TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- The NO on Prop 8 thread....
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
Prop 8 is about far more than "Gay Marriage".
It's far more than an issue about gay marriage, and most of the people in this forum are not gay. That's because I think most of us see it as an issue of tolerance, the Constitutional right to the equal "pursuit of happiness" and the separation of church and state. It's also about respecting truth and honesty as opposed to the blatant lies and dishonesty seen from many who are voting "Yes" for Prop 8. Many conservatives are saying it's not a religious issue for them, but it most assuredly is for most, and no religious sect or creed should hold power over human rights and equality among consenting adults.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by R!CH the founding fathers, many of them christian, were radicals, freethinkers and humanists who did not want religion to play any part in our government. the proof you offer with "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" were in fact added within the last hundred years by the same religious groups who tried to put the 10 commandments into federal courthouses. they had no place in our founding government. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by djjoshuaallen I get what your saying here, and i didnt claim that the founding fathers put this statement on our dollar, or wrote our pledge of allegiance. The dollar didnt replace the green back until far after our constitution was written. But God did have a hold on many of the leaders of the revolution, as god has a hold on many of the leaders today. And those leaders were definatly inspired and influenced by god and christianity. The right wing movement that is taking place at the moment is strongly influenced by god. This is my point, god has influenced american leaders since day one. And those leaders, influenced by god, are going to fight to keep control, power, and to move our nation in the direction the see fit for gods plan. Prop 8 is just one result of this. Many lower middle class republicans, although would benifit from democratic policies much more the conservative, will vote conservative simply because they want to have conservative judges appointed on the supreme court. Its that important to them, regardless of economics or leadership quatlities. The point is that agree with them or not, they have the right to do this and will continue. |
for reference, this is what they had to say about religion...
" Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. "
- Thomas Jefferson, founding father of America, 3rd president, inventor, polymath, author Declaration of Independence
" I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world. "
- Thomas Jefferson
" I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
" I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies. "
- Benjamin Franklin, founding father of America, author, inventor
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. "
- Benjamin Franklin
" During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. "
- James Madison, founding father of America, 4th president, political theorist
" What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy. "
- James Madison
" Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise. "
- James Madison
" This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it. "
- John Adams, founding father of America, 2nd president, federalist
" The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. "
- John Adams
" I do not believe in the creed of the Roman Church, in the Protestant Church, the Greek Church, or the Turkish Church. My own mind is my church. "
- Thomas Paine, deist, author "Common Sense"
" Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. "
- Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason
" All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "
- Thomas Paine
" The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma. "
- Abraham Lincoln, lawyer, emancipator, 16th president
" When I became convinced that the Universe is natural -- that all the ghosts and gods are myth, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts, and bards, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll, agnostic, humanist, freethinker (1833-1899)
" With soap, baptism is a good thing. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" The inspiration of the Bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" Hands that help are far better then lips that pray. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned by our surroundings. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" Environment is a sculptor -- a painter. If we had been born in Constantinople, then most of us would have said: 'There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.' If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana. As a rule, children love their parents, believe what they teach, and take great pride in saying that the religion of mother is good enough for them. "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own? "
- Robert G. Ingersoll
" When religion is good, it will support itself. And when it is not, and God does not care to support it, and its professors call for the help of a civil power, 'tis a sign of its being a bad one. "
- Benjamin Franklin
" The question is whether the god of nature will govern the world by his own laws or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles. "
- John Adams, founding father of America, 2nd president
" I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price regarding the harm done by religion, Jan. 8, 1789
" It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
" The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
" In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
" And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
" As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
" Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. "
- Thomas Jefferson, to James Smith, 1822
" All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
" Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. "
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I still can't fucking fathom how passionate you people are over homos marrying. I mean are you all ******s trying to get married yourselves? Who cares if they can marry or not, what does it matter to you if you're not a fagg0t, and please, no more of the "OH NOES TEH FEDERAL GOVMENT TRYIN TO IMPEDE ON TEH RIGHTS" crybaby shit. Seriously. There are more important issues today like the economy, Iran, Iraqi war then a whether a bunch of pink-skirt wearing fruitcakes can marry or not.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nostalgic I still can't fucking fathom how passionate you people are over homos marrying. I mean are you all ******s trying to get married yourselves? Who cares if they can marry or not, what does it matter to you if you're not a fagg0t, and please, no more of the "OH NOES TEH FEDERAL GOVMENT TRYIN TO IMPEDE ON TEH RIGHTS" crybaby shit. Seriously. There are more important issues today like the economy, Iran, Iraqi war then a whether a bunch of pink-skirt wearing fruitcakes can marry or not. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gehzumteufel You really miss the point of it all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by teknotexan ...Ask yourself this: Would you did a disgusting, lonely, painful death for a fancy folktale? /end tangent |
Importance of human rights
I think a lot of us "care" because NONheterosexuals are human too and when we diminish the rights of one minority, we diminish our entire society. It was exactly how the rise and fall of the Nazi regime played out. Of course there are other important issues such as the war, the economy, etc., but that doesn't preclude anyone from determining what their own personal priorities are - only a dictator dictates priorities - and most of us can handle several priorities in one day, based on our own freedom of choices.
Re: Importance of human rights
| quote: |
| Originally posted by selfEvolution I think a lot of us "care" because NONheterosexuals are human too and when we diminish the rights of one minority, we diminish our entire society. It was exactly how the rise and fall of the Nazi regime played out. Of course there are other important issues such as the war, the economy, etc., but that doesn't preclude anyone from determining what their own personal priorities are - only a dictator dictates priorities - and most of us can handle several priorities in one day, based on our own freedom of choices. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nostalgic I still can't fucking fathom how passionate you people are over homos marrying. I mean are you all ******s trying to get married yourselves? Who cares if they can marry or not, what does it matter to you if you're not a fagg0t, and please, no more of the "OH NOES TEH FEDERAL GOVMENT TRYIN TO IMPEDE ON TEH RIGHTS" crybaby shit. Seriously. There are more important issues today like the economy, Iran, Iraqi war then a whether a bunch of pink-skirt wearing fruitcakes can marry or not. |
Words of Wisdom
Here's a note from my good friend, Senator Art Torres, another "straight" man supporting NONheterosexual rights, and who is currently Chairman of the California Democratic Party. This reminds me of the previous quote I had posted on the matter from Thomas Jefferson:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson (Highly consulted by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin when framing our Constitution).
How is gay marriage between two consenting adults an act that is directly injurious to any other? The fact is, it isn't. The Constitution and the State Courts (who determined NONheterosexual marriage is legitimate and lawful)were designed to protect minorities from the emotionally-challenged hate and backlash of the majority (read a few posts back for evidence of such emotionalized and crude hatred). So if someone wants to prioritize the "economy" and the "war" consider how both are the *REAL* destroyers of too many heterosexual marriages - Everything is related in one way or another, and certainly decent human rights for all consenting adults are related to all aspects of a decent society. Bush, Rove and their cronies cannot continue to lie that they are "fighting for freedom in Iraq" when it isn't being allowed to every adult here in America. Homophobia is part of the battle cry of Nazis and Muslim Extremists - does any fair-minded "American" really want to join them in their battle cry?
"I've seen marriages slowly crushed by mounting personal debt. I've seen marriages strained by a health care system that doesn't take care of the sick. I've seen marriages put to the test by the effects of repeated deployment of a spouse to Iraq. But I've never seen a single marriage suffer because someone else had the same rights as the married couple. In fact, I don't know anyone who has."
- Art Torres
| quote: |
| A state ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is gaining momentum, with polls showing almost even odds of it passing after trailing by double digits a month ago. |
Marriage Rights are Equal Rights
I've been meaning to thank In2Muzik and many others in this forum who have made sane and rational comments.
In addition to the EQUAL tax benefits that NONheterosexuals would get by marrying, there are other considerations: If NONheterosexuals are only allowed civil union/domestic partnership, if one of the parties is unable or incapacitated to make a medical decision, the family of the partner have more legal rights than a domestic partner. Only MARRIAGE allows the SPOUSE to trump the family. For NONheterosexuals, many times the family is NOT supportive. Thus, they need the same rights that heterosexual married couples have, in order for their spouse to make major decisions.
Does anyone know what percentage of votes is needed for a California constitutional amendment to pass? Is it a majority plus one, or is it two-thirds of the vote?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nostalgic I still can't fucking fathom how passionate you people are over homos marrying. I mean are you all ******s trying to get married yourselves? Who cares if they can marry or not, what does it matter to you if you're not a fagg0t, and please, no more of the "OH NOES TEH FEDERAL GOVMENT TRYIN TO IMPEDE ON TEH RIGHTS" crybaby shit. Seriously. There are more important issues today like the economy, Iran, Iraqi war then a whether a bunch of pink-skirt wearing fruitcakes can marry or not. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pnutttty btw, i am gay and i do not wear pink-skirts, skirts, or even eat fruitcakes. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by TSG Do you still wear chanklas and push a shopping cart while yelling ELOTES? j/k between pnuttty & I |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gehzumteufel Does anyone know what percentage of votes is needed for a California constitutional amendment to pass? Is it a majority plus one, or is it two-thirds of the vote? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dollaroff (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov...ve_ref_qual.pdf) simple majority. |
The real family marriage proposition
The threesome marriage
Anyone want to start a signature drive and get this on the ticket next time around?...hehe
There has been a cry for tolerance (a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior), yet it is always a one way street... Regardless if you want to vote yes or no on it. That being said, I think so many of you on here are hypocrites. There is a huge crying out for �tolerance� and �equality�, yet you yourselves post things that could be seen as hateful, scathing, and be judged offensive by any means and standards. And, then when someone gets called out on it, we conveniently apologize about our intents, when (I think), if you were honest with yourselves, you were in fact having intent to harm and put-down� How in the world will anyone ever achieve these ideals, when both sides demonize and attack each other with abhorrence for different views? I don�t think that this is any way to solve differences�
There has been a fair share of "demon-ization" by both sides, that I think really polarizes a lot of people--which to be honest, isn't really a fair portrayal of what many people think and feel. E.g. if you are voting for prop 8, you are "intolerant", "discriminating", "a religious zealot", and basically you hate homosexuals. Others who are voting no on prop 8 are considered liberal, "threat to Christianity", challenging the countries ideals, left-wing progressives, and a whole slew of other negative or derogatory untruths.
Not only that, but most of us are entirely unqualified to sit and argue about the goods and bads of different social policy, because nobody does a thorough job on their homework. I myself am included in this group, as I am to some extent ignorant of all facts and circumstances� So I am not trying to talk down to anyone, but rather I just want people to not only be aware of their own shortcomings and ignorance, but please don�t attack me for my own shortcomings and ignorance.
Also, if you�re not willing to do A TON OF READING, then don�t bother replying please.
While I don�t view myself as a �biblethumper�, hopefully I can explain my thoughts here in a logical and straightforward manner that does not polarize anyone too much, as many others have continued here, and yet still form an intelligible statement that doesn�t entirely �lean on god's will� and that so called �sensational piece of fiction�.
Many people are making this out to be an argument about rights and equalities; San Francisco is not Selma. This is not an argument about rights or equalities. It is an argument about what the definition of marriage is. (Before you erupt and say "BS" please read further 
)
Some of this is a repeat from the last thread about this when it was first proposed, but being as that was a long time ago, nobody probably remembers.
Legally: Marriage has long been defined as two requirements
1. Two people
2. One is a man (groom), the other is a woman (bride)
Why we are on the legal turf for marriage, it might be educational to clear up some of the rhetoric about marriage as a civil right. While it is true that marriage in the state bucket of civil law, I think there needs to be some clarity about adding any marriage amendment to the Constitution.
1. http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178
2. http://www.nhhousegop.com/Reports/ExecSumm-p26-50.pdf
Socially:
1. Sex Integration
2. Contingency for procreation
3. These combined as a coherent whole
Religiously: This view is held by many religious institutions for a long time too. However, an added degree of �sanctity� is added to it, in the sense that it is believed to be designed by God. It is viewed that the optimal environment to raise children is a family with a mother and father in the home, who have a healthy loving relationship in which they rear and teach their children. Thus, it becomes the most basic building block of society. Meaning, somehow or another we all have to be raised and grow up. Anyone who has children (which is relatively few on here) wants them to grow up in and do well, and a common belief (though by no means unanimous) among religious people, is that the optimal environment for that is a marriage between a man and a woman.
Thus this begs the question: What is the core, the essentials, the nature of the relationship type that we have in mind when we refer to "gay marriage"? Note that the government does not own the foundational social institution of civil society. Perhaps your starting place is such a government takeover; but then you would be the proponent of a lessening of civil rights, not an expansion. Civil society is not a creature of the government. But you seem far too ready to turn that upside down and to abolish the man-woman criterion of marriage.
That is, you'd ban or forbid society, through its government, from recognizing the core of marriage which is the most pro-child social institution that we have. You'd prohibit the preferential status of marriage by merging it with nonmarriage, at law.
The relationship type you have in mind is not sex-integrative and cannot provide contingency for responsible procreation -- it cannot unite motherhood and fatherhood. So, if you think this relationship type is banned, forbidden, and otherwise spurned by Proposition 8, please state clearly the defining features of that relationship.
Explain how these features distinguish that relationship type from all other nonmarital relationship types that are already tolerated and/or protected by the laws in California.
If it is then a question about rights and equality, then why should we �discriminate� against singles? I mean, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, why should we let married couples have any more rights than those that are single? Why should those who prefer multiple lovers be �discriminated against�? So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage.
The difficulties and challenges of GBLTs are special precisely because they do not derive from the "discrimination" of marriage. The real source of the challenges of gay life is the problem of sexual difference. It is terribly difficult to grow up with a different sort of sexuality than most of the world around you. Marriage does not cause this problem, and it cannot solve it.
Yet, out of understandable compassion for the sorrows and difficulties of gays, many Americans want to offer marriage as a kind of consolation or remedy for the challenges inherent in the gay situation.
The increased social tolerance for gays in America is largely a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. But using marriage to accomplish a purpose for which it was not intended � and which it cannot fulfill � will not fundamentally alter the situation of gays. It will, however, spell the end of marriage, and of the protection marriage offers to vulnerable children who cannot vote or articulate their interests. The number of children potentially endangered by the collapse of marriage is far larger than the number of gays or "polyamorists." The number of single people who will never marry is substantial and growing, yet society is right to "discriminate" against these single people in ways that are relatively modest � but which sustain an institution that protects children.
| quote: |
| If it is then a question about rights and equality, then why should we �discriminate� against singles? I mean, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, why should we let married couples have any more rights than those that are single? Why should those who prefer multiple lovers be �discriminated against�? So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage. |
I understand and respect the views of some of the people whom oppose "no on prop 8." But it's this kind of stuff that upsets me. You want to talk about pushing your beliefs? Check this out. This is an e-mail from a committee member on the board for "No on Prop 8." They are actually doing this...or trying to at least.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If lies don't work, then maybe threats and blackmail will.
Yesterday, donors and supporters of Equality California began receiving threatening letters for their support of the statewide organizations efforts to protect LGBT youth and seniors from the "Yes on 8" campaign leadership.
These letters threatened to "expose" the donors listed on Equality California's website if they don't donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign and refrain from supporting LGBT equality in the future.
That's how low the other side is willing to go.
In any other circumstance I would characterize this despicable strategy as sad -- but we are in the fight of lives here in California.
So, will you stand with us? Will you make a donation to support equality?
Will you show that you won't be intimidated by their threats or lies?
Make a donation today to show the other side that we will not go back to the closet of inequality.
The letter, sent on their campaign letterhead, was signed by four members of the group's executive committee and suggests our donors withdraw their support for their own good. It demands an equivalent donation or else:
"Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies...that choose not to donate...to ProtectMarriage.com...will be published.
...We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution."
This outrageous attempt to raise money by using threats reveals their true agenda: permanently to harm the LGBT community, our organizations, our allies and our supporters.
Donate now and send a message to the other side -- We reject your effort to intimidate us, and we reject your shameful lies. We will fight to protect our freedom.
Please forward this message to everyone you know, and ask them to stand with us too.
We will not give in to these un-American ways of bullying and lies. We call on all Californians to reject these McCarthy-like tactics.
In solidarity,
Geoff Kors
Executive Committee Member
No On 8
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.