Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71

Thread: Proposition 8 Passes

  1. #41
    [QUOTE=Guido Monzino;2845695]Marriage and communication are mutually exclusive[/QUOTE]

    Sure, but it's interesting that we think the government should be involved in some areas, but not in others -- when it really has no business in either

  2. #42
    I find it simply amazing that 74% of African Americans, the same people who cry racism at any opportunity and the same people who claim that bigotry and hate are the reasons for their current status, voted in support of this amendment. This at a time when nearly 100% of gays voted for a black president. Classic example of the "oppressed" becoming the oppressor.

    I also find it disturbing that in this economy 74 million dollars was raised in supporting/turning down this amendment.

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2845705]Sure, but it's interesting that we think the government should be involved in some areas, but not in others -- when it really has no business in either[/QUOTE]

    Right. The government (and my wife) should stay out of my personal life.

    And be downsized.

  4. #44
    [quote=piney;2845170]I agree..the Gov't should only recognize everyone as having a civil union and not categorize it as marriage. Marriage is a church thing..leave it to the churchies....[/quote]

    The sad thing is the people pushing these amendments don't get that the end result will be the elimination of marriage from america's political jargon.

  5. #45
    [quote=SONNY WERBLIN;2844960]I agree with your biological theory. Why can't everyone be happy if we just call it a "civil union" or something else (just not marriage) and give it all the same rights as a marriage? Wouldn't this satisfy most of the people, or is the term "marriage" a deal breaker.

    and more importantly, how does this effect Goerge Takai's recent nuptials?[/quote]

    Sonny, the real question is if you don't object to "civil unioned" homosexuals having all the same rights as married heterosexuals, on what basis should the law use two different terms to essentially describe the exact same legal status? So a bunch of people can go around saying "well, my marriage is better than your civil union"? What possible state interest can there be in that.

    BTW, you know I'm an orthodox jew, so I don't approve of homosexuality. But I have married gay friends who I will only ever refer to as married - even though technically they are "civil unioned" - because its just common courtesy.

    Oddly enough, my own marriage hasn't suffered a bit because of that. Come to think of it, I can't think of anyone's that has.

  6. #46
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2845740]The sad thing is the people pushing these amendments don't get that the end result will be [B]the elimination of marriage from america's political jargon[/B].[/QUOTE]

    why is this a sad thing?

  7. #47
    [quote=sect112row36;2845754]why is this a sad thing?[/quote]

    Because the people making the most noise about the need to "defend marriage" don't want that; it will end up degrading the value of marriage in society - in other words, they are leading the charge towards achieving the exact opposite of what they want.

  8. #48
    [quote=nuu faaola;2845606]And, ironically, Massachusetts --where gays can get hitched-- has the country's lowest divorce rate. Some "threat" to traditional marriage gay nuptials are.

    Where is the highest divorce rate? On the bible belt, of course, in places like [B]Arkansas[/B] and Mississippi (also high: Nevada (all those Vegas chapels, I guess) and Alaska -- you betcha.).

    You honestly can't make this stuff up.[/quote]

    Actually, Arkansas is the place where the real anti-gay ballot outrage happened. Arkansas passed a ballot initiative banning anyone who isn't married from adopting. On the surface, the idea that adopted kids should go into stable family situations isn't a problem. Then when you realize that Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry, you start to see what the real aims of this particular initiative were.

  9. #49
    BTW, lest there be any doubt, the anti-unmarried adoption initiative was sponsored by the group that spearheaded Arkansas' ban on gay marriage ([url]http://www.365gay.com/news/082508-arkansas-adoption-ban/[/url]) and followed the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down an explicit gay adoption ban as unconstitutional in 2006. [url]http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Arkansas_high_court_unanimously_rejects_gay_0629.html[/url]

  10. #50
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2845779]BTW, lest there be any doubt, the anti-unmarried adoption initiative was sponsored by the group that spearheaded Arkansas' ban on gay marriage ([url]http://www.365gay.com/news/082508-arkansas-adoption-ban/[/url]) and followed the Arkansas Supreme Court striking down an explicit gay adoption ban as unconstitutional in 2006. [url]http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Arkansas_high_court_unanimously_rejects_gay_0629.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    My wife and I foster children (we currently have a 1 month old) in addition to our 4 birth children. Our house is a revolving door of kids from broken homes. Two years ago we had two little girls ages 3 and 4. The mother had no interest in the kids and often never showed up for visits with the girls leaving the girls devastated. DYFS sought to terminate her parental rights and to put the girls up for adoption. Since my wife and I are already in the process of adopting a sibling group of 3 from a Russian orphanage (long story) we could not commit, so after a search, DYFS found a gay couple in NJ interested in ultimately adopting the girls and moved them to this new foster home. My wife talks to their social workers often who claims the girls are thriving in their new home. The mother is now fighting DYFS using their sexuality as an issue. There is no way this mother should get those kids back and by all means they should be able to be adopted by this new couple. We are both against gay marriage, however that issue should not be present when it comes to the well being of children.

  11. #51
    [quote=sect112row36;2845830]My wife and I foster children (we currently have a 1 month old) in addition to our 4 birth children. Our house is a revolving door of kids from broken homes. Two years ago we had two little girls ages 3 and 4. The mother had no interest in the kids and often never showed up for visits with the girls leaving the girls devastated. DYFS sought to terminate her parental rights and to put the girls up for adoption. Since my wife and I are already in the process of adopting a sibling group of 3 from a Russian orphanage (long story) we could not commit, so after a search, DYFS found a gay couple in NJ interested in ultimately adopting the girls and moved them to this new foster home. My wife talks to their social workers often who claims the girls are thriving in their new home. The mother is now fighting DYFS using their sexuality as an issue. There is no way this mother should get those kids back and by all means they should be able to be adopted by this new couple. We are both against gay marriage, however that issue should not be present when it comes to the well being of children.[/quote]

    I have nothing but respect for you. Aside from the whole putting yourself out there to help kids, you guys are looking at having 7 kids? Wow

  12. #52
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845118]My take:

    There shouldn't be any government acknowledgement of "marriage." It's a religious term and ought to be left to religions to decide.

    Any couple --straight or gay-- ought to be able to get a "civil union" license.

    BTW, if you look at the exits re: Prop 8, you will see that this is only a fleeting victory for the people who backed it. Nobody under 50 voted for the thing.

    Opposition to gay "marriage" or whatever you want to call it will literally die out in time.[/QUOTE]sometimes i swear obama speaks through you.Mr President, marriage pre-dates most organized religions so i'm not so sure of your "religious" arguement.congrats by the way.

  13. #53
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=Crease29;2844956]Big win for those who believe in traditional marriage. Since I believe most cases of homosexuality are innate and not by choice, I don't think this is fair. Thoughts from others?[/QUOTE]

    I am not weighing in on this topic per say to offer whether I am for or against gay marriage. However, I will weigh in on the thinking behind it, because frankly that is what we need to think about.

    Now, I have heard from many that homosexuality is innate and not a choice. I am old enough to remember the seventies, and early eighties when homosexuals were marching for the right to CHOOSE their own lifestyle. Homosexuality was a choice, and they wanted to be free from harassment to choose their own way.

    Now, we are saying that homosexuals don't have a choice, that they do not have a choice as to whether they are gay or not. Which is it?

    Also to, if we are to say that homosexuals do not have a choice, where does this line of thinking end? There are mass murderers who say they have no choice, that their upbringing and genetic makeup 'make' them killers. Likewise, I have read accounts of child molesters who have stated that they do not have choice; that they are genetically programmed, so to speak.

    Are these all elements of a society that has been HEAVILY influenced by existential thinking over the past century (almost), or is there validity to this. And if we are eager to state that this line of thinking is valid, where then is freewill?

    Again, just throwing ideas out to ponder....

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2846204]I am not weighing in on this topic per say to offer whether I am for or against gay marriage. However, I will weigh in on the thinking behind it, because frankly that is what we need to think about.

    [B]Now, I have heard from many that homosexuality is innate and not a choice. I am old enough to remember the seventies, and early eighties when homosexuals were marching for the right to CHOOSE their own lifestyle. Homosexuality was a choice, and they wanted to be free from harassment to choose their own way.[/B]

    Now, we are saying that homosexuals don't have a choice, that they do not have a choice as to whether they are gay or not. Which is it?

    [B]Also to, if we are to say that homosexuals do not have a choice, where does this line of thinking end? There are mass murderers who say they have no choice, that their upbringing and genetic makeup 'make' them killers. Likewise, I have read accounts of child molesters who have stated that they do not have choice; that they are genetically programmed, so to speak. [/B]

    Are these all elements of a society that has been HEAVILY influenced by existential thinking over the past century (almost), or is there validity to this. And if we are eager to state that this line of thinking is valid, where then is freewill?

    Again, just throwing ideas out to ponder....[/QUOTE]

    A couple of great points Steve!

    A little tidbit about the second part:
    1 in 1,000 males are born with an extra Y chromosome, giving them the genetic composition of XYY. Studies have found that up to 2/3rds of violent criminals share this genetic defect. Questions have been raised as to whether these "Supermales" are more violent and aggressive than their normal male counterparts, and many personality tests have verified this. The issue now becomes, should we let these people off the hook because they were genetically predisposed to this problem?

  15. #55
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2845118]My take:

    There shouldn't be any government acknowledgement of "marriage." It's a religious term and ought to be left to religions to decide.

    Any couple --straight or gay-- ought to be able to get a "civil union" license.

    BTW, if you look at the exits re: Prop 8, you will see that this is only a fleeting victory for the people who backed it. Nobody under 50 voted for the thing.

    Opposition to gay "marriage" or whatever you want to call it will literally die out in time.[/QUOTE]

    Your supposition requires the assumption that people's values do not change over time. That assumption is highly suspect.

    Just look at the 60s generation........... for starters.

  16. #56
    [QUOTE=Guido Monzino;2845158]+1

    Its all semantics. I don't know why some people are so uptight about the use of the word marriage. If you're straight and believe marriage is a religious event, then that's fine and great for you. But why the hell do you care about a gay couple that you don't even know? It has absolutely no impact on your life whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

    Couldn't agree more. It's sad that we have to wait for all the old turds to die off for everyone to have equal rights.

  17. #57
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant;2845342]
    2. Gay marriage is a first step on a slippery slope. Claims are being made that once gay marriage is approved, this will lend itself to individuals (by virtue or by pushing the limits) to attempt to prove marriage outside the species is a right as well.
    [/QUOTE]

    ... ridiculous. Not a legit argument. (I know you don't agree with it)

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,959
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2846204]Now, I have heard from many that homosexuality is innate and not a choice. I am old enough to remember the seventies, and early eighties when homosexuals were marching for the right to CHOOSE their own lifestyle. Homosexuality was a choice, and they wanted to be free from harassment to choose their own way.

    Now, we are saying that homosexuals don't have a choice, that they do not have a choice as to whether they are gay or not. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

    The choice was between coming out and being able to openly and truly express themselves or staying in the closet because of their socially perceived lack of morality. It wasn't a choice of sexuality.

    Regardless, that's some pretty weak "proof" of it being a choice and not genetic.

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2846204]I am not weighing in on this topic per say to offer whether I am for or against gay marriage. However, I will weigh in on the thinking behind it, because frankly that is what we need to think about.

    Now, I have heard from many that homosexuality is innate and not a choice. I am old enough to remember the seventies, and early eighties when homosexuals were marching for the right to CHOOSE their own lifestyle. Homosexuality was a choice, and they wanted to be free from harassment to choose their own way.

    Now, we are saying that homosexuals don't have a choice, that they do not have a choice as to whether they are gay or not. Which is it?

    Also to, if we are to say that homosexuals do not have a choice, where does this line of thinking end? There are mass murderers who say they have no choice, that their upbringing and genetic makeup 'make' them killers. Likewise, I have read accounts of child molesters who have stated that they do not have choice; that they are genetically programmed, so to speak.

    Are these all elements of a society that has been HEAVILY influenced by existential thinking over the past century (almost), or is there validity to this. And if we are eager to state that this line of thinking is valid, where then is freewill?

    Again, just throwing ideas out to ponder....[/QUOTE]

    Canada allows gay marriage, has it effected your life one iota?

  20. #60
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,678
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve;2846204]
    Now, we are saying that homosexuals don't have a choice, that they do not have a choice as to whether they are gay or not. Which is it?
    ..[/QUOTE]
    Why would someone purposely choose a lifestyle that has been discriminated against throughout history?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us