I have been listening to the radio discussions and the television adverts about the now infamous/famous Proposition 8.

For those that don't know, Proposition 8 deals with the banning of gay marriage. From my own recall, it sprang up shortly after the courts here in California declared same sex marriage legal.

I have heard arguments from both sides of the issue. The one on the no side that I recall very well was the television add of the woman being prevented from marrying the man she loved. Radio and television announcements from the yes side paint a different picture...

So the well-financed and savvy backers of Proposition 8 have produced waves of advertising aimed instead at making voters believe that supporters of same-sex marriage are intent on stripping away everyone else's rights, and that this ballot measure is the only way for traditionally religious people to retain them.

With the defeat of this proposed ban on gay marriage, they say, schools would begin indoctrinating children as young as kindergartners to be wholehearted supporters of such marriages. The ads point to the case of a Massachusetts teacher reading the picture book "King and King," about a gay royal wedding.
I have seen this fear about schools being forced to teach same sex marriage, etc. I have seen statements that it is a moral decline, etc. Frankly this issue is a hotbed, at least in my family.

What I am curious about is whether or not members here agree with the proposition or not. Just a reminder that this is not topic to insult people with. I for one have the privilege of two gay friends who recently got married and are enjoying a happy life together.

Also, here is the link (http://http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story) for the passage I quoted. Opinions?

It is neither right nor privilege for any government to persecute it's citizens based on personal morals and ideology. It is the right of every (wo)man to pursue life without impeding on another. If they are doing no personal harm there can be no crime, therefore nothing to prohibit.

There was a time and place in the US where people understood and accepted this ideal.

I cant think of a single good reason for this law, it would be like banning special education because people who need it decide to be mentally disabled when they enter school.

I have seen this fear about schools being forced to teach same sex marriage, etc. I have seen statements that it is a moral decline, etc. Frankly this issue is a hotbed, at least in my family.

What I am curious about is whether or not members here agree with the proposition or not. Just a reminder that this is not topic to insult people with. I for one have the privilege of two gay friends who recently got married and are enjoying a happy life together.

Also, here is the link (http://http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop8-21-2008oct21,0,7164183.story) for the passage I quoted. Opinions? Do we have a right to limit someone's freewill? No. Who created the concept of marriage? Religion or government? I don't know this answer. Religious types of marriages should be maintained through religious laws. Government types of marriages should be maintained through government laws. Religion is about a god's judgement on how a person acts under freewill. Goverment is about a society's judgement on how a person acts under freewill. I can live with the idea of gay marriages; however, I will not support the act as something moral. I do want people to have choices; thus, they can be judged by how they act through their religous means. Supressing the freedom of choice is a horrible idea. Let them have the choice to turn right or left. I don't have the authority to judge people. Let people be judged by their god, and let everyone else stay out of the process.

I don't want my future children to learn about gay marriages through schooling. We need to keep this responsibility in the hands of parents.

This is a pre-emptive warning - this thread is being monitored very closely, it is better to err on the side of caution and if you are unsure of the nature of a post, please PM one of the mods to check - You are allowed to express your opinions, but do so in a tactful, and respectful manner, homophobia will not, however, be tolerated. You may argue against gay marriage, but do not insult people who are gay.

For those of a religious persuasion who I presume will argue against this, I would like to refer you both to my signature, and if you are a Christian consider that Jesus took the Gospel to all people, and told us not to judge...

Thanks for the added warning jonathan7- JM12

For those who don't know, my politics are based upon the Constitution and the Declartion of Independence. Of course I have to obey the statutes imposed by my beloved state otherwise I get the jail cell.

I have a strong belief that we are free to choose to be how we want to be and how to live our lives. I always hear the phrases that it was the person's choice and they have to live with it. Heck even in our beloved KOTOR game is the word choice(s) mentioned. Choice is obviously a law of nature unto which people have a right to.

I am not going to sugar coat this but the subject of gay marriage is one that has me pitted in a silent war against my family. The reason I say silent is because I never voice my opinion for the reason that I will get the Are you pagan lecture which I have had on other occassions. I do believe that people who love each other should be together. To deny them that is very much like slavery, to put it in a crude form.

As I stated before I have two friends from the GLBT community that recently got married when same sex marriage was legalized. I was happy for them. They are the nicest people I know of and I can think why two people like them should be denied the right to be legal. I have others from the GLBT community that have gotten married and I am happy for them. Call me a coward for not standing up to my family but I know what they are like and the ball is really not in my court.

As to the whole thing about teaching same sex marriage in our schools, let me point out another part of the same article that I was reading. It made a very interesting point about what is required by law for public education.

Under SB 71, which passed in 2003, the Legislature set out the framework for comprehensive sex education, which includes the brief reference to marriage from which these dire Proposition 8 warnings are drawn: "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Schools aren't required to teach comprehensive sex education, but if they do, this is one of many rules they must follow. The law also gives schools the option of discussing gender, sexual orientation and family life, though that's not required as part of the more comprehensive program. -- LATimes
The law specifically says respect for marriage and committed relationships. There really is no line that says what the conditions are. Also it is optional for the sexual orientation, etc and parents do have the option of viewing the material.

Quite frankly I saw the fear factor the pros for prop 8 were using a mile away. The fear factor I admit is a good tactic but I personally don't like how it is being used. It reminds me of the immigration debate.

I don't exactly see why it needs to be taught in schools. Seems like an odd thing to do, personally. I guess for education purposes, having them less ignorant of it is a good thing but still... odd. I guess it fits into the same category as sex education, as in needing to be age appropriate for the situation. If it was just to get kids to realize that we exist, I can appreciate that.

But, people are still afraid of acceptance of those different from themselves so I can see why people would want their kids to be terrified and hateful towards us. Gotta have someone to beat up during recess, right? *sighs*

Anyway, on Prop 8...

Its been getting sizable contributions from Utah and various churches, so we're outclassed as far as money goes... People have been locking themselves in churches on shifts for 24/7 praying that it passes, so the faith vote probably isn't in favor of us... And Cali has already passed "bans" before, so we have history against us as well...

I dunno... I give it 90% chance of passing, even if only by a 49/51% margin.

And, frankly, I've come to terms with that. I have no hope that Prop 8 will be turned down. None at all. We're the cool minority to suppress right now, and people don't like giving up their play thing.

When it passes I'm not sure how good the chances are of it going to supreme court are. If it could have gone to supreme, then it would have already. If it could have gone, then prop 8 would never been on the ballet. The fact it had enough support to go to the ballet says enough right there in my opinion.

And when it does, our family friend's marriage will become void. Even though we held it last weekend.

That's just how it works I guess.

People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology.

No real point in debating this anyway. If you've made up your mind, then there is no changing it. I wont waste my time or your time, and leave it to the country to decide. Its been made quite obvious that we're currently welcome almost nowhere, as most parts of the world only give us the same privileges out of pity or some loophole in the system.

Don't take this as me lashing out at anyone. I'm just a little tired and posting this has left me disenchanted with life right now.

If it could have gone to supreme, then it would have already. I’m no legal expert, but I believe to take something to the Supreme Court, someone first has to have their right violated by the measure. I don’t believe you can preemptive sue someone, at least yet. People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology. Not all people. Some people need to build up others so that they feel better about their self that too is basic human psychology.

I’m against Proposition 8, I believe everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law.

I think the religious aspects of marriage and the legal aspects of marriage out to be seperate. The former just a ceremony with no more legal value than you put in it, and the latter the actual contract that gives you all the grea married benefits.

I don't support Prop 8, and that's about all there is to it.

People need something to hate and suppress to feel better about their situation. I'm below you, so you must be on top. Basic human psychology.
While I agree with you that that's how it is, it's always sounded like basic animal psychology to me. Or basic parasite psychology. ;)

I find it saddening that the rights of human beings are still being decided by votes. The appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacies are destroying us economically, militarily, environmentally, and constitutionally.

Yes, because determining our own fate is sooo overrated. :roleyess:

I find it saddening that the rights of human beings are still being decided by votes. The appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacies are destroying us economically, militarily, environmentally, and constitutionally.
But that is the form of government that we operate by. A government, of the people, by the people, for the people. Nowhere do I see us but not them. Unfortunately there are those who like to split hairs over terminology and it gives everyone a headache.

But that is the form of government that we operate by. A government, of the people, by the people, for the people. Nowhere do I see us but not them. Unfortunately there are those who like to split hairs over terminology and it gives everyone a headache.

I'm not debating this fact, JM, but I'd like to point out that the majority isn't always right (in fact, the majority has a tendency to act stupidly, i.e. 'mob mentality'). Sure, the government acts for the people, but since when has it truly acted in the best interest of the people (I mean the federal government, in this case)?

As for Proposition 8, I really don't care what people do with their bodies, so long as they don't start to infringe upon others. I don't see what the problem, really (other than people are homophobic, or some other reason).

Yes, because determining our own fate is sooo overrated.

That is your right as an individual. There are problems, and letting the vote decide doesn't work too well.

I'll make an analogy.

Let's say a celestial object the size of the moon is on a near collision course with Earth. Building the technology to effectively nudge it off course ends up costing say... 10 trillion dollars.
There is a 50/50 chance it will hit. The technology to nudge it off couse could bankrupt the entire economy.

So, do we vote and hope it passes or do we take the rational approach and make 100% sure that it doesn't hit us? Either we let it maybe/maybe not hit us, or we spend a lot to nudge it away, because what's better? Being dead or having the chance to rebuild something fixable, like an economy?

BTW, the compromisational approach would just as risky as not doing anything at all. (IE, spending 2-5 trillion to build minimal technology to nudge it away.)

Now compare that to the Global Destabilization problem and you'll see my point.

(I'm not attacking you with this post, that is not my intention.)

So, do we vote and hope it passes or do we take the rational approach and make 100% sure that it doesn't hit us? Either we let it maybe/maybe not hit us, or we spend a lot to nudge it away, because what's better? Being dead or having the chance to rebuild something fixable, like an economy?

How is this rational? Why have you decided this is rational, why is life so important? If we are nothing but glorified animals best adapted, why shouldn't we go the way of dinosaur and let super-intelligent cock roaches inherit the earth? Besides lets presume you bankrupt the worlds economies, putting the asteroid off course, and a nuclear WW3 descends on us, wiping out billions what have you really achieved?

I merely wanted to post a response for you to question your position, you are free to start a new topic, on this subject if you wish - though we don't want to hijack this thread ;)

(I'm not attacking you with this post, that is not my intention.)
Oh, I know you're not. :)

So who determines our fate, then? Fewer people? An intellectual elite? A politburo? A monarch? A dictator?

NO THANKS.*

Congress comes close enough as it is.




*Unless, of course, that dictator happens to be me. Then I'd be all for it. :xp:

Human nature is to survive at any cost. That is why it is rational. And what does World War 3 have to do with averting an asteroid impact?

Back on track, yeah. ;)

Anywho, as it is a personal freedom issue, of course I'm against the ban on gay marriage. Whether one approves of the lifestyle or not is irrelevant. To ban gay marriage is to impose one's will upon another and that is the definition of oppression.

Letting people decide allows us to grow at our own pace, that's IMO, the best argument for giving people the power. If you don't, you end up with growth ala China's "Great Leap Forward", and that was great in the long-run, but pretty nasty to everyone alive at the time. Saying government or nature should dictate what's best for us is just as bad as the appeal to authority that says "God says no!"

Anyway, I don't have a problem letting the people decide on Prop 8, it'll do a lot more to shoot down the religious nuts who promote this stuff than having the government do it. Otherwise next election, and the one after that, and after that for 20 years we'll be dealing with this same bill being brought up until the "old guard" finally die off.

Hey, it may get passed, but it can still be taken down by Supreme Court ruling if somebody's rights are determined to be violated by it, which IMO, I think we mostly agree that they would.

So WebRider you are virtually saying that history takes too long and is never kind to those trying to hurry it?

I'm not saying you are wrong, just trying to grasp your picture here. Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.

Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.The problem is that some within society constantly create a “new guard” with same old tired hatreds. Unfortunately we pass on our prejudices and our bias to our young. Be it intentional or not. :(

So WebRider you are virtually saying that history takes too long and is never kind to those trying to hurry it?
I dunno, it's the internet, everything is virtual.

Seriously though, yeah, I am saying that it's better to let it go slowly, but more to the point, what I'm saying is that it's best to let a society progress at the rate it's people feel comfortable with. Mao did some great stuff for China, just as Stalin did by bringing an essentially farming nation into world power status very quickly. But it certainly wasn't a kind transition on the people.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just trying to grasp your picture here. Somehow though I have the feeling that this issue may be like the age old hatred called racism and we may have to wait until the "old guard" finally die off.
Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.

EDIT: and seriously, this KOTOR MMO stuff has to be the fault behind why half forum doesn't load sometimes.

Topic is proposition 8. I have deleted several posts entirely unrelated to proposition 8, including, but not limited to, the Kotor MMO, which as far as I know, has absolutely nothing to do with Californians voting on gay marriage. The Kotor MMO forum is here (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=730) if you need to discuss the game further. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.
Agreed.

I'm with you on letting society take it pace. I'm content that it'll happen eventually, but rushing it would be unwise. Not that it wouldn't be great to see it happen, but as you've pointed out rushing a society into something never seems to turn out as planned.

Actually, rushing it into court is what most likely got Prop 8 on the ballet in the first place. So, we may have stabbed ourselves in the boot there to be perfectly honest.

I dunno, it's the internet, everything is virtual.

Seriously though, yeah, I am saying that it's better to let it go slowly, but more to the point, what I'm saying is that it's best to let a society progress at the rate it's people feel comfortable with. Mao did some great stuff for China, just as Stalin did by bringing an essentially farming nation into world power status very quickly. But it certainly wasn't a kind transition on the people.
But to which people are you referring to? I would thing the proletariat would be pleased as punch for change.


Yup, that's been one of the biggest setbacks to the gay-rights movements, is that they have often pushed too hard and wanted too quickly, and they are getting quite the backlash for it.

Funny thing is though if people didn't push too hard, it would never have gotten people on board anyway. Look at women's right to vote. They pushed hard and history wasn't knid to them but in the end they prevailed.

I would think that it works both ways. You have to push but then not push. Sort of like picking your battles to fight. I would think either or on the extremes would not be good.

mimartin: You are absolutely right in the passing of hatreds to the young. I've seen it myself how much kids mimic theirparents and think it's ok.

Which is why they're attempting to teach things in classes.

Funny how the discussion answered that question.
http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2163)

You see the reason they teach these things in school is not because they want to remove the responsibility from the parents, rather they wish to compensate for the irresponsibility. I can understand the feeling of threat to one's measure as a parent however, I feel comfortable in the knowledge that my children will not have to worry about the kind of hate I and others have had to tolerate or endure.

I think that can be covered in the standard 'hating people is wrong' socialization that happens in school, however. I don't want the school to be getting in the business of discussing morality of different kinds of sex when we can't even do a good job teaching basic reading and math.

I think that can be covered in the standard 'hating people is wrong' socialization that happens in school, however. I don't want the school to be getting in the business of discussing morality of different kinds of sex when we can't even do a good job teaching basic reading and math.

I don't really think any initiative will be taken until the school system as a whole has gotten worked out. By which time improvements of base subjects will be made.

Funny thing is though if people didn't push too hard, it would never have gotten people on board anyway. Look at women's right to vote. They pushed hard and history wasn't knid to them but in the end they prevailed.

I would think that it works both ways. You have to push but then not push. Sort of like picking your battles to fight. I would think either or on the extremes would not be good.

I'm not entirely familiar with the roots of the gay rights movements, but it at the very most, a post-WWII movement. Black(and other races) civil rights and women's civil rights have been issues since the dawn of the nation.

They were slow and presistant, and when given the chance, they pushed hard. From from it's very dawning, the gay rights movements have come on strong with messages of "we're queer, we're here, get used to it!" This is not a message of cooperation, this is not a message that they seek equal rights.

It is a message saying that we will give them rights, regardless of our feelings on the subject, because they told us to do so. Not exactly a strong way to build cooperation between two groups of people. I'm a supporter of homosexual rights but there are time when I'm even put off by the divisivness of their message, it really often comes off to me no different than Bush's "You're either with me or against me."

In AZ we have the same thing, only it's called prop 102. I intend on voting it down.

I kind of agree with Web Rider on this one. in that the GLBT community has been more or less in everyone's face about the issue rather than attempting a more agreeable approach. Trust me I fully support people marrying who they love. That is their choice, but lets face it, we're talking thousands of years of morality being put to task. It's also people's subconsious prejudices. They may not even have a problems with homosexuality, but just crossing that line of making it more "normal" is tough for most.

Web Rider: Actually I disagree with the GLBT community coming in hard etc. from the beginning. Before it became the issue it is now, most lived in secret or in the closet so to speak. If it got out there usually was retaliation and not in the nice way. That was my take on it unless you mean when the gay rights issue became a full fledged cause.

On a different note, I voted yesterday. My campus has an early voting poll location in our student union so I went in and vote. A good thing I did because I voted no on Prop 8 and I would have had the Inquisition after me aka my family. Nice thing is they didn't ask me who or what I voted for so in some cases voting is private. Anyway I voted no on the proposition because I do see it as a trampling on rights. I like fair play yes and I don't see this prop as one.

It is neither right nor privilege for any government to persecute it's citizens based on personal morals and ideology. It is the right of every (wo)man to pursue life without impeding on another. If they are doing no personal harm there can be no crime, therefore nothing to prohibit.

There was a time and place in the US where people understood and accepted this ideal.

Amen.

_EW_

I actually wouldn't have a problem with proposition 9, as long as there was the following included in it.


That the legal term of legal partnership (or whatever you call it) was added to the bill and that the rights and priviledges of marriage would also apply to legal partnership.

In all honesty, this is a sticky issue and neither side should be going on and on about it being "Their way or the highway."

I agree on that Garfield. Prop 8 really is becoming a hotbed and in fact today at my university, there is an evangelical preaching and condemning everyone. If I remember correctly and jonathan has mentioned it before, somewhere in the Bible we have no right to judge our fellow man. Of course the main rule I try to follow is Love thy neighbor as thyself. Jonathan's siggie also is great truth about love. Heck all you need is love.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with proposition 9, as long as there was the following included in it.

That the legal term of legal partnership (or whatever you call it) was added to the bill and that the rights and priviledges of marriage would also apply to legal partnership.

In all honesty, this is a sticky issue and neither side should be going on and on about it being "Their way or the highway."

It's prop 8. And what exactly is a "legal partnership"? Is it a socially lee important but legally equivalent marriage for "they gays"?

Allowing homosexuals to marry isn't just for the legal benefits. It's also for the social things that come with it. When you look at a (ideal) married couple, there's all kinds of "dawwww" stuff you feel. When you look at a partnership, these same things do not come to mind. Otherwise AOL's partnership with Time Warner would give you all sorts of fuzzy feelings.

Edit: doublepost, whatever, Prop 8 did not pass, 500k vote margin unless the abentee and provisional vote change that.

Please click in the lower right corner the you may: edit.... link to edit your posts instead of double posting. --Jae

Wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), Web. Fools. Who are (they) to say who a person can or cannot marry? However, as you said, quite a few absentee ballots remain to be counted, and they could turn the tide.

No no no no no no no

Wikipedia disagrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)), Web. Fools. Who are (they) to say who a person can or cannot marry? However, as you said, quite a few absentee ballots remain to be counted, and they could turn the tide.

Sorry, Prop 8's language always made my head spin, yes=no marriage, no=yes marriage.

Good to see it.

My parents told me Proposition 8 passed... Why are civil rights even held to a vote anyways?

My dad said: "Now the gays want to bring it to court! The people voted. They don't want gay marriage, and that's it!"
My mother said: "Yes, the people voted. Those spoiled brats... When will they ever just give up?!" /exact words

It's sad to hear people I should look up to and think of as wise saying these offensive and stupid things.
I just nodded my head and went to my room to play games and forget about it so as not to let it ruin my day.

I am pretty happy to see that it passed.

Good to see it.

:disaprove

I am pretty happy to see that it passed.


Do you have a reason why? Or are you just regurgitating your parents' points of view?

@Everyone else
Don't give up hope just yet. According to wikipedia:
the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes;[7] as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted.

It hasn't been called yet.

_EW_

God, it just makes me so mad to see that we cannot be equal to everyone. What is the problem if two men or two women, who are in love, want to marry? Honestly, does it effect you? Does it honestly offend you enough to have to go out and ban it, after gays and lesbians have fought so long and hard to gain such rights?

We claim "Every man is created equal"; unless you're gay. :l

We claim "Every man is created equal"; unless you're gay. :l

Damn straight, Zelda.

_EW_

Do you have a reason why? Or are you just regurgitating your parents' points of view?

Wow there buddy. I think that it is really funny that people here seem to think that I go off of what my parents think. Amazing...I have my own mind and I have my own view.

Civil Rights. Yes everybody deserves them. I can so tell that you are gonna bash me on this because if I believe that everybody deserves them then why am I happy to see it pass?

One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?

One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

The bible also says:
Don't cut your hair nor shave.
Kill anyone with a different religion.
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.

and lets not forget:
and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.


I'm a Christian too - that's why I don't want this to pass.


This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.


Here we go, this is something I'm good at.

Naturalistic Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) (aka appeal to nature) - things that are natural are not necessarily ethical. Ethics are not determined by what's natural and even if they were, you're still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

_EW_

Civil Rights. Yes everybody deserves them.
Ha.

I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.
Yeah dude, I follow the Bible too. My favorite passages are Leviticus 25:44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44;&version=31;) and Deuteronomy 22:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22;&version=31;). I follow them everyday. I just got a new shipment from Asia yesterday, lookin' forward to breaking them in.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.
What is so 'unethical' about homosexual people? Are they lesser beings because they're gay? Are they less than you or me?

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
You are, but we're also entitled to disagree with your rather bigoted opinion.

This is a big moral issueNo it isn't, it's just none of your ****ing business.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?Sure, as long as you don't start imposing it on other people, which is exactly what prop 8 did.

We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?