The Yes on 8 guys are at it doing telemarketing

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
because you believe that bigotry is a good thing?



do you also think we should re-instate the anti-miscegenation laws?



how about repealing the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the constitution?
 
I love the irony that so much of the money in support of this initiative "to protect traditional marriage" is coming from the Mormons.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1225588275]I love the irony that so much of the money in support of this initiative "to protect traditional marriage" is coming from the Mormons.</blockquote>


I know! I thought that was the strangest thing. I mean, what is their true intention? Restoring their original belief of "traditional" marriage?
 
Someone told me last night that the Book of Mormon used to say that Blacks couldn't get into heaven. So I just Googled and found it to be a false rumour, but I did find this quote from the Book of Mormon:



He showed Ab a passage from the Book of Mormon: <em>[The Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female...and all are alike unto God." (2 Nephi 26:33)</em>



<a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Latter-Day-Saints/2003/02/Mormon-Black-History-Month.aspx">I found it in this story</a>



I'm always tempted, when I read statements like this.... to put a <em>*except for gays</em> at the end.



Anyways, glad to hear the story isn't true...and my good friend (who is a Mormon) and I have a friendly wager on which side will win on Prop 8. He's a pretty cool guy and we've had some good discussions about the issue.
 
Yes, I would, and thank you for asking. I am part of that crazy religious vast right-wing conspiracy called organized religion. Some may call us nutters. Whatever names we're called or accusations made, we have a point of view that we are trying to express in this election.



I am proud to live in a country where we all have our freedom of speech, and that everyone here is exercising that right.



I am a man of faith and my beliefs have guided my decision on this proposition. Members of my congregation and I are concerned about the consequences of the California Supreme Court decision. We have been actively involved in the Yes on 8 campaign, and have been trying to promote our ideals through this campaign. I understand that not everyone agrees with us, or with organized religion in general, but I feel that I have an obligation to take a stand.



As to the impact of the proposition, I do feel that gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop 8 does not pass. I have seen how this issue has affected Massachusetts, and I believe that a similar course of action will happen here in California as well. I don't know when or how it will be taught, and I hope that parents would be informed beforehand and allowed to opt-out if wanted.



I personally don't think government should be involved at all with marriage, as I believe that it is a religious rite only, but if government is going to define marriage as something other than between one man and one woman, I feel that I must take a stand. I actually prefer the way they handle this in Europe, where the state does not recognize a church-formed union. A couple must first be united civilly, and then if they wish, they can be married by a church. There is not enough separation of church and state here in the US, and that confuses the issue for many.



I hope that explains my point of view, and if you want to chalk me up as one of those religious right wing nutters, that's ok too.
 
You realize by passing 8 you are imposing your religious beliefs on folks of other religions who may believe otherwise?



<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage11-2008sep11,0,7646017.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage11-2008sep11,0,7646017.story</a>



Are you a nutter? Absolutely not. But you feel justified in forcing your viewpoint on others. And the facts are nobody is going to force your church to marry anyone they feel unfit to marry in thier church. And somehow that's not enough..........
 
[quote author="Bergsteiger" date=1225632370]Yes, I would, and thank you for asking. I am part of that crazy religious vast right-wing conspiracy called organized religion. Some may call us nutters. Whatever names we're called or accusations made, we have a point of view that we are trying to express in this election.



I am proud to live in a country where we all have our freedom of speech, and that everyone here is exercising that right.



I am a man of faith and my beliefs have guided my decision on this proposition. Members of my congregation and I are concerned about the consequences of the California Supreme Court decision. We have been actively involved in the Yes on 8 campaign, and have been trying to promote our ideals through this campaign. I understand that not everyone agrees with us, or with organized religion in general, but I feel that I have an obligation to take a stand.



As to the impact of the proposition, I do feel that gay marriage will be taught in schools if Prop 8 does not pass. I have seen how this issue has affected Massachusetts, and I believe that a similar course of action will happen here in California as well. I don't know when or how it will be taught, and I hope that parents would be informed beforehand and allowed to opt-out if wanted.



I personally don't think government should be involved at all with marriage, as I believe that it is a religious rite only, but if government is going to define marriage as something other than between one man and one woman, I feel that I must take a stand. I actually prefer the way they handle this in Europe, where the state does not recognize a church-formed union. A couple must first be united civilly, and then if they wish, they can be married by a church. There is not enough separation of church and state here in the US, and that confuses the issue for many.



I hope that explains my point of view, and if you want to chalk me up as one of those religious right wing nutters, that's ok too.</blockquote>


Nah... you're not a nutter, and I appreciate your candid and honest response. You made your point, without talking down or using negative name calling. You truly should be commended for your adult like ability to have a discussion about this topic, much like SoCal78 has. You both have risen above the bottom of barrel tactics that most have used, and even if we don't agree, the sensible discussion is a welcome change.



As long as you believe a marriage should be recognized by someone outside of govt. is a good idea. Just as long as you would recognize marriage of a couple outside the Christian belief, then it is cool. I would hate to see Christians saying only a marriage that is recognized by Christians is the only true marriage. As that would upset many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and gasp... Atheists, etc. There will be churches, monks, temples, and Rabbis that recognize marriage then regardless of whether it is between man and woman or not. There are even Christian churches that will recognize this, so that is cool. It is nice to see someone with such an open mind.



Forgive me if I am confused then why you support this prop.? It sounds like in a way you are cool with it (same sex marriage), but you don't want govt. deciding it, and yet the people are? If you aren't scared of a Jewish man and woman getting married, then why are you scared that a Christian woman and woman would get married?



BTW, it won't be taught in schools. The scare tactics you are hearing about of Mass. is complete and total BS. I want you to dig deep, real deep, do you remember your teachers in school teaching you about marriage? I don't, I remember MY PARENTS teaching me about it. I also don't remember my teachers teaching me about my aunt who is gay, nor do I think they will be teaching kids in the future about her. Er... I mean, they will be teaching kids about her because of what she has done, not because she was gay. She has made her mark in history, not because she is gay, and not because she is a woman, but because she is genius who capitalized on something that was useful but had a broader market.
 
The Yes on 8 signs are everywhere in North Santa Ana. Of course, they are plastered on the medians and in front of businesses, there are more No on 8's in front of houses. A neighbor was putting Yes on 8 propaganda in kid's candy bags on Halloween, how's that for teaching our children? Now the parents will be discussing gay marriage with their children, isn't this part of what these people DIDN'T want to happen?
 
[quote author="Bergsteiger" date=1225632370]I personally don't think government should be involved at all with marriage, as I believe that it is a religious rite only, but if government is going to define marriage as something other than between one man and one woman, I feel that I must take a stand. <em>I actually prefer the way they handle this in Europe, where the state does not recognize a church-formed union. A couple must first be united civilly, and then if they wish, they can be married by a church.</em> </blockquote>


B - I have to admit, I don't understand the italicized portion of your comment. The California Supreme Court opinion interpreting and applying the equal protection clause of the state Constitution applies only to <em>government</em> acts. As No_Vas noted above, it does not require your church to perform marriages that are outside of your church's doctrine.



If I understand correctly, one of the areas where churches have concerns is regarding programs for which they receive tax money. Lets take CalWorks, for example (a program that, in part, allows low income parents to have subsidized day care while they are working). If a church takes CalWorks money, then they would not be allowed to discriminate <em>in the provision of day care.</em> But that's it - and further, that prohibition against discrimination applies equally to race, religion, sex, etc. Any programs from which the church did not take government money, it could discriminate as its doctrine so provides. From what I've seen, where the various churches get tweaked is that they want to apply their doctrine, and still take the government's money.



If you want to see how the ministerial exception works in real life, as opposed to someone's 3 a.m. sweat drenched nightmare, <a href="http://courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G038445.PDF">read this.</a>
 
Organized religion has its place but when they start handing out how to vote and having rallies for yes on prop 8 i really find it disgusting that they use the altar to judge and further their religious agenda. I am so tired of some Christian Churches who lose their vision sell out for greed (How many buildings do you need to build?) and political power. Like the previous poster there are so many other religions, cults, atheists and agnostics with the same rights as Christians who may not buy your view on what is right and wrong but almost all know that discrimination and bigotry is wrong. I will be voting no on 8.
 
Bergsteiger, Thank you for your response. Like Graph said, I appreciate people like you and SoCal78 (and you too 4Walls4me !) who can at least put their rationale down in print without going "nutter".



Your argument sounds very similar to the one of my Mormon co-worker, and while I don't agree with it.... I completely support your ability to be able to voice it and believe in it. Heck, this is America.....that whole Melting Pot thing. It takes all kinds to make this country what it is: Great.



Again, as it was stated before, your church will NOT have to officiate over gay weddings. It's written into the law. And if your church somehow loses tax breaks because of it ? Well, I wouldn't be sorry. I mean, some of those tax dollars are mine !! Do you see the irony ?



Gay marriage will NOT be taught in schools, there is no "marriage" class that I'm aware of....at least I never took one.



And those kids that left school to attend their lesbian teacher's wedding ? You know the ones.....the kids being splashed across all the Mormon backed Yes on 8 commercials....and might I add that the Mormon Church has refused to take down the ads, even after their parents held a news conference demanding their children's images be removed from the commercial (how's that for not cool).... anyway, back on track. Do you think we would have ever heard word one of them if it had been a heterosexual marriage they'd left school to attend. Absolutely not.



All in all, the gay community has made some pretty unbelievable contributions to this great country... I think we deserve a little respect. Again, thank you for your decent response.



And yes, the Late, Great Kate Smith was a lesbian:



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="usctrojanman29" date=1225734785]That's it, I'm voting NO on all those damn propositions.</blockquote>


That's what I did, except for the high speed rail bond. I could really use that about twice a month here lately.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1225637647]You realize by passing 8 you are imposing your religious beliefs on folks of other religions who may believe otherwise?

</blockquote>


That is a valid point, and from my point of view, every interest group whether it be religious, economic or social tries to use the political system to shape the rules in their favor. Some are more successful than others given the sheer size of the group, access to power or financial resources.



[quote author="EvaLSeraphim" date=1225679875]

B - I have to admit, I don't understand the italicized portion of your comment. The California Supreme Court opinion interpreting and applying the equal protection clause of the state Constitution applies only to <em>government</em> acts. As No_Vas noted above, it does not require your church to perform marriages that are outside of your church's doctrine.

</blockquote>


I don't believe that the California state government would require my church to perform marriages outside of our doctrine, and if that were the only issue then I would not be voting Yes on 8. I would also vote no on 8 if I was convinced that it would not be taught in schools. My underlying concern is that this will lead to the beliefs of the gay community being imposed on society, including education.



I don't remember being taught about marriage in school either, but times and curricula have changed since I was little, and they will continue to change. And although it is just a sound bite, hearing Gavin Newsom pronounce "Whether you like it or not" doesn't help ease my concerns or those in my congregation that this issue is not part of a bigger agenda.



I believe that the majority of the gay community really wants to keep marriage legal for personal reasons, and that they have no desire to impose their beliefs on others. Like Trooper, they just want to find fulfillment and happiness in their lives. But I believe that both sides of the issue have extremists who want to advance their agenda and force others to believe as they do. As this issue is written and given the background context, I feel that I must follow my beliefs and vote Yes on 8 to preserve traditional marriage.
 
<em>But I believe that both sides of the issue have extremists who want to advance their agenda and force others to believe as they do. </em>



Berg, can you tell me of this agenda ? You mean our hope for equality ? Please be specific. Thx.



<em>but times and curricula have changed since I was little, and they will continue to change.</em>



And so has society....which is why we are becoming more and more accepted. It's called progress. ;)



Oh, and I too wish Mayor Newsom had been a little more humble.... :red:
 
I'm sorry, but I am going to call it like I see it. I don't understand why everyone fears that it will be taught in schools so much. I mean, are you really that homophobic that you think your kids will become gay because of it? If you are afraid they will teach it in the same way that they teach civil rights, like a woman's right to vote or equality for all races, then that wasn't really taught until junior high. By then all of us kids (no offense Troop, but kids will be kids and I plan on explaining it early on if I ever do have kids why this is a bad thing) already would use fag and queer in a derogatory way, back in elementary school. We all knew what it meant because we figured it out from each other. Our teachers didn't teach us what it meant, and most of our parents didn't either, and this prop will not mean it will be taught before kids already know what the hell gay means in the first place.



I grew up all my life accepting and loving my gay aunt. I certainly didn't turn out gay, and neither did anyone else in my family. Why? Because either you are born that way or not, you can't be taught to be gay. I just find this excuse to be totally homophobic in the same way people feared blacks being in the same school as them. This to me is one of the lamest, most ignorant, most intolerant excuses of the whole yes campaign. It will be the kids who are sheltered from knowing and understanding why there is nothing wrong with gay people that they are just normal, kind, loving people, that will be the ones to finally break out of their shell when they realize this. Denying educating kids on gay culture is the problem, teaching them about it and the tolerance of it is the solution.



BTW, I love Trooper. If I ever have a kid(s), aunt Trooper will be a part of their life. She will show them love, kindness, and tolerance like only she can. My kid(s) will show her the same love, kindness, and tolerance. And guess what? It won't be Trooper who makes them gay, they will have been born that way. At least they will know that their parents will love them no matter what, and won't have to go through that pain and angst of disappointing and hurting their parents. I also believe that it is more likely they will be straight, but I would be a fool to think that exposure to a gay person would somehow be the influence as to why they are not. But I know this, because I have lived it. Being around gay people doesn't make you gay, thinking that being around gay people makes you gay means you are homophobic.
 
Thanks Graph....I would love to have some honorary nieces and nephews....now, get cracking! ;)



Srsly, we are forgetting one other important thing.



That gay kid.



The one that sits in class (like I used to) and doesn't really feel like they belong for some unknown reason.



Yeah, when I went to school in the 70's and early 80's, it was all heterosexual teachings...not one shred of anything homosexual. I mean, not one mention. (well, except for scorn and ridicule) It was a sign of the times.



Do you have any idea how isolated I felt ? But I could never place my finger on it.....until my life started to make sense at 17, when I figured out I was gay. I mean, I was actually able to look back on my young life and everything finally fit together like a puzzle.....like, "Oh yeah, that's why I felt that way" and "Oh, yeah...of course....now I understand".....etc. Like I've mentioned before, I can trace these feelings back to 3rd grade where I had never so much as heard of a homosexual.



And now that the argument is being made "I don't want my kid taught <em>that</em> in school"......I can't help but think that the insinuation is that if homosexuality is spoken about in a positive light, it might encourage your kid to be gay. Funny then - how come I'm not straight ? I mean, I'll play devil's advocate with you here and tell you that I was only taught about heterosexuals. It was all I ever knew until my Junior year in H.S. But I'm gay. How come? I'm sure you get my point.



So fear not parents ! Teaching kids positive things about homosexuals will no more make them gay, than teaching them about MLK will make them black.



And getting back to that lone gay kid. It just might save his/her life.



<em>"For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking because, according to the Kinsey Report, gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the teen population. <strong>This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth.</strong> In another sense, it is predictable that gay teens kill themselves more often than other young people simply because their life chances are so limited by social and legal discrimination. Only when this discrimination is eliminated will these shocking statistics change." </em>



<a href="http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Gender/gayisok/stopping_suicide.html">Stopping gay teen suicide</a>



Parents out there....you might indeed have a gay child someday. I hope my ramblings make you stop and think for a second....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top