Anyone else glad that prop 8 passed?

No rights are being suppressed. There is no right to marriage whatsoever. If the state were to not recognise heterosexual marriages, it could do that, because marriage is simply not a right here.The problem here is you see rights where there are none. The government should have no place in marriage. Another principal this country was founded on is the limiting of government influence on the states. The Constitution outlines the rights that the states cannot violate; anything else can be left to the authority of the states, and marriage, just like driving, is among these things.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.links136

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is 6,000+ years old. Marriage is established in Genesis Chapter 1.

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.superheromonkey

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is 6,000+ years old. Marriage is established in Genesis Chapter 1.

Phhh 6000? I'm sure the greece came before, in which there was actual gay marriage in the greek times. Marriage may have been defined in 'chapter 1', but it was originally for business and combining assets purposes only, usually between royal families,

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.superheromonkey

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is 6,000+ years old. Marriage is established in Genesis Chapter 1.

Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.lilburtonboy748

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.TheFlush

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is 6,000+ years old. Marriage is established in Genesis Chapter 1.

in talking about christianity i was only refuting his point about marriage predating christianity, not necessariyl implying the importance of it in the descision of not allowing gay marriage. Gender does make a difference, btw, sorry, it wasn't my descision it was nature or science or biology or God.

if the benefits of marriage are considered "rights" then rich people should protest vehemently the fact that poor people pay a lower percentage to taxes or *gasp* no taxes at all.

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.LJS9502_basic

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

All these and the other 60% of them arn't dependant on marriage?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

All these and the other 60% of them arn't dependant on marriage?

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.superheromonkey

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

Christianity has its roots in Judaism which is 6,000+ years old. Marriage is established in Genesis Chapter 1.

in talking about christianity i was only refuting his point about marriage predating christianity, not necessariyl implying the importance of it in the descision of not allowing gay marriage. Gender does make a difference, btw, sorry, it wasn't my descision it was nature or science or biology or God.

Your beliefs shouldn't come higher than others rights. I believe that christianity should be outlawed. And if half the state votes yes, should it then be outlawed? And don't bring the constitution into this. If it played a factor, then gays wouldn't be treated as unequals.

Your beliefs shouldn't come higher than others rights. I believe that christianity should be outlawed. And if half the state votes yes, should it then be outlawed? And don't bring the constitution into this. If it played a factor, then gays wouldn't be treated as unequals.

links136

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.lilburtonboy748

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

So something with no proof has weight in deciding matters?

In california the voters overruled the supreme court and ammended the constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. The homosexual community took to the street in protest. I don't see why homesexuals still claim that it is hateful to define marriage that way. If that is the case i guess biology is hateful for designing us that way. superheromonkey

yeah I'm sure glad Cali banned gay marriage. I agree with you there bud. marriage should only be b/t a man and a woman

[QUOTE="links136"]

Your beliefs shouldn't come higher than others rights. I believe that christianity should be outlawed. And if half the state votes yes, should it then be outlawed? And don't bring the constitution into this. If it played a factor, then gays wouldn't be treated as unequals.

LJS9502_basic

if its not a right, then how can you deny someone to get married?

if its not a right, then how can you deny someone to get married?

links136

[QUOTE="links136"]

if its not a right, then how can you deny someone to get married?

LJS9502_basic

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

So something with no proof has weight in deciding matters?

something with no proof? i think you lost me...what are you talking about?

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

So something with no proof has weight in deciding matters?

noone is stopping gays from being together...

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

links136

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]In california the voters overruled the supreme court and ammended the constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. The homosexual community took to the street in protest. I don't see why homesexuals still claim that it is hateful to define marriage that way. If that is the case i guess biology is hateful for designing us that way. morpheusnj

yeah I'm sure glad Cali banned gay marriage. I agree with you there bud. marriage should only be b/t a man and a woman

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.lilburtonboy748

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

So something with no proof has weight in deciding matters?

something with no proof? i think you lost me...what are you talking about?

religon

[QUOTE="links136"]

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

LJS9502_basic

Yeah, and its viewed as you don't have the right to do those things.

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"][QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="lilburtonboy748"]Not really. It just reinforces the disgusting ideal that marriage should have anything to do with the state.links136

so then marriage shouldn't give people certain rights then, right?

Rights? What does having a life partner have to do with rights? You should be able to be with whoever you want. Marriage is a religous ceremony and should have nothing to do with legality.

I oppose gay marriage 100%, but that's because of my religion, and disagreement is as far as my opposition goes. If two men want to be partners, I disagree, but should have no power to vote to stop them.They are not taking away my rights, and that's the only time the state should make something illegal.

So something with no proof has weight in deciding matters?

something with no proof? i think you lost me...what are you talking about?

religon

yea, what about it? religion should have nothing to do with the state. when straight couples get married, there should be no legality involved. if a gay couple wants to get married, they would have to find a church that would do it. i don't care if they do, i'm just saying that the state shouldnt be involved.

and either way, they shouldn't get married, because marriage is a religious ceremony, and those religions do not condone homosexuality.

[QUOTE="morpheusnj"]

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]In california the voters overruled the supreme court and ammended the constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. The homosexual community took to the street in protest. I don't see why homesexuals still claim that it is hateful to define marriage that way. If that is the case i guess biology is hateful for designing us that way. remmbermytitans

yeah I'm sure glad Cali banned gay marriage. I agree with you there bud. marriage should only be b/t a man and a woman

good ol america. Where peoples beliefs come before other peoples happiness and rights.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="links136"]

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

links136

Yeah, and its viewed as you don't have the right to do those things.

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="links136"]

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

LJS9502_basic

Yeah, and its viewed as you don't have the right to do those things.

You still haven't given me any proof that marriage isn't a right, where as you have the right to walk on the streets. How is that a right and marriage isn't?

You still haven't given me any proof that marriage isn't a right, where as you have the right to walk on the streets. How is that a right and marriage isn't?

links136

[QUOTE="links136"]

You still haven't given me any proof that marriage isn't a right, where as you have the right to walk on the streets. How is that a right and marriage isn't?

LJS9502_basic

Thats on the road. You have the right to walk on the street if you want, because its your right. You do not have the right to cross roads on inopportune times. Plus people jaywalk all the time, i've never seen anybody ticketed for it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="links136"]

You still haven't given me any proof that marriage isn't a right, where as you have the right to walk on the streets. How is that a right and marriage isn't?

links136

Thats on the road. You have the right to walk on the street if you want, because its your right. You do not have the right to cross roads on inopportune times. Plus people jaywalk all the time, i've never seen anybody ticketed for it.

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="links136"]

You still haven't given me any proof that marriage isn't a right, where as you have the right to walk on the streets. How is that a right and marriage isn't?

LJS9502_basic

Thats on the road. You have the right to walk on the street if you want, because its your right. You do not have the right to cross roads on inopportune times. Plus people jaywalk all the time, i've never seen anybody ticketed for it.

What does jaywalking have to do with the right to walk on a street anyways? Don't push the questions to the side.

People have already posted - Never leave civil rights to the popular vote. >_>

And if I see or hear 'activist judges' one more time, I will weep. >_>

Rights are not given by the government. They are restricted. Just because someone "legalizes" gay marrige doesn't mean they gave you the right. They just released prior restrictions on it. You always had that right all along you just were not allowed to excersize it.

I am disgusted that prop 8 passed. The masses do not own a word. They may hold a popular opinon on its definition but they cannot moraly stand in the way of two or even three consenting adults.

People have had their marriges destroyed and will not be allowed to excersize their rights. Ever hear of "seperate but equal"!? That applies to civil unions. Except for the fact that their not even fully equal.

[QUOTE="links136"]

What? What makes it so that its not a right?

LJS9502_basic

Just because a right is moderated by the government doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist or that the governments actions were just.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

DJ_Novakain

If you think rights are granted by the government maybe we should start calling the "grants"

Does everyone who is glad this prop passed really need to make a thread saying they're... well "glad it passed"?

I mean seriously, if you're glad it passed, then congrats you guys won, but you don't have to create a thread to rub it in our faces, then ones who voted No on it.

Also after reading this whole thread, I now understand that bigotry is such a beautiful thing. :roll:

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

If you think rights are granted by the government maybe we should start calling the "grants"

peppersfan2

its possible.

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

The_One_White

because apparently peoples beliefs in matters which do not harm them are more important than peoples happiness and rights.

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

The_One_White

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

The_One_White

[QUOTE="The_One_White"]

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

links136

because apparently peoples beliefs in matters which do not harm them are more important than peoples happiness and rights.

No, but why would you need to get married to be happy? It makes no difference, there is the romantic and officiallty side of it I suppose, but then why don't same-sex couples have their own civil union?

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="The_One_White"]

What I don't understand is why marriage is such an important thing. I'm not fully aware of the exact wording but doesn't it just prohibit gay marriages. Couldn't they have their own kind of civil union? I know this could be seen as prejudice me saying that they should "get their own unions" but I have nothing wrong with homosexuals or them having some form of civil union so they can proclaim how much they love each other. I do understand people not wanting them to use the word "marriage" however, as the people have been brought up to see marriage as "mummies and daddies".

The_One_White

because apparently peoples beliefs in matters which do not harm them are more important than peoples happiness and rights.

No, but why would you need to get married to be happy? It makes no difference, there is the romantic and officiallty side of it I suppose, but then why don't same-sex couples have their own civil union?

you get certain benefits from marriage, like assets and for loans and such, a huge list. And in most of the country thats what they're fighting for.