A place to meet your neighbors & exchange ideas
Gay Marriage and Proposition 8
- Rating: No Rating
This is NOT a referendum on Proposition 8. If you want to keep debating that issue, start another discussion.
My question is simple:
Why do YOU think the majority of California voters rejected gay marriage as a legal institution?
My question is simple:
Why do YOU think the majority of California voters rejected gay marriage as a legal institution?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paranthopus Robustus on -
There are many ways for people to share their lives, property and so on with who ever they choose.
Marriage has been a established tradition for centurys. It has always been between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. The tradition has been to commit your life to the goal of producing, nurturing and raising offspring. Gays can not acomplish this goal.
There have been those who want to change this tradition. Many times over the years people have tryed to change things. But the tradition stands for the most part.
There are legal ways for people to draw up contracts to share whatever they choose with whoever they choose.
SO the claims being made by gay militants are false. You or I can share whatever we choose with whoever we choose to. All we need to do is draw up the correct paperwork.
The militants in all areas LIE ALOT. They tell half truths to acomplish their goals.
The uninformed believe their lies. But if we look at the way things realy are. We will see them for who they realy are.
Gay marriage is unnatural. As well as unnessacary. Legal ways are available to overcome any problems. All we need to do is draw up the contracts.
The reason most people world wide reject homosexual unions is that most of us realize that homosexual behaviour is unnatural. A perversion that should not be tolerated. Let alone incourged.
This is a free country. We are allowed to be who we are. But others do not have to agree.
Do as you please. Just keep your private life private.
This is nothing more than one ignorant hillbillys opinion. But I believe that is what was asked for .
-
Permalink Reply by Vanessa on -
Christmas has also supposedly been a celebration of christ's birth for many many years. Not so anymore...things can change.
Oh and despite what you believe, homosexuality is natural, as it happens in nature. My mom's dog was totally gay.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel on -
"A perversion that should not be tolerated" vs. "This is a free country. We are allowed to be who we are" Those are very conflicting statements - what is it that you are really trying to say? And just because you think that "Most people world-wide reject homosexual unions...is unnatural" does not necessarily make it a truth. Sorry Dave, but I disagree with you on those points.
In biblical times, people were having promiscuous sex with boys, girls, men, women and with all kinds of creatures and masturbating and spilling their "seed" instead of getting to work and behaving like good family people and productive citizens. Kingdoms and countries needed to increase their populations and GNP, and that wasn't happening with a citizenry of sex-addicts and orgies. Back then, God was to be FEARED (much like the king?) because that was all they knew on how to control the people. Stories and morality rules were written into the Bible and other religious books by MAN who needed to manipulate the flock, often for political purposes. Like many other fallacies, just because the "belief" has been promoted for eons and ages, does not make it relevant for today - and it should join the ranks of many other dispelled myths and falsities.
We no longer need to "populate" and many people choose not to marry for the sole purpose of having children (a big deal in the Roman Catholic Church). As I recall from my 11 years in Catholic School: The message from Jesus is that we should love one another. And that all people are created in the image of God. I don't recall seeing disclaimers in there to specify that homosexuals were not lovable and not created in God's image. Man likes to twist, turn and manipulate "God's Word" to suit his need for power. However, the basic message seems pretty simple to me.
"Has always been between ONE man and ONE woman"? Not too sure about that. We'd have to ignore a lot of history and contemporary religions to support that statement. And remember, not so long ago women were still considered "chattel" i.e. a possession, not unlike a slave.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary on -
Dave ... I don't know if you're actually a hillbilly ... I'll have to take your word for it. But you sure aren't ignorant. While I often (usually) find myself not agreeing with your opinions, I am always intrigued to read them. It has just occurred to me that because your style of writing is so direct, and authoritative, and passionate that ... I sometimes lose sight of that fact that your writings are only your opinions and you're certainly entitled to offer them.
-
Permalink Reply by Paranthopus Robustus on
-
Gary. I can assure you beond any doubt that I am a hillbilly. By birth, by culture and by choice.
Something some people do not realize is.
Sometimes I am expressing my thoughts and beliefs.
And sometimes I am playing devils advocate.
I am exploring the world we live in.
As to your second point.
I have more education than most. My I.Q. is in the top 10% of those tested.
And I can tell you. From someone who has been there.
The more the truly intelegent learn. The more they realize how truly ignorant they truly are.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary on
-
Or as I often say "The smarter we get ... the dumber we look"
I think many of us here on CCT would do a much better job of communicating if we were in a room together facing each other eye-to-eye. So much of a person's intent can be lost or misunderstood in these written discussions.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachel on
-
Religious influence and misleading advertising....yes=yes, no=yes, yes=no, no=no..???..it was very confusing as to how to cast the vote to get the results a voter wanted. And that is also the feedback that came about after the election. Very confusing.
-
Permalink Reply by Paranthopus Robustus on
-
Rachel. You pointed out a point where I at best misspoke. I do not know how to express my beliefs in ways that even I understand fully.
I do know that the God I look up to created us all.
The gay people seem to be a subject that has been center stage lately. God loves them the same as he loves the rest of us.
At this point I will apoligize to those who do not believe in God. But sinse I do believe. Some things are real to me. Others disagree. If I had been raised the way they were raised. Would I believe as they do??
Anyway. If we are going to have a society that works and survives. There must be common ground between citizens. We can not have basic moral devisions. We must quit fighting amongst ourselves over issues that will never be resolved to everyones satisfaction.
As a moral issue. I as a Christian. With the understanding I have of what The God that I believe in wants us to be. I can not say that sexual sin, or any other sin is exceptible. It is not.
But as a American citizen. A member of a free country. Where we all get to decide how to live. Those who disagree with eachother have a right to believe as they choose.
Now comes my problem. I do not want my (or your) children and grandchildren taught anything that will harm their relationship with God.
Those of you who do not believe in the God I believe in do not see the problem. I understand the confusion between us.
I believe in heaven and hell. I do not claim to know all the details. But there is a line somewhere outthere.
From a Christian moral point of view. We must fight sin. Sexual or other sin.
From the American citizen point of view. We are all allowed to do and be as we are. As long as we donot harm others.
But is teaching our children that forbidden activity is exceptable harming the children?? Therefore we are commiting sin. As well as leading our children into sin?? But from the citizens point of view there is no problem.
I truly believe that God created this world. He, She, It, they or whatever gave us laws and rules to live by. I do not understand why some rules and laws are. But just like the child that does not know why they need to look both ways before crossing the street. When we grow up we will understand.
To soon old.. To late smart??
Hang in there Josie. I don't always agree with you. But your arguements make sense. Your last post is right on the mark.
-
Permalink Reply by Stimulus Bill on -
Excellent post, Ken.
From Wikipedia:
'The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."'
It seems to me that our government has been violating this Amendment since the first marriage laws were written and the first Marriage License was issued. Marriage is a religious custom -- and many religions use the term "marriage" to describe very different arrangements. Yet those laws are modeled after, and use the terminology of, the Protestant definition of marriage that happened to be the most common religion in the US at that time.
One of the first uses of those laws was to deny Mormons the free exercise of their religion, which defined polygamy as marriage. I shouldn't have to remind Dave (but I will, anyway) that the most revered Kings of Israel in the Old Testament were also polygamists.
I suspect that one of the reasons the Religious Right is so opposed to legalizing gay marriage is that they fear that the free exercise of their own religious traditions and teachings about marriage will be negated by an unconstitutional government decree -- just as the Mormons' were.
I agree that what is good for the goose and gander should be good for the goose and goose and the gander and gander. But I don't think asking the government to redefine marriage is the answer. The government should ONLY sanction "civil unions" (gay or straight) for legal purposes and leave the definition of marriage to the beliefs of the participants.
The gay community would do us all a patriotic service if they were to get us off of this slippery slope entirely instead of compounding the original error to gain leverage over the churches that condemn them.
-
Permalink Reply by Paranthopus Robustus on
-
I stand corrected where federal law is conserned. The federal government does not recognise same sex marriage. So benefits extended to spouses can not be recieved by same sex couples.
Bill. Hi. As far as old testament law goes. I am a new testament Christian. Old testament law is nothing more than a history lesson.
I in a nonreligious government where morals have no place in making decisions. All people should have equal rights.
It is only a matter of time until things change.
From a legal point I see the logic.
As a Christian believer I see problems.
Welcome to
Central Coast Today
© 2010 Created by Eggbox Media, LLC DBA Central Coast Today
