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 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 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 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 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 Vanessa on
-
Well, that sounds like the simplest solution, if everyone can agree to it. Turn everything into civil unions, throw out the whole marriage term (well, as far as legality goes) and leave marriage to the religious.
Although, the easiest thing would be to just forget that it was ever a religious term and adapt it to the now a days terminology. This happens all the time, take for example the word "gay".
In the end, if people are just fighting the use of a word, and not really what it entitles people to, I think we have a very big problem.
-
Permalink Reply by Vanessa on
-
I can read the sarcasm. How is this any different than you throwing out the old testament, and only following the new?
-
Permalink Reply by Stimulus Bill on
-
I didn't read Dave's post that way, Vanessa. It sounded like he is thinking seriously about the merits of my argument, while accepting your position that the terminology shouldn't matter.
We shouldn't interrupt that process to crucify him for an inconsistent statement about his religious beliefs. How many times has he said that he hasn't sorted all of that out well enough to express it well? Most people never do.
-
Permalink Reply by Vanessa on
-
"Allow everyone to marry whoever or whatever they choose."
I don't know Bill, when he says stuff like ^that^ it really makes me question his sincerity. The term "whatever" really gets me...anyone sincere knows that there is a difference between whoever and whatever. He's implying that there is no difference between a man and a box or a cat. There is not line drawn for him, his argument is if a man can marry a man, whats stopping you from marrying his dog? That is where is see the sarcasm coming in.
-
Permalink Reply by Stimulus Bill on
-
I keyed on that word too, and decided to overlook it. You're not wrong about what that implies, as Dave just expounded his position on that issue moments ago in another discussion. The only silver lining in this cloud is that none of us (individually) will decide these matters.
I still think it is a positive thing when we all "reason together" to examine these things. If we find the flaws in all of our collective prejudices, maybe we'll get it right next time.
Welcome to
Central Coast Today
© 2010 Created by Eggbox Media, LLC DBA Central Coast Today
