8

On the morning after the election, with 96.4% of precincts reporting the vote was 52.2% in favor of proposition 8 and 47.8% against.

=/

 

I hear they're having a recount of the votes, so all hope is not lost... yet. Even if this is passed, it's almost certain it'll go to the US Supreme Court. Either way, it's extremely disappointing that so many people will oppose equal rights for gays/lesbians.

 

It is possible that the absentee ballots will change the outcome... according to Wikipedia the difference is about 490,000 votes, and there are about 3 million absentee ballots. Also, a group filed a lawsuit over the amendment, saying that it should require a 2/3 vote from the state legislature to make this change.
Only time will tell if either of these make a difference.

Florida's Amendment 2 passed by a significant majority, so I can't see the absentee ballots making a difference there.

Arizona's Proposition 102 also passed. I haven't looked at the numbers on this one.

 

As Wick said in one of his earlier posts, it makes me disappointed that I'm living in California. This is outright discrimination and it saddens me that it passed. People can't overcome what their stupid culture or religion tells them. There's nothing wrong with being gay, if you ban gay marriage, you might as well ban religion. It's just what religion tells you, I thought religious people were nice since God said "love everyone". This is just stupid since now religious people are contradicting their own teachings based on a belief. People can't overcome a religion to give equal rights. This proposition had seriously be rejected or it's not going to be California anymore.

Also, I'm thinking of moving to Canada when I grow up. For some reason, you never see Canada in the news and they don't seem to have any conflicts.

 

Try holland, it is liberal and awesome(except for half the government parties, who only get votes because they are christian)

what happened with the other referenda?(all info is welcome)

 

Okay, what a boring thread. Somebody has to go devil's advocate. It's not a real debate until somebody's feelings get hurt.

Just for the sake of argument, is marriage actually a right? Is it actually written in that terminology somewhere?

And why should your culture, which tells you that gay marriage is acceptable, override their culture, which tells them that it is not?

This statement (and others like it by other posters) suggest a lack of understanding of the various religious positions. Jesus said "love everyone", and yet he did not say that any behaviour is right. I can love a serial killer, and that would not mean I would endorse his behaviour.

Most Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. believe that homosexuality is a choice, and an immoral choice at that. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is more of a reaction to a group that defines themselves based on an immoral choice. Allowing homosexuals to marry is seen as state endorsement of immorality, which any religious person would be loath to agree with.

And on a final note, it seems to be comparing apples and oranges to compare the homosexual "persecution" to what the blacks had to go through. Seriously, are the homsexuals running from the lynch mobs? How about having their children taken away and sold?

Funny, I see Canada in the news all the time.

 

...Wow.
I'm not going to dignify this with a real response. One question though. Did you sign up just so you could argue your point in this thread?

 

No I didn't sign up just to argue in this thread. I've already posted in another thread and intend to continue doing so in the future.

But if you'd rather not be confronted by anything but what you are already convinced is the truth, feel free. How very religious of you.

 

Epic troll.
Alright.

I'll just clear a few things up for you, first.
One, I view marriage as unnecessary. Two people don't need to be married to love eachother. It's simply a legal binding. In fact, people would marry their children, for peace treaties and the like.
Two, I am an athiest. I do not believe in God, nor any God. I do not believe in the supernatural, the mystical, or the spiritual. With that said...

Why? Because, our culture does not eliminate another human being's rights. It does not matter what your belief is, what your religion is, how you view the world.. You can not justify the taking away of another human's rights, whether he is of a different age, class, race, sexual orientation, or gender than you. Should I be allowed to go out and discriminate against you? And state my reason, my excuse, as my Religion?

Lynch mobs? Slavery? In MY 21st Century?
While I agree there are varying degrees of discrimination, one should never believe that a form of it doesn't matter. We need to take steps to eliminate this sort of hatred in our world, and we can only do that if we recognize all forms of discrimination as wrong. Racism against blacks has decreased at an extreme rate in the last few years, ( Obama, anyone? ), and I think it's time we started looking at something else. No, Racism is not gone. It never will be. It's an impossibility, much like World Peace. But at least we've taken steps towards lessening the degree at which Racism is present, and we need to continue to take those steps, with all forms of hatred.

 

Isn't a marriage a religious ceremony though? It would seem so since it is carried out by a spiritual leader. If that is the case then the government, being secular, should not have anything to do with marriage. As such deciding who can and can't get married is a decision reserved soley for the group officiating the cerimony. The only time the government should get involved is in civil unions (which are offered to any couple regardless of gender in most places) which have pretty much the same rights as a marriage.

Frankly a marriage should mean as much to the state as a baptism since it is a religious ceremony, and getting married should not give any civil rights and responsibilities (it will carry religious responsibilities of course), so a married couple will also want to apply for a civil union (which could be done at the same time) if they intend to share property and such.

 

1.banning religion would be awesome
the world doesn't need more reasons for wars/discrimination/etc.

2.marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, if they wish to be together, then so be it
if they can't marry, then so be it
it doesn't matter if you're married or not
because much more things matter

marriage is just another form of ceremony
some do it for legal bonds (MOAR MONNNNEEEEYYYYZZZZ)

screw discrimination
screw religion
they live their lives
we live ours

 

1. No, people should have the right to believe what they want to believe. Denying them that right is fascism. That and I find it offensive that you want to crush my freedoms because some idiots decided to force their beliefs on others. Ihaven't started any fights over my religion so why should I be punished? In reality though banning religion is forcing atheism (the belief that there is no God) on others, which is just as wrong as forcing the belief in God on someone.

2. I do agree with you there. Governments should be totally uninvolved in Marriages. If you want the legal rights to share property then that goes through the state and is just a civil union which is not linked t marriage. You can be married without a civil union (though it would be pointless) and you can have a union without a marriage.

 

if you love someone, but your parents doesn't like that person
will it stop you from loving that person?

thats the point im making @ number 2

same goes with
if you love your partner, not being married won't stop you
from loving your partner

 

If what I said constitutes a troll in these parts, you've been extraordinarily fortunate so far.

So would you say you are religious in your atheism?

We take away people's rights all the time. The question is whether the reason for doing so is justifiable. So don't go too idealistic on this one.

Furthermore, a "right" by definition, is something you have only because the government says you do. "Freedom" is probably a much more appropriate term. But that's semantics, especially since everyone uses the term "right" these days.

But semantics are at the very heart of the issue. Let's start with the basics. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

 

Tychus stop using your duplicate account >.<

 

If what I said constitutes a troll in these parts, you've been extraordinarily fortunate so far.

So would you say you are religious in your atheism?

We take away people's rights all the time. The question is whether the reason for doing so is justifiable. So don't go too idealistic on this one.

Furthermore, a "right" by definition, is something you have only because the government says you do. "Freedom" is probably a much more appropriate term. But that's semantics, especially since everyone uses the term "right" these days.

But semantics are at the very heart of the issue. Let's start with the basics. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

That points to another reason why many Christians vote against homosexual marriage. With priests/pastors/ministers/whatever able to perform marriage ceremonies, they are worried that the government will force them to go against their religious beliefs and perform those ceremonies for homosexual couples.

One solution to this is to take marriage away from religious institutions entirely and give it to the government. A church could then simply offer a "blessing" or some such thing on any marriage that it wishes. Presumably, a homosexual couple would not want to bother with getting the blessing of a church that thinks they are living in sin anyways, so everybody is happy.

Silly edit button...

 

That is not an option.
Marriage is a religious institution so it should NOT be given to the government, and the government cannot force ministers to marry a couple they don't twant to.


As I said before, marriage should be a religious issue and the governemtnt should be uninvolved, while the government is in charge of regulation civil unions.

 

I don't disagree too much with the first point. Criminals are locked in prison, arguably taking away their rights. What I think is that a person's freedoms should be limited only if they have infringed on the freedoms of others.

As for the second point... NO. Not in the United States. The Constitution guarantees the basic human rights which belong to the individual and the individual alone, they are not granted by the government so that they can be repealed later. Whether marriage is a right in itself is a different issue.

The right that is in question in this case is the right to be free from discrimination. Why should one pair of people be granted benefits such as hospital visitation, financial consolidation, company insurance plans, and tax breaks while another pair of people can't receive those benefits? The fact that it is government supported discrimination is what makes it a big issue.

There is no widely accepted distinction between marriage and a civil union. Ideally businesses, governments, hospitals, and other organizations would ignore marital status and accommodate couples based on civil union status, but at the moment there are no laws enforcing this and civil unions are still denied to homosexual couples.

I see it as a failing of the separation of church and state.

 

"The Constitution guarantees" would seem to prove my point. The fact is that we've all grown up with so many of these rights that we take them for granted. They are as transient as the government is. Why do you think a large portion of humanity doesn't have them?

If you follow that logic to its end, why can't we have polygamy, or brothers marrying sisters? It's a simple statement of morality or ethics or opinion or belief or whatever you want to call it to say that these are wrong but homosexuality isn't.

You've also hit upon another problem. Can a word be discriminatory? If I remember rightly, hasn't California tried (or suceeded?) to ban such words as father, mother, sister, and brother from textbooks?

That is a problem. A further problem is that in places where homosexuals were allowed to have civil unions, and civil unions were identical to marriage in every legal way except the name, homosexuals were not satisfied. They wanted to have marriage too. Which leads back to my last point.

So you believe that the only possible reason to believe homosexuality is wrong is a religious one?

 

Those rights are already granted by civil unions available to same sex couples, so the debate over marriage is one over semantics.


Legally marriages and civil unions are the same, differing only in name and who they apply to.
Basically it comes down to the fact that people are getting worked up over a NAME. The fact that people who have these rights want the same thing by a different name signifies to me that they care more about the name than the rights.