GTA

Politics and Religion => Politics And Religion Discussion => : Hermie March 02, 2009, 04:18:51 PM

: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 02, 2009, 04:18:51 PM

Here in California, Prop 8, the proposition to ban gay marriage, is heading to the California Supreme Court this week. What do you think?


My take: Prop 8 violates the US Constitution. Both houses of the CA legislature agree that Prop 8 was a Constitutional revision, and not an amendment, thus requiring a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature. Therefore, it does not follow the "Due Process" clause of the US Constitution, because the majority is trying to strip the minority of a basic right. Also, though not as concrete, the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause is also broken by putting discrimination into law.

I also have a LONG list of responses to concerns over Prop 8, either proving them groundless or misdirected.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Gene_SC March 02, 2009, 04:27:31 PM

It will never pass. Ninety percent of the state elected officials are gays, and lesbians..

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Big_Bill March 03, 2009, 11:52:20 AM

Well Brothers and Sisters,

I have NO problem with Gays and Lesbians being able to "JOIN TOGETHER" or have the same benefits as "Married" people. I do STRONGLY object to them being JOINED TOGETHER AS OR INMARRIAGE !

In my personnel opinion,marriage isthe Religious joining of a man and a women, with the intent for the two, to procreate and love one another ! I feel that the Government or the State, has no right to alter, change, or modify this Religious belief ! I feel that Government has no right inter fearing with Religion and their beliefs, in any way!

I also feel strongly, that the Homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual community is trying to say they are normal, and entitled to be wed in every Religious institution. And have their unions considered marriages. To in affect, shove their abnormal behavior into our faces, and tell us that they exist on the same level or plane as we are...

So I could not care what they do, with legal, consenting partners, and I hope joint property rights and alimony are part of and divorce or separation, as well as custody of their pets. But protection under the Law, can not change the teachings and the religious beliefs of countless Religions and peoples.

So take the best offer available, civil unions or no unions at all !

Bill

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: gamo2hammerli March 03, 2009, 03:57:00 PM

Well said Big_Bill.  Marriage under the eyes of God....meaning a man and a woman....not a woman and a woman or a man and a man.  As for their rights from the govt......what about sisters, brothers, uncle and nephew  and/or sister and brother couple that live and share the same home for a long time......how come they don't have the same rights as a married couple (gay or straight)?  If one of them dies...shouldn't the other one get his/her benefits?  A big can of worms here.........

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 03, 2009, 04:32:19 PM

See: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/sr0036.cfm

. . . which reads, in part:

In the days since [Obama's] election, for example, this country has witnessed acts of blatant religious hatred directed against those who supported Proposition 8, the ballot measure in California defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.[23] People who donated to Proposition 8 have been pressured out of their jobs;[24] their businesses have been targeted for reprisals;[25] churches have been vandalized;[26] a copy of The Book of Mormon has been set on fire on the steps of a Mormon church;[27] and suspicious white powder has been sent to Mormon temples.[28] An open letter recently published in The New York Times condemned the violence and intimidation directed against Mormons and other religious individuals and institutions simply for supporting traditional marriage policies.[29].

I refrain from any further comment.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 04, 2009, 10:17:12 AM

Bill- Do you know that there are several other places a couple can get married, without setting foot miles within a church? Invalidating Prop 8 has no effect on religion, unless you make it. Unless your name is the State of California, your definition of marriage will not change.

One thing that annoys me about people being so religious about gay marriage is they are almost always selective with the Bible. The Bible looks down on divorce. So why not ACTUALLY protect marriage and ban divorce?


And yes, I know this is a huge can of worms. I'm hoping we can all be mature enough to discuss this civilly.


Gene- I really doubt the ratio is THAT high. More like... 15%. And that's a generous estimate. I'd bet money it's no higher than 30%.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Big_Bill March 04, 2009, 12:31:00 PM

Michael,

The most promiscuous people on earth are Gay Homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual Males, Hetero*_*_*_*_*_*ual Males would be elated if they had one half as many encounters per year, and probably die from exhaustion. So don't teach me about the Bible ! If you were allowed to be married by Old Testament Law, there would not be a Gay Male Alive, they would be stoned,,,with rocks, as an Adulterer! And Divorce is accepted in the Old Testament, as well as the New, the one that violated the Law,, Died (see above). And since you seem to have an understanding of the Bible, do you remember the punishment for Sodomy was ? more rocks !

Now I am Liberal or Constitutional enough not to care what others do, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but even the Constitution does not guarantee Happiness. And I don't let others to interfere with mine..

Bill

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 07, 2009, 05:12:38 PM

Do you have proof of the promiscuity statement? I happen to know some gays and lesbians who are EXTREMELY loyal. And there are plenty of promiscuous straights. From my experience, gays are no different from straights other than their brain chemistry being closer to that of the opposite gender. (A Sweedish study proved that homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality is indeed determined at birth, and is not a choice.)

Though here's something I ask everyone.

How does two gays getting married TRULY affect you?

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: airgun/cuz March 08, 2009, 04:14:44 AM

Michael,,very good question :How does two gays getting married TRULY affect you?  I believe that it should not affect anyone except the two being married that they now share their life as one,more power to them,I don't understand why people get so riled up over it,I believe in God & Jesus Christ & I treat peoplle as indivuduals & as I want to be treated,there are many things written in the bible that people don't live their lives by,why is a gay lifestyle such a big deal,people are born gay to straight healthy successfull parents of faith everyday,if we are all Gods children & I do believe we are,why would God allow his children to be born to the lifestyle to that, of what others believe is evil,if Adam was the first man to be created in Gods image & Eve was created from Adams rib to become his mate then everyone after them are brother & sister,why is the incest theory overlooked but gay lifestyle truly affects many,we do live in a society full of homo-phobics,again why doesgay lifestyle bother so many people????????

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 08, 2009, 05:58:47 AM

See: http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL515.cfm

September 20, 1994
The American Tradition of Personal Responsibility
by Dennis Prager
Heritage Lecture #515

Excerpt:

Redefining Tolerance to Mean Approval

As defined by one major dictionary, "tolerate" means "to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit." As now redefined, "tolerate" means "not only to permit, but to approve."

Let me touch on what I believe to be the most difficult contemporary example-homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality. I believe that, except for incest, we must tolerate any consensual *_*_*_*_*_*ual behavior among adults. I also strongly believe that any dismissal of the humanity of a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual person is immoral; a gay person is created in God's image, just as is any other human being, and is as likely to do good as any other human. But while I must tolerate homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality and honor the personhood of the homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual, I do not have to say, "I honor same-*_*_*_*_*_* love as the equal of male-female love."

It is virtually impossible to hold such a position today, however. Tolerance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals without full acceptance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality renders you a "homophobe," and discussion is thereby ended. If you state that male-female love should be society's ideal, you are deemed so morally inferior as to be unworthy of dialogue.

Now, there are indeed anti-gay bigots, and it pains me deeply that a human would judge another solely by his homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality. But we have a right to judge *_*_*_*_*_*ual behavior even while tolerating it and respecting the individual. And I do judge it because of the tradition I come from. My Jewish religion says that male *_*_*_*_*_*ual love should be confined to one female and to marriage and that there are varying degrees of wrongful deviation from that ideal, some of which are less significant, like consenting adult premarital *_*_*_*_*_*, and some of which are more significant, like adultery, incest, and, yes, homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality.

I am stuck with a code, if you will. Without that code, what would I care if people slept with the same *_*_*_*_*_*?

Whatever your position regarding homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality, however, the fact remains that the new meaning of tolerance-approval-is another attempt to do away with personal responsibility.

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: RJMcElwain March 08, 2009, 12:43:25 PM

"In my personnel opinion,marriage isthe Religious joining..................."

Exactly. It's a religious rite. And the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. So if two women want to marry, and some clergy is willing, why should I care?

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 08, 2009, 01:44:35 PM

Were you going for due process or rights not specifically enumerated with that reference?

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 08, 2009, 05:27:10 PM

I have listened to many of the concerns of those who supported Proposition 8. Not very many of them had any legal weight. Regardless of their concerns, it is wrong to deny equal rights. But before anyone says it, no one is legally allowed to have more than one spouse, no one is allowed to have *_*_*_*_*_* with minors, and no one is allowed to marry animals. All these laws are equal because they apply to EVERYONE, not just a majority or minority. Unequal rights is allowing some to do something and deny it to others, such as allowing straight couples to marry and denying it to same-*_*_*_*_*_* couples.

There were concerns over "protecting traditional marriage," but these concerns hold no ground because a man and a woman can still marry the same way they always have. Marriage is better protected by banning divorce anyway. The bible looks down on divorce, remember? Hypocrites.

The concern about "changing my definition of marriage" holds no ground because it is not changing any single person's definition of anything, unless your name is the State of California.

Though there were legitimate concerns about the teaching of gay marriage in schools. Prop 8 had nothing in its text about schools. However, this matter can be addressed in a different way, such as passing laws that give parents more rights (parents should be more active in their child's schooling anyway), and offer strict penalties for schools that don't properly inform parents of sensitive materials instead of taking rights away from other Americans.

The concerns regarding religion hold no ground because church and state are separate in this country. We all have the right to believe differently, and must respect another's rights.

In regards to procreation, there is already overpopulation problems. China has a one child per family law. Gay people are already gay; Letting them get married will have no effect on procreation. There are also out-of-wedlock children born daily, so marriage has nothing to do with procreation. There are also straight couples who choose not to have children. The human race will surely survive if gay couples marry. Now, a real threat to humanity is nuclear war. That will likely eliminate the human race, or a good majority of it.

Here are some other concerns:

"Gay marriage will perverse marriage." This holds no ground either. A lot of straight couples cheat on each other. Some straight couples practice sodomy. That's perversing marriage, is it not? Hypocrites.

While your at it, why not make Props to make divorce illegal and incest legal, because they are both in the bible! Stop being selective. If you are going to start thumping the bible about one thing, you better start thumping for the rest of it, you hypocrites. Go to your local Jehovah's Witness hall and learn what being a Christian really means.

“Marriage is a religious institution.” Are you going to say Atheists can't marry? Hypocrites.

"Being gay is a choice." Science has proven this wrong. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://purplepew.org/god-matters/justice-matters/gay-study-suggests-homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality-biological
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
If you continue to say this, it shows how ill-informed you are, and how blind and foolish you are for refusing to see the truth.

“Marriage is not in the constitution.” Neither is your right to breathe. Hypocrites.

“Churches will be forced to marry gay couples.” Go read the California marriage code, section 400. No one has to set foot anywhere near a church to get married.

When it comes to the voice of the voters, it is not a right of the voters to take away the rights of others. The courts are there to protect the rights of those not favored by the majority, among other reasons. They are doing their job in the face of extreme scrutiny, and I applaud them.

If you don't want to give them the word “marriage,” then all marriages should be called civil unions. Don't like it? Welcome to their world.


You don't have to agree with same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage. You are entitled to disagree. But you are not entitled to deny someone else of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, unless it affects you directly and adversely. The “No on 8” campaign isn't trying to push the “gay agenda,” but to level the playing field and promote equality for all Americans. The “Yes on 8” campaign doesn't have much ground to stand on, and with what it does, their energy would best be directed at schools, and not the homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals. Instead of trying to take away rights, how about work to give rights?



------------------------------------

Here is the text of Prop 8, taken from the offical filing, found here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

 

If a same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage is held by citizens of another state, it MUST be recognised in California. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause protects this. If California refuses to recognise an out-of-state marriage, they are in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. Though DOMA has declared it to be a state issue, straight marriages are recognised in other states, so it in itself is in violation of the same. Here is the text:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

 The judges that made gay marriage legal had a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND DUTY to do so. Arcticle VI if the United States Constitution states:

 "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The "Due Process" clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this law null and void. The campaign for this proposition used outright lies and mislead voters into believing what proponents claimed to be facts.

"... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 The 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the people of the country unwritten rights. Marriage is a one of those rights. Here is the text:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is by far the biggest broken. Proposition 8 put discrimination into law.by removing the rights of American citizens based on thier *_*_*_*_*_*ual orientation. Under Amendment 14 to the United States Constitution, discrimination in law is illegal.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Furthermore, Prop 8 attacks our forefather's words founding this country. The Declaration of Independence states:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, And the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, and WILL be overturned.

----------------------------------


To those who supported Prop 8 for religious reasons:
ENOUGH OF THE RELIGION ALREADY!

You hypocritical Christains are really getting on my nerves.

Yes, the bible suggests homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual acts are a sin. But you are instructed under the bible to give sinners "gentle correction," and turn the other cheek if they refuse to listen. You have refused to do this, and so you are in violation of your own religion.

Shame on you. Shame that you call yourselves Christian and yet play politics with the very book that tells you to rise above this! How dare you be so selective. If you are going to believe in God and His word, believe ALL OF IT! Stone your children when they misbehave, prostitute your daughters when money is tight, and procreate with your cousins to multiply! The bible says all of these things as well! How dare you pick out one thing from the Holy Book and use it to satisfy your own twisted political views!
SHAME ON YOU.
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7:1-5
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
Joshua 1:8
And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
John 8:7

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 5:22


Save yourself from your own hypocracy and go to a Jehovah's Witness hall and learn the true meaning of Christianity!

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 08, 2009, 10:52:15 PM

Closed-minded, racist-biggot-homophobes -- yes, we understand the left's position.  That has been understood from the outset.  Should others have a different opinion, then they obviously hate their brothers and are not worthy of even debating.  

Due process - the biggest loophole with surrounding penumbras ever in our "living constitution" for federal judges to legislate from the bench, irrespective of a valid statewide referendum. Who needs a code of ethics and founding principles, anyhow.  California is several years ahead of most of the rest of the country, though.  We can certainly see that -- in your states social policies, tax policies, energy policies, etc.  I am most happy that you reside there in that progressive paradise and hope that is going well for you and other Californians.  The next few years are certainly going to be "interesting times".  And finally, thank you for your kind comments on Christianity and salvation and the tolerance and open mindedness you also show.  It has been a Revelation, and a pleasure, sir.  Happy days are here again, they skies are turning clear again, etc.  Have a nice day.

PS: Hermie, et al,  I have removed myself as a moderator on the Politics and Religions Discussion forum.  The Moderator Avitar still appears, however.  Sorry if it offends.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: RJMcElwain March 09, 2009, 01:28:15 AM

Hermie,

Excellent post.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif)

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 09, 2009, 02:42:17 AM

By the way, President Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman.  I believe his black constituency supported this position during California's Prop 8 vote, if any of that matters for anything.

--------------

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King--indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history--were not only motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

--Barack Obama, "Call to Renewal Keynote Address," June 28, 2006[1]

__________

Or was that just Bravo Sierra?  Guess we will see.

: So a Jehovah's Witness believes in what !?!
: 3n00n March 09, 2009, 03:30:55 AM

Certainly couldn't be'Adam & Steve' or 'Amanda & Eve',and I currentlyknow of no Witness that supports that concept!

`

So Michael, are you saying that yourKingdom Hall preaches these pactices? (http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif)

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 09, 2009, 12:18:03 PM

My alternative, should Prop 8 stand:

"Restore Marriage Equality Act", a Prop I'll submit if the courts uphold 8.


Section 1.
This measure shall be known as and may be referred to as the “Restore Marriage Equality Act.”

Section 2.
Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution, which reads:

“SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

shall be amended to read:

“SEC. 7.5 Marriage between any two consenting adults committing to live as one in love and life shall be valid and recognized in California.”

Section 3.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.





Also, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I just find them to take Christianity seriously.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 09, 2009, 01:25:41 PM

And when this Proposition referendum fails, as it will, again, we shall look forward to more rioting, violence, expressions of hatred and discrimination against the religious right. But most likely, political activist judges will be willing to step in, set aside the will of the voting public of the State of California, and impose the "right" to same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.

Equal protection under the laws governing civil unions is wholly sufficient.  Employment and insurance benefits. Joint ownership of property, etc, are not the issue.  All the state sanctioned spousal social benefits can certainly be observed, under a civil union. And the great majority of Americans would or have already, accepted this.

But no, not enough by far apparently.  Acceptance, tolerance and equal protection under the law is not enough.  The voters must "approve of" and "officially sanction" same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage, and indeed, redefine the traditional sacrament of "Holy Matrimony" and thus remove any possible stigma of same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage or any responsibility for choosing that lifestyle.  Then, no doubt, it follows that we should teach this as a "normal" alternate life style to our kids.  News flash, sir:  the majority of Americans do not now and likely never will approve of and sanction same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage. Even one of America's most liberal politicians, now President, Obama, dared not openly say he supports same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.  Everyone damn well knows why.  But perhaps he can be a bit bolder now that the votes have been counted.  You should write him a letter and ask.

And when the gay and homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual rights movement fail to gain the majority's approval legislatively, as they always will, then look for this issue to be forced by liberal activist judges, under the "due process" and equal protection clauses, no doubt.  Another of those penumbras, I guess.  So please don't worry too much. Ultimately, I feel pretty confident California will get what it deserves.  

As for me, I shall continue to teach my children and their children acceptance, tolerance and individual human dignity and responsibility.  But I will never approve of or sanction same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage since, in my opinion, it is amoral, socially destructive, and ethically unnecessary to achieve the stated goals of equal rights and equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians to cohabitate and exchange bodily fluids .  I will never approve of or sanction "defining deviancy down" and equating gay civil unions with holy matrimony between a man and a woman.  I shall steadfastly hold to the Judeo-Christian ethic I was raised by and taught to honor and respect.  

Or as Martin Luther said "I cannot -- I will not -- recant!  Here I stand."  Nail that to your inbox door and do please keep it in mind during your online "crusade" in favor of same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage.  That is pretty much what I think about California's Proposition 8.  And you are most welcome for my thoughts, since you asked.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Big_Bill March 09, 2009, 05:09:58 PM

Well Garry,

Ask a Rabbi, Catholic Priest or Mullah concerning recognized marriages between concerning adults of the same *_*_*_*_*_*before you assume anything religious !

And as I said before, homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality will be gone now that your people are no longer hiding behind marriages with women, both lesbian and hetero*_*_*_*_*_*ual women, and conceiving children to further hide your shame.

Now that your out in the open, flaunting your abnormal life style,you will not and can not infect these children with you defective genes, effectively ending this abnormality in one generation !

So enjoy ! Be Fruitful and in a few years this discussion will be a mute point...

Thank you,

Bill

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 09, 2009, 07:50:51 PM

Yes.  Non-Christian men and women should be allowed to marry.  In churches, or in synagogues, or in mosques, or on the courthouse steps, or by a justice of the peace, or by the captain of a ship or by "Elvis" at funky little chapels in Las Vegas or common law marriage for that matter.  The issue is societal norms, not how and by whom couples are married.  The societal norm is that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.  The biological reason and the advantage that confers to a society are rather obvious.  Homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality and same-*_*_*_*_*_* unions deviate from that societal norm and have a social stigma attached.  

What seems to be at question, at least in my mind, is this: should this be the case?  And if no stigma should be attached to same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage, then shouldn't it follow that married homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual couples have every right to adopt or undergo in vitro fertilization procedures, propagate, raise a homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual family, and forward that lifestyle as a "normal" and equally acceptable alternative to the traditional family?  Traditional family values say "no".  Traditional Judeo-Christian morality says "hell no".  

Children deserve at least a chance to have both a mother and a father to raise them.  Each parent, mother and father, brings something unique and very important to the proper social and emotional development of a child.  Deviate from this and the chances for healthy social development of that child are significantly compromised.  Sure, death and divorce are realities.  And single parent families are an unavoidable consequence.  But is it optimal for kids?  No, absolutely not.  And every single parent knows this all too well.  

Choose homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality for yourself if you wish.  You have that right in a free society, and you have the right to expect civility, dignity, acceptance and tolerance for having made that choice.  But don't then expect to propagate it as the "norm" for American society. Do not expect our society must then also openly approve and put forward same-*_*_*_*_*_* marriage as a "normal" lifestyle to then be taught to our children as an equally acceptable alternative to traditional family values.  Our society says it is not so, and for good reason.  While one can "define" deviancy down, the consequences of deviancy remain and take a terrible toll on society.  There will always be a  stigma attached and it will not go away at the voting booth.

A mother and father are not, for example, free practice and teach kids polygamy, or incest, or rape, or cannibalism, or whatever as acceptable alternate lifestyles.  These are deviant and destructive behaviors of varying degree, and are not tolerated by civil society. So, in short, and being absolutely frank about it, consenting homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals may feel free to "blank" around with each other, just don't think they can "blank" around with traditional family values, teach our kids deviant behaviors by example, and then, expect or demand the right to gain loving approval from our society for doing so.  Sorry, it's a non sequitur.

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: moe1942 March 10, 2009, 12:23:46 AM

That issue and others like it separate the true believers from Christian impostors. Can't cherry pick the Word of God just  like you can't be a tad pregnant. Right now it is a Calif issue. It will come to your state though. Just like the weather, everything moves from west to east.

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: TCups March 10, 2009, 03:17:49 AM

Don't confuse or necessarily equate "Christians" and "Moral Behavior".  I make no argument, especially politically, that all should believe as I believe, or that only Christians are truly "moral", or even that I am necessarily a good Christian.  I do argue that as a society, if we are to survive, we must practice moral behaviors and must have a code of ethics that underpins our society.  If conservatives remain content to occupy the "middle ground" and the liberal left continually pulls us to the left, then conservatism is continually redefined and the "drift" you speak of is inevitable.  Instead, Christian, or otherwise, let us as a society understand and clearly speak our own beliefs and their moral underpinnings.  "Man Up" and be willing to say, emphatically, what these principles are and why.

If conservatives remain passive, or worse, are "passively persuaded" to agree with what we know morally to be "wrong", then what follows should be apparent.  My moral compass says same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage is wrong.  I cannot and will not be persuaded otherwise.  I will say this as often, and as clearly as any on the opposite side of the issue say otherwise.  No empty accusations of "hypocrisy" or "homophobia" will change my fundamental beliefs on God and morality.  If it could, then my stated opposition on the basis of moral principle might indeed be hypocrisy.  

Morraly principled arguments need only be directed toward the behaviors, in this case same *_*_*_*_*_* marriage, not toward those who may not share the same beliefs or moral code.  Civil law makes no religious judgment about who are "true believers".  Howie asked about Prop 8, not about my religion, or his, or anyone elses.

: RE: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: moe1942 March 10, 2009, 04:46:27 AM

Morals and marriage have no common bond. The issue of marriage is always rooted, and argued using biblical teaching and writings, IE the Holy Bible. Christians and the bible are definitely linked, hence my reference to Christians. There probably wouldn't be any argument if the marriage issue was based on morals alone. I don't remember anyone using morals as an argument for steve and steve to marry or not. I personally feel the majority of people in this country are amoral.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: RJMcElwain March 10, 2009, 05:42:55 AM

grackledown - 3/10/2009 11:58 AM It almost sounds as if you would prefer a Theocracy. If this is the case you might want to try Saudi Arabia or Iran. Although I don't think the natives are very friendly to Christians.

As you know, the Constitution is very adamant against theocracies or any other combination of Church and State. However, what's interestingis that this prohibition was added to protect Government from the Churches, not the other way around.(http://../jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif)

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: moe1942 March 10, 2009, 07:05:13 AM

grackledown - 3/10/2009  11:58 AM

It almost sounds as if you would prefer a Theocracy. If this is the case you might want to try Saudi Arabia or Iran. Although I don't think the natives are very friendly to Christians.

Interesting interpretation of my comments.. Your opinion is noted.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 10, 2009, 02:20:35 PM

Marriage actually predates Christianity. Hate to burst your bubble there.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: moe1942 March 11, 2009, 12:20:55 AM

Hermie - 3/10/2009  9:20 PM

Marriage actually predates Christianity. Hate to burst your bubble there.

Are you homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual?? If so you are in denial.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Hermie March 11, 2009, 12:20:25 PM

Moe:

1. No, I am not homo*_*_*_*_*_*ual.

2. Since when does supporting gay rights automatically make you gay? You seem to be a very predjudical person.

Grackle: I was wondering the same thing myself, just like woodp3cker without the 3.

And I remember hearing the lack of occupation line from an episode of M*A*S*H.

: Re: Prop 8? Your thoughts.
: Gene_SC March 11, 2009, 01:26:25 PM

Gerit, lets not get to personal here. *_*_*_*_*_*uality is an individual right. Not that I agree with the issue but do not be pulling punches below the belt here.

Gene