Gay Marriage Ban initiative qualifies for California Ballot

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Because it's not in the bible! You go and let these homosexuals marry next thing you know people will want to marry a sheep.

Because it's not in the bible! Homosexuals suck dick or take it up the ass!

Because those damn homosexuals will marry and you know they will just go produce MORE homosexuals!!!! and u KNOW we just can't have that!!!

Because god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.


These are all paraphrased reasons of why I've heard people against gay marriage. It ALL boils down to religion. I've never heard any reason that couldn't be pinpointed to the bible.

Actually, it is in the OT. It is just being selectively mistranslated.


David married Jonathan.


The Hebrew word for what in their case is translated as 'covenant' is everywhere else in a mixed couple context translated as 'married'.

That collection of myths and legends does not have any legal status.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,732
Points
643
Gender
Male

Lex

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
8,253
Media
0
Likes
118
Points
268
Location
In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
The biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage is not gays and lesbians wanting to get married, obviously: it's divorce.

Let them try and outlaw divorce and see how far they get.

Exactly.

Political powers couch this debate in a religious context to get people to follow the idea, but this (and marriage) are really about money.

When two people are recognized as married by the government (which follows either a religious or civil ceremony, both of which require a legal license), their separate economic entities become one, larger, more powerful, economic entity. This allows married people health benefits, increase buying power (given they both have good credit) and many tax breaks.

What corporations and businesses are fighting is the added cost of providing all those benefits: retirement transfers and payments, health care costs, adoption assistance, tuition reimbursement, etc. to gay couples. There would be, admittedly, a significant added cost if gay marriage were legal. This does not mean we should not have legalized marriage between any combination of two consenting adults. I work for a company which extends benefits to DOMESTIC partners (any couple male-female, or gay) that cohabitate and state that they are in a committed relationship. However, you have to pay taxes on the costs of the benefits extended to your partner. A compromise that falls short of eliminating the inequities.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
The thing that pisses me off is that gays (well, most anyway) pay taxes (directly or indirectly) for education whether they want to or not.
That is a non-issue. I will gladly pay a millage for education. The taxes you should be pissed about (and cost you a LOT more) are the income taxes that 1) pay the salaries of the very people who want to deny you those rights, and 2) pay for tax breaks for couples who can save by filing joint income tax returns, and who get tax breaks for having children.
 

auncut10in

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Posts
1,608
Media
24
Likes
25,704
Points
868
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Can someone actually explain to me what the downside to allow gay marriage is, or at least what the perceived downside is? I've never understood it at all, I've even tried to invent reasons and couldn't do it lol.

I'm serious by the way, I don't understand.

There was a Field Poll that showed more people favoring keeping gay marriage in California. But it is pretty close.

Californians support gay marriage: poll | Lifestyle | Living | Reuters

As far as the reason for the initive, even the guy that is behind the initive could not give a reasonable answer why he was against gay marriage. He was on the Bill O'Riley show and was asked what reason he had to be against gay marriage. Watch what he says. It is unbelieveable that he literally has no answer, yet is raising millions to fight against it.

Bill O'Reilly Guest Bombs with No Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage - Towleroad, More than gay news for more gay men
 

Guy-jin

Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
3,836
Media
3
Likes
1,368
Points
333
Location
San Jose (California, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Male
Many otherwise level-headed individuals I know are against gay marriage because they feel it "sullies" the word "marriage".

They are of the opinion that "marriage" is only between a man and a woman.
They are also in favor of an equal status for gays called a civil union.

I am against such a thing and feel that marriage should be allowed between members of the same sex.

I feel this way because history (not to mention logic) has demonstrated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal.

I often go in circles with these friends, and as yet have not heard a satisfactory defense of their position on the issue.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And you see, Guy-jin, that's what it usually essentially boils down to for the "anti" crowd.

"Because I said so" may be ok reasoning for a very few things, it is terrible reasoning when deciding to infringe anyone else's rights.
 

auncut10in

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Posts
1,608
Media
24
Likes
25,704
Points
868
Location
San Francisco (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It is interesting that a divorce rate around 50% doesn't seem to bother those that need to defend marriage. But somehow gay marriage is going to bring down this institution and threaten their marriage.

I also find it interesting that these same people have no problem weakening the constitution by denying a group its civil rights based on religious veiws, and seems perfectly ok with separate but equal, and idea that has long been viewed as not equal at all. And what if a church wants to perform gay marriage. Are their religious views not respected? Now that seems like a slippery slope religious people should think about.
 

D_Marazion Analdouche

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
979
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
After being married for almost 10 years and then divorcing, I would be careful what you wish for lol :tongue:.

I just thought of something that could prove to be interesting with gay marriage and then divorce.

Let's take two men that married, both work, have decent careers etc. They adopt a child (or have one through surrogate mother etc) and then divorce, now in a "traditional" marriage the % of the time the female maintains bulk custody of the kids is beyond lopsided.

How ugly do you think a same sex divorce case would be? I'm not making a case against same sex marriage, I'm for it actually. Just coming up with items to discuss and see what people think is all. With everything being equal I see a lot of character bashing happening etc.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I also find it interesting that these same people have no problem weakening the constitution by denying a group its civil rights based on religious veiws, and seems perfectly ok with separate but equal, and idea that has long been viewed as not equal at all.
I was a bit shocked when I watched that Bill O'reilly clip because I usually do not agree with much he has to say, but in this case, I agree with him, and his interview subject underscored my previous point - it all boils down to people whose only defense is "because I say so."

And regarding the trend of defining marriage in state or federal constitutions: it's a bad idea. A constitution is not a legal lexicon. In most other cases, legal definitions are contained in the headers of the laws to which they pertain. Putting these kinds of definitions in a constitution is an act of desperation, and is designed to circumvent the legal process.

Another way of looking at the constitutional amendment angle is this. There are laws in this country which prohibit elected officials from accepting certain gifts (an attempt at curtailing influence peddling.) Lawmakers who really wanted gifts from special interest groups and foreign governments could simply re-define "gift" as a constitutional amendment, as "something wrapped in bright paper with a pretty ribbon around it." Then they could say, "that yacht was not a gift from a special interest group. See, it was not wrapped in paper and ribbons, so, by definition, it was not a gift."

Of course, once again, a constitutional amendment requires a popular vote; but I stand by my assertion that popular vote usually is NOT the best way to determine equal rights for a minority group.
Let's take two men that married, both work, have decent careers etc. They adopt a child (or have one through surrogate mother etc) and then divorce, now in a "traditional" marriage the % of the time the female maintains bulk custody of the kids is beyond lopsided.

How ugly do you think a same sex divorce case would be? I'm not making a case against same sex marriage, I'm for it actually. Just coming up with items to discuss and see what people think is all. With everything being equal I see a lot of character bashing happening etc.
Honestly, I don't think that same-sex divorces would be any more or any less acrimonious than "traditional" divorces. Nor would they be any more or less complicated in division of assets. Some would be a simple dissolution, others would drag out for years... just like divorce court is now.
 
Last edited:

D_Fiona_Farvel

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Posts
3,692
Media
0
Likes
72
Points
133
Sexuality
No Response
Gay marriage ban qualifies for Calif. ballot - Life - MSNBC.com

They have managed to get this qualified for the ballot in California. If it passes, gay marriage will be outlawed in California again and the courts will have no say in the matter.
I'll vote against it, but there is no permanence to the ban even without supreme court intervention. California is the state of the amended constituition, of a law being passed one year, and then back on the ballot next election, governors elected and then recalled, etc., you never know how people will vote or what the prevailing attitude is until voting day. Wacky, yes. But I love it! :tongue: