Proposition 8

[Kiwon]

Being gay is part of nature.

----------------------><-----------------------

[hoosier]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

The Jews did it.

[Partial]

I think it will be far more troubling when I have to explain to my young children what is wrong with those two men walking down the street holding hands...

Please think before you speak.

Why don't you think before you speak? How do you tie in holding hands and marriage?

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children. I have a serious problem with it. I have a cousin who is gay. He's a totally great guy. But, I will never take my kids over to his and his partners house until they're older and will understand.

I get that its "expressing who they are" in public, but so what? I'm not expected or allowed to go and yell "F you" in public in front of children for obvious reasons. Same thing imo.

[Cy]

Oh, and please leave God out of it. Not everyone in this country is Christian, or religious for that matter. And, unless I missed something in American History class, God didn't write our Constitution or make any of the amendments to it. I do recall learning something about separation of church and state. Unless I was seeing that in my daydreams while the teacher was telling us how God made this wonderful country, I don't think it matters what is said in the Bible. Homosexuality may be a Christian sin, but it is not an American crime to be homosexual - even in public.

Cy: Has nothing to do with God.

It has to do with language. Up until the rise of deconstructistic linguistic theory, we could assume that words in our language had universal meaning. If I, say, said, "Bring your family over for dinner," I should not expect you to bring your union family, or your church family.

Society, if it is exist peacefully, must have a shared understanding of its most basic means of communication, the word.

Language is unarguably a product of nothing less than tradition. Laws did not put language into effect. Progressive elites did not bestow upon the humble masses the gift of language. Even Obama did not give us language. It is the product of tradition.

"Marriage" has a specific, traditional meaning in our language. And that meaning is "One man, one woman, for the general and usually typical purposes of producing children and thus creating a family." As my son said, "how can two men have a baby?"

Now, what is exactly is meant by the assumption that two men ought to be allowed to marry?

a.) That one man ought to be able to drive his penis into the rectum of another, and that be sanctified by the state? But most of our Sodomy laws have been overturned. That's not an issue.

b.) That one man ought to be able to love another man? But that's never been an issue. I love lots of men.

c.) That one man ought to have rights in terms of hospital visits, etc. with regard to another man? It would seem that this issue is something that any number of reasonable laws could allow, for friends, for father/son, for two males who happen to love each other or ram their penises into each other's rectums. Whatever, that ought not be an issue.

But why marriage? What is the end purpose of changing the traditional meaning of the word "marriage"? Unless it is to fundamentally destabalize a traditional and historical institution.

Really now, think about it.

What if I began a movement to redefine the word "race" in all our laws (and in our constitution) to mean, "the human race," so that the issue of such laws is not to protect the rights of blacks vis a vis whites, but rather the rights of animals vis a vis the rights of those in the human race?

My opponents would rightly conclude that I was being more of an iconoclast than actually contributing to the useful advancement of our Republic.

And they'd be right.

[Partial]

god if only partials parents were gay, then we wouldn't be hear listing to this bullshit right now

Dude, you know what? This post is a bunch of BS. Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

I'm not some freak for not wanting to have to have that conversation and confuse a child. I'd say my response is pretty normal.

I realize most of you guys get all uppity about being politically correct, but if you answer yes that you're comfortable having that discussion... well, then I'm sincerely concerned for your children.

[MJZiggy]

Obviously, you've missed the story I told about the gay couple in the PTA of my son's school. They actively participated in school activities from kindergarten up. It's really not that confusing to them. The hard part is that the daddy is so confused. My kid has been around these people since he was 5, and I nor anyone I know has had this in depth conversation you see as so inevitable.

[falco]

well, then I'm sincerely concerned for your children.

luckily my children are none of your concern

[SkinBasket]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

Sounds like you figured it out. I stayed home for that vote. I didn't want all the homos to think I cared.

[swede]

I'm Christian and Libertarian. On this issue, the clear answer to me is civil unions. They can have their own weddings.

Another conservative for civil unions! This is better than Jews for Jesus.

How did that amendment pass by such a huge majority that banned gay marriage (which was already illegal) and made it impossible to allow civil unions?

Obviously a state that has selected Clinton, Kerry, and Obama isn't as progressive as all that.

I voted for civil unions. God knows my own hasn't been very civil.

[BallHawk]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....

Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

[falco]

You're contradicting yourself, P.

a first time for everything ballhawk...lay off the young man

[MJZiggy]

I solved this problem on page 5 and introduced the real issue. Why are we still discussing this?

[Fosco33]

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

The consitution has more force than the popular will.

appeals, lawyers and judges determine if laws are constitutional.

Maybe we should not have a constitution or bill of rights, just let the people decide everything. or not. there's some wisdom behind setting some principles above the sway of popular opinion.

Good points, HH. But you do know that to approve an amendment it has to go through a process of being ratified by majorities of representatives (Congress/state legislatures). Those people are supposed to act in the will of their constituents (citizens).

But that's for the US process... and I'm not quite sure of the CA process (doh, I'm a resident by definition of residence only).

I was only partially quoted above, I said, "[quote]Similar prop passed 8 years ago.

SF mayor and CA supreme court went against the spoken will of the majority.

Prop 8 passes again - despite near record low turnout in Orange County (very right of center).

If gay rights activists wanted change, they should propose their own measure and not hide behind appeals, lawyers and judges that don't speak for the people.

(Note - I don't really care if/when it actually passes - it's more about the process of initiating change)"[/quote]

My

bold

comment is important - I don't care whether or not people want a union/marriage/whatever. Acquiesce = Agreement

My point was that the way it was implmented went against most CA residents wishes. Obviously there will be ongoing legal battles and ultimately CA will 'officially' allow gays to marry.

[Partial]

Homosexuals outwardly expressing their unnatural nature (genetic defect) is very traumatizing to children.

AND THEN.....

Would you really feel comfortable explaining to your young 4 year old little girl what homosexuality is, why they're different, why they want to be that way, etc.

You're contradicting yourself, P.

Dude, those are questions the very confused, very disturbed child is asking...

[Fosco33]

Here's CA constitutional amendment process (i.e., the electors can vote to alter our constitution):

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That one man ought to have rights in terms of hospital visits, etc. with regard to another man? It would seem that this issue is something that any number of reasonable laws could allow, for friends, for father/son, for two males who happen to love each other or ram their penises into each other's rectums. Whatever, that ought not be an issue.

But why marriage? What is the end purpose of changing the traditional meaning of the word "marriage"? Unless it is to fundamentally destabalize a traditional and historical institution.

Except it is an issue. The people of WI passed a constitutional amendment banning the creation of a status similar to marriage for gays. You are suggesting an equal status.

Did you vote against that amendment?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I voted for civil unions. God knows my own hasn't been very civil.

I'm impressed. At least one conservative is walking the talk.

[swede]

Did you vote against that amendment?

Again with this?

Blame the libs! They run this state.

I voted for civil unions. I have a hard time disapproving of caring and supportive relationships.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What bobblehead said is the crux of the matter. Believe it or not, there are still people that believe in the whole sacred union part of marriage - that it's not just a civil service or a joining of health care benefits, but a religious vow. Those people want to protect that definition for themselves more than they want to stop a couple of queers from wearing matching wedding dresses, holding hands, and being recognized as a joined couple. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not marriage.

Sounds like you are OK with civil unions, too. Put your cock where your mouth is: Did you vote for or against the amendment two years ago that banned civil unions?

Sounds like you figured it out. I stayed home for that vote. I didn't want all the homos to think I cared.

I think that was a reasonable choice.

[Zool]

Then you have to say they're gay... they ask whats that... then you have the whole birds and the bees at an age far too young. No innocence left in children these days and the liberal media is to blame for it.

Well...you've once again said the stupidest thing I've read from you.

Kudos in your never ending quest.

How so? You're telling me if you were with your daughter and she saw two fruit cakes holding hands and kissing eachother it wouldn't perplex her? She's probably say, "what are those guys doing daddy".

You'd say, "they're trying to defy genetics and do their own thing" or "they're gay".

She says... "whats gay, daddy".

You say ... "its when a man likes another man instead of girls"

daughter asks why, when all she sees are men married to women..

and so on and so forth.

Christ Zooly... That is dead on balls accurate, wheres the beef?

How the fuck can you blame the media for anything? Turn off the TV. If the kids are watching too much TV, do we blame NBC or possibly their parents?

Think....type...think some more.....type some more....go for a walk...come back. If it still seems like a good post, push submit.

Let me put it this way....

Shows like Will and Grace or the L Word weren't on twenty years ago before everything on television wasn't so scandalous. You didn't have "the 40 year old virgin" on NBC on a Saturday and Sunday evening as the featured family movie...

See Kiwons post. *DX crotch chop*

Let me put it this way. If youre a fucking parent, turn the fucking TV off. Is that clear enough?

Last I knew, there was no one with a gun forcing anyone to watch anything on TV. Is it Miller or Busch's fault that people are alcoholics? Scandal sells because stupid people buy into it. Blaming the media is just passing the buck for someone else being too lazy or stupid to monitor their own children.