Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody?
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back on topic: will it really hurt anybody?

If what the attached article states is true, I can see harm (in the passing of the proposition)-- for which a large portion of responsibility can placed on 2% of the population of the State of California.

Mormons Bankroll Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment


quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has mobilized followers to give an estimated 77% of donations to support California's proposed marriage ban.

Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million. Additionally, the group reports that Mormons have contributed $6.9 million to pass a a similar law, Proposition 102, in Arizona.

I don't see it as coincidental that the video on the front page of Ornery is linked directly from lds.org (which I assume is based in SLC).

I'm still not going to go off on an anti-Mormon rant here. But I'm getting more than a little pissed off by the tactics of the groups on the Yes on 8 side of the argument; see my post above re: the fallacies in the arguments presented. I'm also more than a little annoyed at the out of state involvement on the "Yes" side, but there's been a chunk of out of state involvement on the "No" side, too. Not to the extent from the yes side, so maybe it's just the magnitude.

Bottom line: I'm married, and this is important to me. I donated to a political campaign for the first time in my life about 6 weeks ago, doubled that amount 2 weeks ago, and will be doubling again tonight. This is in addition to the money sent by my now husband. By the time I'm done, I figure we'll be at $1500 donated. It's all we can afford. I've got a political sign in my front yard for the first time since the Mondale campaign. I haven't been able to get personally involved in the No on 8 campaign, due to the time commitments needed to pull off a long distance wedding from 500 miles away. On the other hand, my father, mother, sisters & nieces have been actively phonebanking on behalf of the No on 8 campaign--I'm looking to start doing that myself.

And if I hear one more comment about activist judges, I'm going to start slapping people. Read the ****-ing constitution. They're just doing their job, per the job description.

----
edited to clarify where I see harm, correct donation amount, and to comment on out of state involvement

[ October 21, 2008, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Thanks, Jim. That is very helpful.

Another difference: Persons under the age of 18 can enter into marriage with the consent of their parents or by court order. No one under the age of 18 can enter into a Domestic Partnership.


-----

edited to add "or by court order" Saw that in the "In re Marriages" decision footnotes, circa page 43

[ October 21, 2008, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
About 400 Mormons delivered, the other day, a petition to church headquarters protesting their exclusion of practicing gays from the plan of salvation.

Link? I am humbled by the bravery of those people.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_10753975

The petition is probably needless. The LDS Church politically has duplicated its efforts in 2000 to pass Proposition 22, or exceeded them, as there is little point in making a half-hearted political effort. But the leaders before the election campaign had showed in their contacts with gay groups that they were quite aware their positions on these matters were being challenged both by members and by outsiders. So the matter is being studied very carefully, both as to what their teachings should be and as to how far these teachings should be incorporated into civil law. Although the Mormons have been more active in the Proposition 8 campaign than other groups, my impression is that they are more open to change than Roman Catholics or Southern Baptists, even if they eventually decide to make no changes at all. And as a practical matter, it does little good for them to support Proposition 8 and lose. As a matter of political expediency, they made little effort to prevent Canada from approving same sex marriage, even though a considerable number of Mormons live there, so it is not clear why California should be different.

Edited to add the commentary below the link.

[ October 22, 2008, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
link

I suppose it is brave. I abandoned Mormonism around my 16th year, along with almost every other belief system I'd inherited in those years, and the subsequent alienation was so overwhelming it was many years before I realized how much *community* -- warmth, security, eternal purpose -- the church provided.

I tend to forget how hard it is for someone who's grown to adulthood, and fully integrated Mormonism as their entire life paradigm, to challenge it.

Hmmm... my daughter's gay. All her paternal in-laws are Mormons. We haven't told anyone at her request (although she could care less about Mormonism).

It's sad.

The older I get, the less tolerance I have for manufactured "reasons to live".

Life is its own reason. If life without Divinely Approved Holy Cosmic Eternal Life Insurance Plans isn't satisfying of itself, why then would Eternal Life be satisfying as a reason to live... forever?

Perhaps my favorite literary quote, cornily misprinted:

"Life is a great sunrise. I do not see why death should not be an even greater one."

That's surPrise, not sunrise. But the misprint sums up the difference I describe above: the fact of life as a surprise versus the hope in eternal sunrise.
Vladimir Nabokov

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose Nabokov's 'religion' and mine are summed up thusly:

"Caress the detail, the divine detail."
Vladimir Nabokov

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter Giser
Member
Member # 1027

 - posted      Profile for Peter Giser     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:

1) California law has forbidden discrimination based on homosexual acts or orientation for years, and will continue to do so if Proposition 8 passes. So how is this an argument for Proposition 8?

2) Do you think teachers should be forbidden to tell students same sex marriage is legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts, or that some Canadians think some U.S. states are under the thrall of pseudo-Christian hate cults? Age does matter, but otherwise this is like telling students polygamy is legal in some Muslim nations.

3) Here I agree with you, as passage of Proposition 8 would probably change the outcome of some court cases. Whether this would be good or bad is indeed a matter of opinion, and would depend on exactly what decisions are made by various courts.

5) Freedom of speech includes the right to condemn homosexuality, for good reasons or bad. But I do not see how permitting same sex couples to marry prevents conservative Christians saying none of them have any chance of salvation, for example.

6) California law permits parents to remove children from such instruction, and it permits parents to opt for private schools or home schooling. See point 2 for whether students ignorant of attitudes or laws can be said to be adequately educated.

7) The "activist judges" description is horse manure. The California Supreme Court found that the distinction between domestic partnerships and civil marriages in California violated prohibitions of discrimination in the California Constitution, as it served no purpose when the Legislature had proclaimed its intent to make the legal consequence of the two identical. So the practical effect of such a distinction could only be discriminatory, by encouraging the belief domestic partnerships were inferior to marriage. Perhaps the Legislature erred in granting all the rights to same sex couples in domestic partnerships that were granted to opposite sex couples in civil marriages, but the Court should hardly be criticized for making this argument.

TomDavidson: Imagine that 50% of people against same-sex marriage are such because of their religious views. Insisting on inspecting only secular arguments then disenfranchises them. As for the other 50%, it would take some kind of master thesis to demonstrate that there are *no* secular arguments to support opposing it. There are intelligent, educated people on both sides of the issue, and I wouldn't underwrite their ability to think so quickly.

hobsen:

1) That is not entirely true in the case of gay marriage. Undefined at first, in 1977 marriage became defined in the California legislature as "between a man and a woman". In 2000 this was furthered by a vote taken, which passed into Proposition 22. Only in 2008 were both measures struck down as "unconstitutional" by the supreme court. Proposition 8 would essentially serve to reinstate what was removed by the judges earlier this year. Just to be clear, Proposition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman, upholding the historical precedent of California, not overturning it.

2) It has nothing to do with forbidding it. It's just that the more normalized something becomes, the more prevalent it becomes in institutions like schools, and so conservative forces will certainly take steps to prevent that. Further, legalized gay marriage would increase schoolchildren's exposure to classmates with homosexual parents, and people who dislike that idea would probably be inclined to vote yes.

5) JoshCrow had mentioned feeling justified in ridiculing (i.e. shunning) those who openly disapprove of homosexuality, or at least gay marriage. Obviously a person has the right to condemn whatever they wish, but I think ridiculing anyone for having a contrary view is an attempt to restrict their ability to express their views through pressure tactics. Civilized, dignified condemnation is one thing, through print, letters, conversation, and other media. But ridiculing is quite another, and is destructive to the formation of a society with a wealth of differing opinions. A Christian ridiculing a gay person is certainly no better, although at the moment that is socially chastised far more than the reverse, for understandable reasons.

6) Taking your child out of school is a big deal, and home schooling a lot of work. This is probably not an option if both parents work full time to support their family. It is also a large step to take to avoid something which you may not like but is not the end of the world.

7) As I mentioned above, Proposition 22 was passed in California in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This was conducted through a voter ballot, i.e. the will of the people. In 2008 the Supreme Court truck it down as unconstitutional. I am not saying that the Supreme Court justices don't know how to do their job. I am not a lawyer. But it does seem like a group of judges decided, by fiat, to dictate to the people what they are permitted to decide about their society. And it's not like the voters voted to allow burglary or something ridiculous; this was a civil issue, and the majority wanted its society run with that law in place. That, I suppose, is an example of what is meant by the nebulous term "activist judges". In order to decide whether those judges interpreted the law correctly would require us all to become supreme court justices and decide for ourselves. Since that is not possible, many people are therefore going to be left with the impression that the judges have assumed the power of lawmaking, which is clearly a problem.

As to the original question of how society is threatened by gay marriage? JoshCrow was right that the "we don't know what it will do" stance cannot really be disputed. Frankly, even if gay marriage was legalized across the board, it would likely take 5-15 years to be able to detect what, if any, effects it has on the current generation, and - more importantly - approximately 30 more years to determine what effect it will have had on the coming generation as they grow up and become adults in that culture. That is a long time to have to wait to see the results of a social experiment.

And as for what sorts of problems might arise? It is very hard to put the onus of illustrating those problems on the conservative forces trying to maintain the status quo. In fact, part of the reason for maintaining the status quo is because that is one thing we do know. Certainly marriage is an important part of society, and altering the nature of marriage will likewise affect that society. I find it hard to believe anyone would claim that it would have no effect *at all*. What is unclear is whether the effects would be detrimental, positive, or neutral (it is also unclear what is detrimental, positive, or neutral for a society in any case).

Posts: 7 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your description of the legal history seems accurate, Peter Giser. But how do a thousand same sex couples raising children in same sex marriages have more effect on society than a thousand same sex couples raising children in domestic partnerships? What I am questioning is this:
quote:
legalized gay marriage would increase schoolchildren's exposure to classmates with homosexual parents
So far as I see, nobody has any proof that same sex marriage will change the number of same sex couples raising children, which a great number do now.

Other than that I am sure a continuation of same sex marriage will inspire some parents to take their children out of public schools, and make great sacrifices to give them a worse education at home. Home schooling is not necessarily inferior, of course; one of the best prepared college freshman I have ever met was entirely home schooled and earned a full scholarship to a Johns Hopkins pre-med program, which seems more than good enough. But same sex couples and their children have been harmed in the past by their inability to marry, so this seems to me a choice of evils; and it is not clear to me which is worse.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If voter initiaves are the way matters of Civil Rights are to be determined, I'm going to start donating NOW for an initiative in Alabama to bar State recognition of any so-called marriage solemnized in a Mormon Temple.

It won't take much in the way of ads to get it passed. Trust me.

As far as I can tell, war has been declared on la Republica de la Bandera del Oso by a hierarchial religion that's busting apart at the seams internally because it's members cannot continue to accept the obscene and hatefull pronouncement that Mullah Packard has issued over the years. When the Salt Lake Taliban can't keep the flock from getting restless, they always pick a direction and point in order to put off inevitable change.

The desperation so obvious in donating 17 million to deny Civil Rights to hundreds of thousands of people while raising only 300,000 to help the victims of Hurricane Ike stinks to high heaven. Or, what ever lower heaven the good queers who live lives of quiet miserable lonely desperation get to go too.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobsen, I'm sorry, but plenty of people took their kids out of public school because they didn't want them to hear that filthy crap about "Negros being equal to a white man".

Not our problem. Not in any way, shape, or form.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Imagine that 50% of people against same-sex marriage are such because of their religious views. Insisting on inspecting only secular arguments then disenfranchises them.
No, it doesn't. Nothing's stopping these people from still voting; they keep their franchise. Insisting on purely secular arguments, however, exposes their arguments as shallow and stupid. There's nothing remotely unfair about that.

And if it were anything close to 50%, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

quote:
Proposition 8, if passed, will amend the state constitution to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman, upholding the historical precedent of California, not overturning it.
And since the Supreme Court has in past decisions interpreted other amendments to their constitution to mean that even laws which unintentionally discriminate against a protected class (like homosexuals) are unconstitutional, the effect of Proposition 8 could very easily be the obvious: that the state of California becomes prevented by its own constitution from recognizing any marriages at all.

quote:
I think ridiculing anyone for having a contrary view is an attempt to restrict their ability to express their views through pressure tactics. Civilized, dignified condemnation is one thing, through print, letters, conversation, and other media. But ridiculing is quite another...
May I ask why? And who gets to determine what's "civilized" and "dignified?"

quote:
But it does seem like a group of judges decided, by fiat, to dictate to the people what they are permitted to decide about their society.
Let me be clear. The Californian constitution specifically forbids laws which have the intentional or unintentional effect of discriminating against certain protected classes. A gendered definition of "marriage" can be considered discriminatory (although I think it's fair to point out that this doesn't necessarily follow; the court's logic is weakest here). The court's conclusion, once the definition of "marriage" was found discriminatory, was inevitable.

I've said this before: if the people of California really wanted this to stick, they'd pass an amendment making it legal again to discriminate against homosexuals.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, experience has shown that parents who take their children out of public schools also tend to vote against any proposal to spend money for public schools. If half the people of California choose home schooling, and then vote to reduce the expenditures for public schools by 90%, do you think that would make no difference? And would you say it is not a problem that schools in black areas in California are markedly inferior? Poorly educated children will cause just as many problems for the rest of us if they are white and Mormon as if they are black and Baptist.

As a recent example, the prophet of the FLDS within the last ten years chose to set up his own parochial school system and pulled as I remember 5,000 FLDS children out of a school district with a total enrollment of 8,000. Since the district got state subsidies depending on the number of children attending, that was quite a blow to its budget. Moreover his parochial school system never got off the ground, so the children had no education for four or five years. Do you think this is likely to make them productive and law-abiding citizens and voters?

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter Giser
Member
Member # 1027

 - posted      Profile for Peter Giser     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

And if it were anything close to 50%, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

quote:
I think ridiculing anyone for having a contrary view is an attempt to restrict their ability to express their views through pressure tactics. Civilized, dignified condemnation is one thing, through print, letters, conversation, and other media. But ridiculing is quite another...
May I ask why? And who gets to determine what's "civilized" and "dignified?"

quote:
But it does seem like a group of judges decided, by fiat, to dictate to the people what they are permitted to decide about their society.
Let me be clear. The Californian constitution specifically forbids laws which have the intentional or unintentional effect of discriminating against certain protected classes. A gendered definition of "marriage" can be considered discriminatory (although I think it's fair to point out that this doesn't necessarily follow; the court's logic is weakest here). The court's conclusion, once the definition of "marriage" was found discriminatory, was inevitable.

I don't know how to tally the number of people who are against gay marriage because of their religious views...I suspect no one else does either.

As for what is 'civilized' and 'dignified', yes - I suppose you could strike most of the words from the dictionary if you insisted I demonstrate what they mean in literal terms. Most words other than nouns are relational, abstract, and often subjective, so if you have to ask me what civilized and dignified mean, you're on your own. To answer your question, ridiculing and shunning those who disagree with you is not only immature and intellectually puerile, but on a more logistical level, it is the use of force (social and psychological) to try to suppress dissenting views. I think it should be clear why this is not acceptable.

With regards to the fact that defining marriage as between a man and a woman can be assessed as discriminatory by the Supreme Court, I can use that same logic and claim that the distinction between "man" and "woman" can be assessed as discriminatory, and that the state should cease to acknowledge the existence of either. Since Proposition 22 was just putting into code what was already the definition of marriage up to that point in fact, it is no different than my ridiculous example. My point is that simply because a distinction is made between male and female in the law does not justify, only on that basis, barring such a law from existing. It is very clear to me that people who voted for Proposition 22 would have good reason to be upset with this court ruling and with coming to the conclusion that the courts have ruled that their opinions don't matter.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mongo dignify civilization with big stone.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
With regards to the fact that defining marriage as between a man and a woman can be assessed as discriminatory by the Supreme Court, I can use that same logic and claim that the distinction between "man" and "woman" can be assessed as discriminatory, and that the state should cease to acknowledge the existence of either.
The state actually beat you to it, and uses "person" in legal documents. The definition of "marriage" remains the one gendered item in California state law, if I recall correctly. Even state parental leave is gender-neutral.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As a matter of political expediency, they made little effort to prevent Canada from approving same sex marriage, even though a considerable number of Mormons live there, so it is not clear why California should be different.
I wonder if it's US-centric thinking on the part of the church leaders.

However, I think it's likely that they've talked themselves into thinking that there's a chance to win in California, and they probably perceived no such chance in Canada or in other countries where this has already happened.

I think this will hurt the credibility of the church in the long term, but who knows? The switcharoos on race discrimination and plural marriage are considered well justified by most of the church membership, so there might not be any reason to think the LDS church can't account for any failures in hindsight related to gay marriage just as effectively.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
duckslayer
New Member
Member # 5981

 - posted      Profile for duckslayer   Email duckslayer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

These words guaranteed the eventual destruction of the institution of slavery and the ultimate repudiation of discrimination against races by stating the obvious.

I've had friends compare the struggle for racial equality to the struggle for the definition of marriage to be altered. Card's statement that activist judges are overturning the constitutional separation of powers has been challenged by using the example of the need for activist judges to become involved in settling the race issues of the 60's.

On it's face, the example (of the need for activist judges) seems compelling and certainly merits consideration. However, I am of the opinion that if one examines the reasons for gays to insist on altering the definition of marriage, the argument loses it's potency.

As evidenced by the preponderance of response to Card's column, the majority of Americans (and all Canadians) have no stomach for any meaningful discrimination against one's sexual orientation. Most of us have gay acquaintances or family members and have had to come to terms with that lifestyle choice.

Because of the exposure to gay friends and or family members, I dare say there is close to a unanimous opinion that gays should be afforded all of the legal rights of hetero couples as to property, employment, housing etc.

The olive branch of "civil unions" has been extended and should be extended by all civil authorities to guarantee the rights which our gay friends say they are seeking.

Is it too much to ask that the institution of, and the definition of marriage not be tinkered with? Governmental recognition of the societal benefits of marriage are obvious to all except those radical enough to wish to overturn the pillars of our society.

Arguments against those who seek to defend the definition of marriage usually degenerate into an attack on religion in general and conservative religion in particular.

What I find ironic is that all of this mess is being sold in the name of tolerance, but I see scant tolerance for those who simply wish to defend the obvious, gay marriage is an oxymoron!

Based on Card's argument that words are being altered, I ask you to simply consult a dictionary, older than ten years. I'm being lazy tonight, I've only consulted my online dictionary which makes my point beautifully. here is what I found under marriage...

[QUOTE] "the formal union of a man and a women, typically recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife."

[QUOTE] "A similar relationship between partners of the same sex"

It seems that a more "update" and "enlightened dictionary" states one thing and then states the other as applying to the same word; marriage.

I looked up the definition of dog in the same dictionary. I won't bore you with the details of the definition of "dog", suffice it to say that it didn't include, nor did it even mention the word "cat".

It seems our modern society is simply losing it's ability to discriminate! Great say all of you who feel discrimination is the ultimate sin. Look up the word discrimination and see that we all must practice discrimination, "recognition or understanding between one thing and another", but our society seems hell bent on destroying that essential element of life.

In wrapping up, might I simply offer that most of us on the "pro marriage" side of the argument, might simply wish to defend reason itself, while at the same time wishing to do no harm to those of same sex attraction.

Live and let live is a two way street!

Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For several hundred years, the word "Man" didn't include people of African Ancestry in much of this country. "Black Man" would have been an oxymoron.

I see you're so very commited to tolerance that you would have been willing to "settle for a compromise" in Loving V Virginia that allowed States to "Misceganistic Unions" instead of marriage.

I used to believe some folks were just a little uncomfortable with change, that they just needed a little more time. Then I saw the hateful dishonest gibberish that's been appearing on my television for the last month, 77% funded by people who took untill 1978 to figure out that black folks were fully human.

Let it be war.

Without the AIDS epidemic of the 80's, this fight would have been over a decade ago. I guess Reagan must of been doing Gods Work when he preserved the institution of marriage by ignoring dying fags for five years.

[ October 23, 2008, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As evidenced by the preponderance of response to Card's column, the majority of Americans (and all Canadians) have no stomach for any meaningful discrimination against one's sexual orientation.
That's not exactly a scientific sample.

quote:
The olive branch of "civil unions" has been extended and should be extended by all civil authorities to guarantee the rights which our gay friends say they are seeking.
It's precisely the spirit in which "civil unions" are being offered -- an olive branch, a bone, a second-class union meant to shut people up -- that makes them an unacceptable option.

quote:
I looked up the definition of dog in the same dictionary. I won't bore you with the details of the definition of "dog", suffice it to say that it didn't include, nor did it even mention the word "cat".
If you truly believe that "same-sex" is to the word "marriage" as "cat" would be to "dog," why bother with civil unions at all? If these same-sex unions are devoid of any intersection between themselves and "real" marriages like the ones you and I enjoy, what's their value?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, there is *actual* religious discrimination to be discussed....

quote:

Carvlin's firm represents the Revs. Kay Greenleaf of Poughkeepsie and Dawn Sangrey of Bedford Hills, Westchester County. The two ministers are being prosecuted for performing 13 same-sex weddings in New Paltz for couples who did not obtain marriage licenses.

web page

Clergy have been arrested for performing marriages in their own Church, a Church which endorses marriage for Same Sex Couples - and has been performing them for 20 years.

How is this anything other than an obscene and flagrant violation of the first ammendment?

"This word has always meant X to me" doesn't mean "This word has ALWAYS meant X". Same Sex Marriages have been happening in this Country for nearly 40 years.

Or, well, started up again 40 years ago after the original inhabitants of North America spent at least a few hundred years performing them and recognizing them.

Also, Transgendered person in California can legally change their Sex as far as the State is Concerned, and get Married.

Prop 8 won't change that.

Somehow, I don't think that fits most Prop 8 Proponents "traditional" definition of marriage.

Why isn't that an issue? Because only a couple thousand such marriages exist?

If the stated concerns of Prop 8 proponents were their real concerns, why wouldn't they introduce an ammendment reading as follows -


1) No Religious Institution or Clergy may ever be penalized by law or subject to civil damages for refusing to perform a marriage between any two persons for any reason.

2) All Religions are free to encourage any guidelines of sexual behavior for their adherents that they wish, so long as those guidelines do not demand the violation of laws restricting sexual behavior.*

What's left?

Essentialy, the argument that we never should have ended prohibition, because then Teachers would have have had to answer honestly if a child asked if they could drink liqour when they grew up....and this would have increased alchoholism.

* Maybe this could be better worded, I'm not lawyer, but my point is that NAMBLA couldn't just start calling it's self a religion and advising adults on how best to molest kids and get away with it - but no one could use the Law to attack the Catholic Church for saying engaging in certain sexual acts is a sin.

[ October 23, 2008, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
duckslayer
New Member
Member # 5981

 - posted      Profile for duckslayer   Email duckslayer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the group who took too long to acknowledge that "black folks" obtain all of the privilege of whites in the LDS church. I make no defence for that taking so long and acknowledge a lack of sympathy for the plight of gay people in many LDS members.

Jesse, I used to be an intolerant gay basher until I had reason to change me perspective. I have had opportunity to defend gays for having the feelings which they are born with and have taken uncomfortable positions in discussions with friends and family on the issue.

People can and do change, "let it be war" Jesse is exactly what it feels like to live at this time in history when a "new puritanism" as Card has described the current left to be, has declared war on institutions which have served society well for thousands of years.

quote:
Maybe this could be better worded, I'm not lawyer, but my point is that NAMBLA couldn't just start calling it's self a religion and advising adults on how best to molest kids and get away with it - but no one could use the Law to attack the Catholic Church for saying engaging in certain sexual acts is a sin
There have already been efforts in other countries to ban the bible on the grounds that it promotes "hate speech" and to limit clergy as to what they can and cannot say.

You bring up NAMBLA, when will it be their turn to contest the right to full recognition to marry boys?

People who are defending marriage are simply saying that we shouldn't mess with that institution on the grounds that it must be done to afford the rights to others. Give them the rights they say they want, why turn society on it's head in the process.

Tom, I am a cat and resent the fact that I have been left out of places reserved for dogs. I must sue for the right to be called a dog and treated like a dog! Never the less, I am a cat! Why isn't being a cat enough? Even Obama knows that if you put lipstick on a pig... yada yada yada. Notice Obama and Biden both state that they say oppose Gay marriage? Why? How can Obama be such a bigot?

quote:
If you truly believe that "same-sex" is to the word "marriage" as "cat" would be to "dog," why bother with civil unions at all? If these same-sex unions are devoid of any intersection between themselves and "real" marriages like the ones you and I enjoy, what's their value?
Tom, when it gets right down to brass tacks, marriage as an institution has been protected and acknowledged by government specifically for the creation of, and protection of children. Though there are many gay parents for various reasons all over this country, still the recognition that in order to re-produce it takes a mommy and a daddy, and that it certainly is preferable for children to have a mommy and a daddy where possible, why not acknowledge that fact? Oboma does.

Jesse, in light of Obama's lack of gay rights vision, could you not put down your pitch fork and be patient with society and allow change of heart to come to the extent to which it should? Or must it be "burn baby burn"?

Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tuxmask3
Member
Member # 2512

 - posted      Profile for tuxmask3   Email tuxmask3   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A quick search will show that Obama opposes Prop 8.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You bring up NAMBLA, when will it be their turn to contest the right to full recognition to marry boys?" - this, Duck, is a ride down the garbage shoot.

There is absolutely no slippery slope from "Two consenting adults" to kids.

We've seen Sodomy laws overturned and at the same time actually seen an INCREASE in the strength of laws protecting children. "What two consenting adults do with their own lives" is what two consenting adults do with their own lives.

I don't care about "Society", Duck. I'm not trying to push a Same Sex Marriage initiative in Utah. I'm trying to defend an existing right in a State where somewhere between 45 and 53% of the Population agrees it should be defended.

That's WAY higher than popular support for the Perez decision, which over 70% of Californians opposed. They just didn't oppose it enough to sign a petition to alter their state constitution, and weren't being incited by a National campaign to get them to do so.

So, no, my corner of the world isn't going to burst into riots and flames as a result of RE: Marriage Cases standing any more than it did as a result of the Perez decision going unchallenged. A few John Birchers pulled their kids out of school over that one, too.

I'd advise against comparing people to animals. It was a bad argument last time, it's a bad argument this time.

Seperate but equal just doesn't cut it. The test is "compeling state intrest" in this State, and none of the arguments so far come close to meeting that standard.

So, no, I'm not talking about hurting anyone when I say "Let it be war", I don't roll that way.


But the LDS backing of Prop 8 is now fair game in my eyes, and so is bringing up the LDS track record on Civil Rights issues when I'm handing out flyers about Obamas position on 8 and talking to African-American voters in Los Angeles. By the way, you don't seem to be aware of what his position actually is.

quote:

Letter from Senator Obama to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast .



"As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. "

Support Senator Obama, Vote "NO ON 8".

You'd be suprised how carefully older black folks comming out of church read that flyer, and the questions they ask....and how quickly their minds change when we get into who is funding the Yes on 8 campaign.

If 8 manages to squeek past, welcome GLAAD and various GSA clubs camped out in front of your churches. Welcome to a lot of media exposure about the record of Elder Packers statements in the past.

Welcome to a lot more discussion about the Priesthood held by one of the boys who tortured and murdered Mathew Shepard. I wonder if the media will really understand what "Priesthood" means....or if it will be a lot of "A Mormon Priest"....hmmmm not my problem.

No whinning about it allowed, either.

You guys bought the ads saying "prop 8 will protect children from predators". No gloves.

[ October 23, 2008, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, U.S.ers will get to choose who they fear/hate more: gays or Mormons..?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds more like it's a package deal, from what Jesse wrote. Gays and Mormons, or neither. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You bring up NAMBLA, when will it be their turn to contest the right to full recognition to marry boys?
In order to do this, NAMBLA must challenge the concept of consent in marriage. I doubt they'll ever do so successfully.

quote:
Tom, when it gets right down to brass tacks, marriage as an institution has been protected and acknowledged by government specifically for the creation of, and protection of children.
I dispute this, actually, but I'm sympathetic to the argument.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
duckslayer
New Member
Member # 5981

 - posted      Profile for duckslayer   Email duckslayer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom-Jesse,

Thanks for the good arguements, I think that on this issue, rasonable people can dissagree. I hope that this ballot initiative resolves something, at least for California.

In weighing my own arguements, I have decided Tom, that all I really hope to preserve is the santity of the word marriage. If you turn it around, all that most people opposed to changing the deffinition of marriage really accomplish is that; since most of the rights are being granted to gays, something which I think is needed.

However, I do think that the slippery slope are legal issues regarding freedom of speech and religion that will follow on this change.

Jesse, be patient people do change.

I'm sure that you know more about Mr. Obama's possition than I might. I only go off of his answer to a direct question at the last debate, "are you for gay marriage"? Obama simply replied "no" which surprised me. I guess you can chalk it up to a politician saying what he thinks is necessary to get elected.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hitoshi
Member
Member # 4146

 - posted      Profile for Hitoshi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll be quite happy if Proposition 8 doesn't pass. Of course, opponents will say that it's not a "true" stamp of approval from the citizens of California, but hey, when you start funneling out-of-state money to try and sway opinion, I figure you give up your right to complain.
Posts: 166 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Duckslayer - I suppose defending the sanctity of a word is a noble purpose. In the end, the issue of "marriage" is a struggle on two fronts: 1) rights, and 2) recognition, which is psychological.

If all the rights that accompany marriage could be granted to gay couples, and such a couple proclaimed themselves "married" to the world, there would be no effective difference whether or not you, they, or anyone wanted to call them "married".

But this is not reality. For gay couples to be satisfied, either "marriage" as we know it must be redefined, or all legal implications of it must be redefined (i.e. the state or nation declaring all marriages to be civil unions, of a sort open to same-sex couples, and proceeding from there).

The modern world at large seemingly tends towards more tolerant positions over time, as those things that were once deemed "threatening" are seen at work and up close. I hope that more states continue to experiment with letting gay couples marry - and once people realize that their business ends where another's life begins, they will slowly move in that direction. To date, I still have no satisfactory demonstration of "harm" as a result of gays being permitted to marry.

It does surprise me, though, that the same people who are so adamant about their freedoms cannot grasp when their gay neighbor is being deprived of his own. Why they do not care is beyond my understanding. How they can frame it as a matter of their OWN freedoms is absurd to anybody looking. It's very clear where the freedoms are being suppressed. It would be like me trying to argue that my freedom to not see a black person on television was being suppressed.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's defend the sanctity of a word then. Right here. Right now. Let's DO this thing. (Sorry, I've been online while wife watches cop shows and hospital shows. The Hollywood spills over. Anyway:

secular also means 'that has been around for a long time', 'of the ages'.

As opposed to 'eternal', which is the province of the divine.

Ages are real; eternity is hypothetical, a metaphysical construct of the human mind.

The etyomolgy of the word is debated, but old definitions lean to the former definition while newer ones refer almost exclusively to the latter with heavy emphasis on theology.

Etymologies are fascinating, revealing, and inherently questionable. Still:

marry (v.) Look up marry at Dictionary.com
1297, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

The man/woman thing in the purity of this word comes from the similarity of two words meaning the opposite thing.

It is as if the word for marry were 'man', based on the morpheme 'man' shared by the words man and woman.

Anyway, from the Sanskrit allegation, I now pronounce you both women (even though one of you is a man).

From the who knows knows where but again seeming to be rooted in Sanskrit, , I now pronounce you human and human.

But I could also, if we rooted in Latin, pronounce you homo and homo, again meaning human and human, by way, it is believed, of homo (human) and humus 9earth).

This latter could provide semantical problems when we decide to marry ETs.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The LDS Church has cancelled plans to use volunteers in Utah to phone Californians regarding Proposition 8. Although nobody outside the senior leadership can be sure why, some have speculated that they realized that Proposition 8 being described as a Mormon initiative was hurting its chances.

Beyond that both sides have now raised about twice as much money as originally expected, close to sixty million dollars, with supporters of the measure still having a slight advantage. Initially supporters seem to have taken a lead in advertizing, but opponents have now made the battle more equal. Altogether proponents of Proposition 8 have run a shockingly inept campaign by introducing the measure at the general election rather than the primary, by running obviously false ads which are easily refuted, and by generating bad publicity. Their latest blunder is an attempt to blackmail corporations opposing proposition 8 to donate to them also, by threatening to publish their names as organizations committed to destroying marriage, which is being denounced in business publications all over the country. If the measure fails to pass, that failure will be largely their fault.

As to this the religious might speculate that God had confounded their counsels and led them astray, which is a traditional sign of divine displeasure. After all, if they can speculate Katrina was a divine punishment to New Orleans, I can speculate their blundering means God hates their bigotry and their distortions of what is written in the Bible. It is fair enough to say some Biblical passages condemn homosexuality; but they have gone beyond that to cite passages in which they know the meaning is uncertain, to confuse the ignorant. Jesus himself condemned such deviations from Scripture very savagely. As I recall, he said that those Pharisees who made up previously unknown laws to suit themselves, by reading things into Scripture which were not there, had no chance of salvation. This is not true of all supporters of the proposition, but some of them have no purpose beyond stirring up hatred of gays to get contributions from believers they can appropriate for their own use. This is probably less true of Mormons, who are generally honest in financial matters, but some of their associates in this battle are beneath contempt.

[ October 24, 2008, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If any religion in America should know to keep its nose out of politics, it's LDS.

quote:
Woodruff (4th Prophet pf the Church) spent years as an apostle evading territorial marshals on the Mormon "underground," escaping prosecution for polygamy, and was unable even to publicly attend his first wife's funeral.
quote:
During his tenure, the church faced a number of legal battles with the United States, primarily over the practice of plural marriage. The church faced a real possibility of being destroyed as a viable legal entity, as it was faced with disfranchisement and federal confiscation of its property, including temples.[4]

Citing revelation, Woodruff issued the 1890 Manifesto which ended the church's official support of plural marriage in the territory of the United States and directed Latter-day Saints to only enter into marriages that are recognized by the laws in the areas in which they reside. He wrote in his diary, "I have arrived at the point in the history of my life as the president of the Church ... where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the Church".[5] Some historians[who?] consider the 1890 Manifesto to be Woodruff's most important contribution to the church.

But a sense of power goes to folks' heads, and the religious Right's political influence has given many religions that sense.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesus blessed a gay couple. He didn't marry them, but he offered no condemnation.

The story of the Centurion in Mathew? In the greek, the word used to describe the Centurions sick "servant" is Pais which means "boyfriend". It was translated to "Servant".

Jesus just blessed and healed the sick gay man. He didn't offer so much as a "go thy way and sin no more". Just a healing. Oh, and praised the Centurion who ask for the healing for having the greatest faith he had yet encountered.


quote:

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.


This is when I miss Richard, who could have dropped 19 cited sources regarding the word "pais" in about twelve seconds.
------------------------------------

After the flatly untrue things and irrational fears that have been circulating in the Curch, I give them elders the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't want to encourage the flock to spread slanders and libels.

Joseph Smith had plenty of nasty to say about folks who did such things. What with the life-long experience of being a target, and all.

I honestly have my own suspicions that the Church may not have had any influence at all in picking these ads....but you couldn't have donated to the John Birch Society in 1968 and then disavowed it with a "I didn't know what they would say with my money".

Stopping would be good, though.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and Duck -

Obamas position, and Bidens, is that the Federal Government should just recognize "Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships" at the Federal Level, but that States should decide for themselves whether or not they want to use those terms, or marriage.

Obama's actually been consistant on that for his whole political life, Biden since about 1992 when this really just first started becoming a national discussion. It's just another one of those complicated and nuanced things like McCain had back in 2000 [Wink] when I almost registered Republican to vote for him...but our Primary was so late I didn't bother.

Like 5-10% of California voters, they think it's wrong to change a State Constitution to remove Rights that have been recognized.

This is an important thing to remember about the vote we had here on the Statutory Intiative prop 22 8 years ago, and how it was marketed here, and why. They ran ads specifically pointing out that it wasn't a Constitutional Ammendment, and that the sole purpose was just to make sure that California wouldn't be forced to recognize Gay Marriages from another State before OUR State decided to allow it.

I wish those ads were on YouTube, but 2000 was another tech age...

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is when I miss Richard"

I always miss Richard. And a guy named Clogges on a planet far far away.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question asked is whether gay marriage would hurt anyone. The question is not about gay partnerships, and what rights might be conferred on them.

The thing Bible-believing Christians (and probably most Jews as well) object to, and take extreme offense at, is the attempt to call gay partnerships "marriage" in the Biblical sense. This is a violation of our religions, it is direct defiance of God's authority who ordained marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, and as a matter of conscience, we cannot ever, no matter what, respect gay partnership as being the same thing as marriage.

Those pushing for legalization of gay marriage are once again trying to compell churches and believing individuals to go beyond tolerance, and actually accord to homosexuality full approval and respect. As long as the Bible says that homosexual behavior is sinful, that approval and respect can never be given. You will have to burn our Bibles first. And even then, many of us will remember what it says.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the attempt to call gay partnerships "marriage" in the Biblical sense
Then why not fight that fight? Because it's not the same fight.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, not one of the apostles ever wrote the word "marriage". Jesus never used it.

Go use the Aramaic your God used when on earth. Have fun. Knock yourself out.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron - you probably wouldn't be very happy if the state told you not to do something because it was prohibited in somebody else's religion.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here's a copy of the blackmail/extortion letter sent out by Yes on 8

Prop 8 Letter

These letters (of which the attached is only a sample) went out to major donors on the opposition side of Prop 8 via registered mail. They were even signed by Yes on 8's general counsel, who IMHO should have known better. I don't know if the letter is in violation of campaign/election laws, but it's certainly a peculiar "moral" choice that's been made by the board members.

[ October 25, 2008, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1