear to be enough and the Gay community has sought for full religious recognition and the assumption of the religious term "marriage". Religions view this as the joining of a man and woman in order to mate, procreate and form family. Gay couples cannot mate and naturally cannot create family. In this regard they are not equal. It's not at fundamental level "a hate thing" with most religions. However, it is a direct affront to their beliefs. And, they have every right to believe and worship as they so please.
As constitutionally prescribed, we should continue to keep church and state as separate. Marriage= religious union....Civil Union= just that, both having equal rights under only the laws of the state. But, only one having rights under the doctrines of differing religions, and our government should have no right in helping the Gay community force a redefinition of any churches beliefs. For them to seek state assistance in the form of laws that would force religions to acknowledge them as "married" would be entirely wrong.
This is all about the definition of the word "Marriage", and again, I'm not a very religious guy but I would hate to see this religious institution be become diluted in our society.
If the gay community were to have the right to sue and seek remedy because a church refused to wed them, the church would be losing its own rights under the constitution.
I'm voting yes on 8 to maintain the religiously held traditional definition of "marriage" and the American tradition of separating church and state.
If the gay community wants to seek equal rights under a different definition of union (because it is such) they would get my vote as well.
-
A marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!
To be a hard ass, that's not a problem with the laws but peoples perception. I'm sure given time people will come to accept domestic partnership in the same way as marriage.
Thanks guys for the discussion, I know how I'll vote now and be at peace about it. I've had A LOT of termoil about how to vote for this proposition.
-
A marriage is a contract just like a domestic partnership but it is also an emotional commitment that just isn't the same!
To be a hard ass, that's not a problem with the laws but peoples perception. I'm sure given time people will come to accept domestic partnership in the same way as marriage.
Thanks guys for the discussion, I know how I'll vote now and be at peace about it. I've had A LOT of termoil about how to vote for this proposition.
Hmm, Yeah. I'm not so sure there is a difference in emotional commitment. This might be where Aperion is having a problem with the way the issue is being handled. Just Rick, unless you're referring to the additional religious/spiritual aspect that is introduced in marriage, then perhaps your point is valid. But, as much as I am troubled by the term of "Gay Marriage", I don't believe they are necessarily less emotional or less committed to the idea of partnering.
If the differing faiths are true to their scriptures, no individual government, church or pastor can "marry" them. We can fool ourselves and attempt to re-define and re-interpret, but it would all be for selfish indulgence and would only amount to a lowly humanistic contrivance. Now, some in the gay community would argue that religion in itself is just that. If so, why are they putting so much energy into achieving religious recognition of their union? It makes no sense! It seems as though they are seeking religious equality on the issue....no matter how hard they push for this, thay can never truly achieve it. They can force governmentst to force churches to force pastors, priests etc. But, it's all for nought. Ultimately, none of the entities they are seeking approval from have the Authority.
It almost seems as if the gay community is seeking retribution for the past rebuffs from the religious community. It's sad because the religious community has always had fairly succinct scripture to abide on this issue. Being mean had nothing to do with it. It was in black letter and they were bound to it. The black letter will not change despite any governmental attempts to re-write Christianity or any other faith.
-
Hey Randy, good to hear from you. I agree with you on the emotional aspect of marriage being the same. What I am unclear on though is the part about the government forcing churches, ministers, whoever to perform marriages for gay couples. How is this possible?
-
Hey Mitch, good to hear from you as well.
It would begin in the subsequent rounds of lawsuits. If "marriage" were to become a religious right to all by statute, it would give gays the capacity to sue churches that can now rightfully deny them based on the religious freedoms preserved by the Constitution. By rightfully, I'm saying they hold that right if it is in opposition to their religious/scriptural beliefs.
They'd be faced with the decision to either wed them in complete opposition to their scripture and beliefs or succumb to a barrage of lawsuits that would inevitably break and disband most community churches. Keyword is lawsuit.
If a Black couple were denied "marriage" by a church or pastor based on "race" they would have grounds for a suit.....and it's happened. Fortunately, no religions I know of have any scriptural basis (or, argument) for not marrying persons based on "race"....they may exist, I know of none. As for gay "marriage", there are strong scriptural renderings against it in most all faiths and it forms a strong argument for the churches.
Loss of their tax-exempt status would probably be one of the first tools the government would use to impune them.
-
But if the government, be it state for federal, were to attempt to force churches to perform gay marriages, wouldn't that cross the line of seperation of church and state?
-
Are Pastors currently required by law to marry someone? I mean you don't have to have a pastor marry two people, my sister had her physics professor marry them.
It's confusing because as far as I can tell gay couple have all the same legal rights as a straight couple, which is why it's confusing as to what this proposition is really denying.
-
no one is going to force a church to do anything it does not want to do... this is just more of the b@llsh#t made up by the supporters of prop 8... in California marriage can have 2 components; civil and religious... the religious component is not required for a civil marriage and the civil component is only required for a religious marriage for state bookkeeping purposes... in fact, if you obtain a marriage license, get married, but never return the signed license to your county clerk, you are still validly married... the differences between domestic partnerships and marriages have been narrowed considerably in recent years to the point that if you wish to end your registered domestic partnership you will need to get a divorce... nevertheless, the fact that there are people who want to distinguish domestic partnerships from "real" marriages does demonstrate that a lot of people see them as different which, unfortunately, gives domestic partnerships a 2nd class stigma...
enough said... I hope you have all voted by now and that our country will now get back on track with President Obama