Support NeoGAF

[Zyzyxxz]

No On Prop 8=Extend Your Manhood
No On Prop 8=No More Leaks

No on prop 8 = Your puppy will come back to life and stay one forever
No on prop 8 = White People can dance again

 

[Enojado]

Count me in as a "No" on Prop 8 (previously undecided). I can't in good conscience vote yes when I think about our country and what it stands for. It just doesn't make sense to me to treat gay couples differently for no real concrete reason(s).

I worry, though, that it will pass. It seems the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is pretty damn organized. They had a bus up here in the Bay area recently (maybe it's still here, not sure) with plans for it to drive to southern California. You also have tons of religious people donating money to the cause. Add to that people like my brother in law who goes door to door and also does phone calling to spread the word.

 

[Jasup]

Add to that people like my brother in law who goes door to door and also does phone calling to spread the word.

sounds like someone needs to be bitchslapped.


And seriously, about the telling about same sex marriages in schools fright. It's just fucking unbelievable. It's not like when you tell children that some men and women like other men and women and some children have two dads or moms a fucking fairy flies in to the classroom and sprinkles homo-dust all over the kids and insta-gay happens.

And truth be told, it's not like it's always any better in "civilized world" (other side of the Atlantic). I remember few years back we had a lecture series and an accompanying stand about rainbow families and their children in schools at my uni. The stand got trashed a few times, complaints were made about "teaching homosexuality" to students and how it should not be an issue in schools and so on and so on. And this was nothing more than informing to be teachers about the issues they might be facing in their future jobs. It's like ignorance cures all.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Tradition!

Both aged in their forties, the two brothers have lived together nearly their whole lives. They are poor and share just about everything: Their home, their work and a wife.

"See we have a tradition from the beginning to have a family of five to 10 people. Two brothers and one wife." Kundan says.

They practice what is known as fraternal polyandry -- where the brothers of one family marry the same woman. Why? Tradition and economics.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Count me in as a "No" on Prop 8 (previously undecided). I can't in good conscience vote yes when I think about our country and what it stands for. It just doesn't make sense to me to treat gay couples differently for no real concrete reason(s).

That's awesome, man. You have my respect and my thanks.

In other news, the Yes On Prop 8 campaign is now resorting to blackmail.

Calif. gay marriage ban backers target businesses
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2008
(10-23) 17:22 PDT San Francisco, CA (AP) --

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

The unusual appeal reflects the increasing tension surrounding the tight race over Proposition 8, which would change the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In recent days, both sides in the debate have accused their opponents of threatening their respective campaign volunteers and misleading voters.

San Diego businessman Jim Abbott, who owns a real estate company and is a member of Equality California's board of directors, received one of the letters late Wednesday afternoon. His adult son called Abbott to read it to him.

"He characterized it as a bit 'Mafioso,'" Abbott said. "It was a little distressing, but it's consistent with how the 'yes' side of this campaign has been run, which is a bit over the top."

Abbott, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, estimated that over the last decade he has given $50,000 to Equality California, including a recent $10,000 gift to underwrite a San Diego event that raised money to defeat Proposition 8.

When asked whether ProtectMarriage.com planned to name businesses that have supported the No on 8 campaign, Prentice initially said he was unaware of any such effort.

"I'm not familiar of any organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8," he said Thursday.

But when asked about the letter to Equality California donors, Prentice confirmed they were authentic and said the ProtectMarriage.com campaign was asking businesses backing the other side "to reconsider taking a position on a moral issue in California."

Prentice said it was his understanding it was intended for large corporations such as cable operators Time Warner and Comcast instead of small business owners like Abbott. Both Time Warner and Comcast are listed on Equality California's Web site as corporate sponsors that gave $50,000 each to the group.

Companies that have contributed directly to one of the campaign committees collecting cash to fight Proposition 8, including one set up by Equality California, also were recipients of the letter, Prentice said. That list includes companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss and AT&T.

"I think the IDing of, or outing of, any company is very secondary to the question of why especially a public corporation would choose to take a side knowing it would splinter it's own clientele," he said.

Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.

"It's truly an outrageous attempt to extort people," Kors said.

While an anti-Proposition 8 group called Californians Against Hate has posted lists of gay marriage ban donors on the Internet and even launched boycotts of selected businesses, Kors said that work has been independent of the official No on 8 campaign.

"They are going after our long-term funding and trying to intimidate Equality California donors from giving any more to the No on 8 campaign and from giving to Equality California ever again."

While corporations often give to rival candidates for public office as a way of preserving their government access no matter who wins, tit-for-tat solicitations are almost unheard of in ballot initiative campaigns, said Robert Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies.

"This is a proposition where you are on one side or the other. You vote yes or no, not yes and no," Stern said.

Though unusual and disturbing, Stern said there was nothing illegal about ProtectMarriage.com hitting up Equality California supporters for money.

Sonya Eddings Brown, a ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman, estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter and said those that do not respond with a contribution would be highlighted in a press release and on the campaign Web site.

She called the tactic "a frustrated response" to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign.

The most pathetic part is that if businesses gave to No On Prop 8 I don't think they'd mind being public about it. It really just goes to show that for the anti-gay marriage crowd, gay=shameful and they're relying on that to intimidate backers. Sad and sick.

 

[Killthee]

^^^
Here's the letter:

PDF Link

 

[Gaborn]

That's awesome, man. You have my respect and my thanks.

In other news, the Yes On Prop 8 campaign is now resorting to blackmail.



The most pathetic part is that if businesses gave to No On Prop 8 I don't think they'd mind being public about it. It really just goes to show that for the anti-gay marriage crowd, gay=shameful and they're relying on that to intimidate backers. Sad and sick.

How bizarre and a bit sad that they're trying that. At least it shows they're not very confident in winning though!

 

[Macam]

Apple throws their weight (and dollars) against Prop 8:

In an unusually political move, Apple has taken a stance on a ballot issue affecting its home state of California, according to an announcement. The company has declared itself publicly opposed to Proposition 8, a measure which would amend California's constitution to ban gay and lesbian marriages. Such marriages were legalized following a decision of the California Supreme Court, which noted that sanctions against them violated an equal protection clause of the state's constitution.

Aside from announcing its opposition, Apple has taken the further measure of donating $100,000 to No On 8, a political action group. The company explains that it was one of the first businesses in California to offer full rights and benefits to gay and lesbian workers, and sees Proposition 8 as a violation of civil rights, not just a political split.

Earlier this year Apple was voted one of the most gay-friendly companies in a US survey, due in part to its employment policies, but also to factors like advertising and the influence of friends and the media.

 

[James Power]

Has it been discussed in this thread whether people who are actually able to reproduce should be granted some special rights that sets them apart from any other union?

 

[btkadams]

Apple throws their weight (and dollars) against Prop 8:

i proudly type this post on my apple macbook pro.

yayy. its funny that an huge corporation like apple donated 100,000 and a rock band (Fall Out Boy) donated 50,000. youd expect a huge company to donate more than just double, wouldn't you? great news!

 

[Gaborn]

Has it been discussed in this thread whether people who are actually able to reproduce should be granted some special rights that sets them apart from any other union?

Why limit it to reproduction? If anything tie it to people raising children. Afterall, adoption, surrogacy, and other options are available to both infertile straight couples and gay couples.

 

[ronito]

That's awesome, man. You have my respect and my thanks.

In other news, the Yes On Prop 8 campaign is now resorting to blackmail.



The most pathetic part is that if businesses gave to No On Prop 8 I don't think they'd mind being public about it. It really just goes to show that for the anti-gay marriage crowd, gay=shameful and they're relying on that to intimidate backers. Sad and sick.

Such a mafia-esque tactic.

 

[Armitage]

Jesus Christ you guys. Jesus Buttsex Christ. This better not pass. What are all these religious people doing in California anyways? Shouldn't they have been scared away by THE GAYZ by now?

 

[Acid08]

Well gay marriage was originally not passed in California but our Supreme Court overturned what the people voted for. I think that's the bigger problem.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Why limit it to reproduction? If anything tie it to people raising children. Afterall, adoption, surrogacy, and other options are available to both infertile straight couples and gay couples.

The only thing that I'd like to note is that, IMO, gay couples should not get any more consideration than straight couples for reproductive procedures (i.e. IUI, IVF, etc.; most insurance companies have a lifetime limit to the number of these procedures that they'll pay for) from insurance companies or adoption. THAT would be a legitimate case of giving special rights.

 

[Gaborn]

Well gay marriage was originally not passed in California but our Supreme Court overturned what the people voted for. I think that's the bigger problem.

Actually the California legislature voted several times to legalize marriage equality, the governor vetoed it because he wanted the California Supreme court to decide. Now it has and now the people can either agree with the Legislature, the Court, and now the Governor (who now opposes prop 8), or they can disagree and pass prop 8.

Charlie - I agree with you. And for the record I wouldn't give special consideration to couples based on reproduction OR children, but if I was going to do either I'd base it on if a couple is raising children rather than if they're raising biologically related children.

 

[Tarazet]

Well gay marriage was originally not passed in California but our Supreme Court overturned what the people voted for. I think that's the bigger problem.

It was ruled as unconstitutional. Checks and balances. From the opinion:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners... The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."

 

[Acid08]

Actually the California legislature voted several times to legalize marriage equality, the governor vetoed it because he wanted the California Supreme court to decide. Now it has and now the people can either agree with the Legislature, the Court, and now the Governor (who now opposes prop 8), or they can disagree and pass prop 8.

Really? I could have sworn that the people had voted on this already last year and didn't pass it.

 

[giga]

Apple throws their weight (and dollars) against Prop 8:

this was definitely from jobs. you'd never see that on any other corporate company's news.

 

[permutated]

I'm a pretty devout Christian, my wife included, we're both voting NO on prop 8 :--)

The bible makes it clear that judgment is reserved for the throne of God, not for us, so why should we restrict people from expressing their love? It goes against our message of acceptance.

Anyhow, I hope California realizes that everyone deserves equal rights.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Apple throws their weight (and dollars) against Prop 8:

Jobs is so godlike.

 

[grandjedi6]

Really? I could have sworn that the people had voted on this already last year and didn't pass it.

Nope (2007 is a voting year?)

 

[CharlieDigital]

I'm a pretty devout Christian, my wife included, we're both voting NO on prop 8 :--)

The bible makes it clear that judgment is reserved for the throne of God, not for us, so why should we restrict people from expressing their love? It goes against our message of acceptance.

Anyhow, I hope California realizes that everyone deserves equal rights.

Humanistic religion FTMFW!

 

[permutated]

Apple throws their weight (and dollars) against Prop 8:

I really have no idea why people hate APPLE, they make terrific products and they're not afraid to speak their minds on the issues.

 

[Nick]

I'm a pretty devout Christian, my wife included, we're both voting NO on prop 8 :--)

The bible makes it clear that judgment is reserved for the throne of God, not for us, so why should we restrict people from expressing their love? It goes against our message of acceptance.

Anyhow, I hope California realizes that everyone deserves equal rights.

God bless. You and your wife sound like great people.

 

[Enojado]

I'm a pretty devout Christian, my wife included, we're both voting NO on prop 8 :--)

The bible makes it clear that judgment is reserved for the throne of God, not for us, so why should we restrict people from expressing their love? It goes against our message of acceptance.

Anyhow, I hope California realizes that everyone deserves equal rights.

I'm not religious anymore, but I really like your post. I hope more people start feeling this way.

 

[Jenov]

the argument would go, you can't choose your sex or your ethnicity, or the color of your skin.

But you can choose your sexual orientation.

Besides, like someone mentioned above, Prop 8 doesn't take away the rights to love someone.

People with brains.. please use basic logic.

People are born gay/bi/hetero and people can choose to be gay/bi/hetero.

The majority is born gay/bi/hetero. People can CHOOSE to be different (just like one chooses to be goth, or chooses to be an anime weirdo) and this includes sexual orientation.

Something like this proposition happening in "the land of the free" is a very pathetic thing.

Anyone who thinks ALL GAYS are born gay, or ALL GAYS choose to be gay... has either a very limited ability to use logic, or is extremely biased towards one side or the other.

I personally can't stand the way SOME gays act on this forum. They're annoying as hell, constantly promote the fact that they're gay just to get attention, and I have no respect at all for it. I see it as the same thing as some girl who just happens to be good looking and plays a video game spamming pictures on here for attention, or constantly talking about how she plays them as if it's some great achievement that she plays them... and is hot at the same time.

I DO have respect for the fact that you ARE gay though. I have nothing against gays in general. You ABSOLUTELY have the right to marry, and should not be questioned about your title of marriage. This proposition is a pile of shit that everyone should vote NO on just on logic. Nobody gets to tell you that there are any differences in the way you love one another, whether you're gay or not. Voting yes almost brings you down to the idiocy of an evangelical that still thinks the world is 6000 years old without ever taking a look at what studies have been done to support evolution.

I'm aware someone might read this and give me an instant ban, but I'm only giving my opinion, and my overall consensus actually does agree with the OP that this proposition is basically an attack on natural humanity. Anyone who doesn't think gay people are "natural" seriously needs to get a fucking reality check, because it's pretty clear they've been a part of history as long as we can remember.

 

[Skiptastic]

I really have no idea why people hate APPLE, they make terrific products and they're not afraid to speak their minds on the issues.

I'm pretty sure it's the annoying as fuck commercials and the fact that iTunes kept trying to update every two days in the past. That's my reason.

 

[Tarazet]

Nope (2007 is a voting year?)

We had the primaries earlier this year, but I don't think we voted on anything in 2007.

 

[Terrell]

People with brains.. please use basic logic.

People are born gay/bi/hetero and people can choose to be gay/bi/hetero.

The majority is born gay/bi/hetero. People can CHOOSE to be different (just like one chooses to be goth, or chooses to be an anime weirdo) and this includes sexual orientation.

Something like this proposition happening in "the land of the free" is a very pathetic thing.

Anyone who thinks ALL GAYS are born gay, or ALL GAYS choose to be gay... has either a very limited ability to use logic, or is extremely biased towards one side or the other.

I personally can't stand the way SOME gays act on this forum. They're annoying as hell, constantly promote the fact that they're gay just to get attention, and I have no respect at all for it. I see it as the same thing as some girl who just happens to be good looking and plays a video game spamming pictures on here for attention, or constantly talking about how she plays them as if it's some great achievement that she plays them... and is hot at the same time.

I DO have respect for the fact that you ARE gay though. I have nothing against gays in general. You ABSOLUTELY have the right to marry, and should not be questioned about your title of marriage. This proposition is a pile of shit that everyone should vote NO on just on logic. Nobody gets to tell you that there are any differences in the way you love one another, whether you're gay or not. Voting yes almost brings you down to the idiocy of an evangelical that still thinks the world is 6000 years old without ever taking a look at what studies have been done to support evolution.

I'm aware someone might read this and give me an instant ban, but I'm only giving my opinion, and my overall consensus actually does agree with the OP that this proposition is basically an attack on natural humanity. Anyone who doesn't think gay people are "natural" seriously needs to get a fucking reality check, because it's pretty clear they've been a part of history as long as we can remember.

I don't see any reason for you to be banned, you do not use your distaste for an individual's behavior to label, ridicule or condemn a whole group of people. Perfectly reasonable to call out individual behavior as being counter-productive. Don't sweat it, man.

this was definitely from jobs. you'd never see that on any other corporate company's news.

Let's see how the Yes on 8 crowd takes this... who wants to comb their websites and see how much of it was made on a Mac? :lol

 

[fanboi]

I love how people try to justify voteing against the gay people by some ridiculus means like "Ohh... you can call it something else like "anal marrige"".
What if you were sanctioned to not be able to play video games? Or just be able to play the Phantom?

 

[ivysaur12]

Apple and Google are fucking awesome.

 

[grandjedi6]

People with brains.. please use basic logic.

People are born gay/bi/hetero and people can choose to be gay/bi/hetero.

The majority is born gay/bi/hetero. People can CHOOSE to be different (just like one chooses to be goth, or chooses to be an anime weirdo) and this includes sexual orientation.

Something like this proposition happening in "the land of the free" is a very pathetic thing.

Anyone who thinks ALL GAYS are born gay, or ALL GAYS choose to be gay... has either a very limited ability to use logic, or is extremely biased towards one side or the other.

There is alot of stuff we still don't know about sexuality so I dont think you should be declaring what gay is either

In fact one of the few things we know for certain about sexuality is that its not a choice so....

I personally can't stand the way SOME gays act on this forum. They're annoying as hell, constantly promote the fact that they're gay just to get attention, and I have no respect at all for it. I see it as the same thing as some girl who just happens to be good looking and plays a video game spamming pictures on here for attention, or constantly talking about how she plays them as if it's some great achievement that she plays them... and is hot at the same time.

Honestly though there are dumbasses in every demographic group. I'm sure there are plenty of heterosexual gaffers like us who are just as annoying on the flip-side

I DO have respect for the fact that you ARE gay though. I have nothing against gays in general. You ABSOLUTELY have the right to marry, and should not be questioned about your title of marriage. This proposition is a pile of shit that everyone should vote NO on just on logic. Nobody gets to tell you that there are any differences in the way you love one another, whether you're gay or not. Voting yes almost brings you down to the idiocy of an evangelical that still thinks the world is 6000 years old without ever taking a look at what studies have been done to support evolution.

I'm aware someone might read this and give me an instant ban, but I'm only giving my opinion, and my overall consensus actually does agree with the OP that this proposition is basically an attack on natural humanity. Anyone who doesn't think gay people are "natural" seriously needs to get a fucking reality check, because it's pretty clear they've been a part of history as long as we can remember.

Why would anyone call for your banning?

Or are the mods now banning intelligent non-offensive posts now :O

 

[Rorschach]

That reminds me, new No On Prop 8 Ad featuring California State Superintendent of Schools calling the Yes ads a lie.

Saw that yesterday. Hope it gets more circulation and that the damage isn't already done.

 

[Dupy]

Let's see how the Yes on 8 crowd takes this... who wants to comb their websites and see how much of it was made on a Mac? :lol

I briefly saw the discussion going on at Mac Rumors. Sheesh, they should stick to talking about Apple products.

And coincidentally the most extreme pro-8/anti-gay posters have McCain or anti-Obama avatars and sigs. This was a shocking observation.

 

[Jenov]

In fact one of the few things we know for certain about sexuality is that its not a choice so....

I strongly agree that the majority (and I mean like 98-99% probably... not sure, because nobody knows!) are born gay, but no one can say for certain that someone who is straight did not simply chose to be gay just to be "different." Nobody can say this with absolute certainty, so saying "It's not a choice" as a fact is not 100% right due to insignificant evidence. This small distinction is certainly not significant enough to condemn gays, but needs to be considered from a scientific point of view at least, so that all options are open while studying it.

If we are to look at being gay or any other question with an open mind, we must consider all of the possibilities.

Basically.... saying "all gays are born that way" is not right or wrong, yet, but there is strong evidence to support that at least the vast majority of gays are born that way. I guess if you're using the term "gay" as something that has occured since birth, then you can definitely say "all gays were born that way." But if you use the term gay as in two people of the same sex having sex, then that is a choice. Just like lesbians in porn, although technically homosexual, is defined as a gay act (which I just SEEM to have no problem with ).

So perhaps you and I are just defining the word in a different way. But if we're considering two people who are participating in a gay act, then by that definition, there are gays that are born that way, and gays that choose to be that way.

 

[Gaborn]

I strongly agree that the majority (and I mean like 98-99% probably... not sure, because nobody knows!) are born gay, but no one can say for certain that someone who is straight did not simply chose to be gay just to be "different." Nobody can say this with absolute certainty, so saying "It's not a choice" as a fact is not 100% right due to insignificant evidence. This small distinction is certainly not significant enough to condemn gays, but needs to be considered from a scientific point of view at least, so that all options are open while studying it.

If we are to look at being gay or any other question with an open mind, we must consider all of the possibilities.

Basically.... saying "all gays are born that way" is not right or wrong, yet, but there is strong evidence to support that at least the vast majority of gays are born that way. I guess if you're using the term "gay" as something that has occured since birth, then you can definitely say "all gays were born that way." But if you use the term gay as in two people of the same sex having sex, then that is a choice. Just like lesbians in porn, although technically homosexual, is defined as a gay act (which I just SEEM to have no problem with ).

So perhaps you and I are just defining the word in a different way. But if we're considering two people who are participating in a gay act, then by that definition, there are gays that are born that way, and gays that choose to be that way.

Ok, but, logically I know I don't choose to get erections or not, I simply do. My understanding of human sexuality is that is generally true. We don't choose what turns us on. I could believe in some drunken or in other way altered state someone could have a one off encounter with someone they aren't predisposed to be sexually attracted to. I can even concede situational homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter), where there is no one of the sex you're attracted to you're still going to have normal sexual urges and start to feel some physical desire to get off with whatever gender is available.

From this, my conclusion is that what you call "chooses to be gay" or "chooses to be straight" would overwhelmingly occur in bisexuals rather than actual gay or straight individuals.

EDIT - Also, defining being "gay" as simply an act of sex is a misnomer. Sexuality is a complex blend of physical and emotional attraction. You can be gay without having sex, you can be straight without having sex. It's even possible, for a variety of social reasons for a gay person or a straight person to have sex with someone they're not attracted to.

 

[Love To Love You Baby]

I strongly agree that the majority (and I mean like 98-99% probably... not sure, because nobody knows!) are born gay, but no one can say for certain that someone who is straight did not simply chose to be gay just to be "different." Nobody can say this with absolute certainty, so saying "It's not a choice" as a fact is not 100% right due to insignificant evidence. This small distinction is certainly not significant enough to condemn gays, but needs to be considered from a scientific point of view at least, so that all options are open while studying it.

If we are to look at being gay or any other question with an open mind, we must consider all of the possibilities.

Basically.... saying "all gays are born that way" is not right or wrong, yet, but there is strong evidence to support that at least the vast majority of gays are born that way. I guess if you're using the term "gay" as something that has occured since birth, then you can definitely say "all gays were born that way." But if you use the term gay as in two people of the same sex having sex, then that is a choice. Just like lesbians in porn, although technically homosexual, is defined as a gay act (which I just SEEM to have no problem with ).

So perhaps you and I are just defining the word in a different way. But if we're considering two people who are participating in a gay act, then by that definition, there are gays that are born that way, and gays that choose to be that way.

OK, going with the assumption that your argument is true (I personally agree with Gaborn's response), who cares if an extremely small percentage of people were to consider a homosexual relationship because of pro-equality legislation?

 

[Wilsongt]

Has this cropped up in the thread yet?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319

=/

 

[Dupy]

Has this cropped up in the thread yet?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319

=/

:lol I'm sorry but when he burst into tears (5:45 mark), so good.

When will the persecution of straight, white, middle class Christians end? Who will take a stand?! Won't somebody think of the children!!!

 

[ThirdEngine]

It's amazing in this day and age this is even a discussion still. Woman have the same rights, blacks have the same rights. Why are gays still left in the cold? God people are bigots.

This.

 

[Nobodyspatzy]

As a Cali Libratarian (who does tend to be somewhat authoritarian at times about my own personal rights) this prop still confuses me...

On one hand, I understand the churches/religious places want there 'precious' 501(c)3 tax-exempt status (which I am against by the way...another topic about government/church separation)...and the other hand HATE government regulating sex or marriage peroid (between consenting adults mind you...I just don't care what you do to have fun with your lover). It is NOT a State issue...well, it shouldn't have been...on either extreme, IMO.

Honestly, where I live (the High Desert, conservative central) I see too many Yes on 8s, and yet the local GSA thinks it is a lost cause to even talk the issue (shame really, I love good talks, and moderated a debate during the court case that cased this whole thing...very civil). Shamefully, a few radicals on both sides have made this "interesting" like a KKK member coming to the college here n his robe with a Yes on 8 poster (well, I thought it was funny...) and a few gay guys scratching a Mormon pastor's car up (I draw the line there...no violence please!)

So, I am very much on the fence, as I honestly don't know what side to trust when they both act crazy in ways, but have friends on both sides who think each other as their enemies now. (and me, stuck in the middle, not sure about what is the best compromise at this point...)

My opinion...I want another Proposition....eliminate marriage as a State right, don't regulate the churches/religious centers and let them marry whom the want....HOWEVER, all people who want benefits via the State, whether straight, gay, bi, lesbian, whatever...must get a separate State-equivalent of marriage (don't know what it should be called, I don't really care either as I HATE over-regulation).

Just don't tread on me, or anyone else's Rights...or has that been forgotten?!? *sigh* back to lurking...

 

[Slavik81]

I love how people try to justify voteing against the gay people by some ridiculus means like "Ohh... you can call it something else like "anal marrige"".
What if you were sanctioned to not be able to play video games? Or just be able to play the Phantom?

Or, worse yet imagine if I were barred from using cocaine alone in the privacy of my own home without affecting any third party in the slightest.

I don't have to imagine being "sanctioned to not be able to ___________". There are plenty of things like that already. You don't have to make up imaginary situations.

Spoiler

Still would vote 'no'

Ok, but, logically I know I don't choose to get erections or not, I simply do. My understanding of human sexuality is that is generally true. We don't choose what turns us on. I could believe in some drunken or in other way altered state someone could have a one off encounter with someone they aren't predisposed to be sexually attracted to. I can even concede situational homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter), where there is no one of the sex you're attracted to you're still going to have normal sexual urges and start to feel some physical desire to get off with whatever gender is available.

From this, my conclusion is that what you call "chooses to be gay" or "chooses to be straight" would overwhelmingly occur in bisexuals rather than actual gay or straight individuals.

Well said. This is precisely why it's totally irrelevant if people are born gay or not. Even if people are not born gay, nobody has a choice about what they're attracted to. If what they're attracted to is genetic. determined at conception or if what they're attracted to is based on hormones during brain development or or environment they grew up in. It simply doesn't matter. It's the same thing in the end.

 

[Gaborn]

My opinion...I want another Proposition....eliminate marriage as a State right, don't regulate the churches/religious centers and let them marry whom the want....HOWEVER, all people who want benefits via the State, whether straight, gay, bi, lesbian, whatever...must get a separate State-equivalent of marriage (don't know what it should be called, I don't really care either as I HATE over-regulation).

Just don't tread on me, or anyone else's Rights...or has that been forgotten?!? *sigh* back to lurking...

Honestly, I understand where you're coming from and I really sympathize. I guess, as a libertarian who also happens to be gay, what it all comes down to for me is equal treatment under the law. We've provided a list of rights and benefits to married couples. According to the federal constitution we're all entitled to equal treatment under the law. That means there are two, in my view, legally acceptable alternatives. Either wholly eliminate the legal term marriage from government documents at all levels, or give gay couples the same option to marry that heterosexual couples have.

Frankly, although I would support removing marriage from government documents, I just see it as less practical. Heterosexual couples are considerably less likely on average to see it as anything less than a direct "attack" on their relationships, that you'd be "taking away" something even though that's inaccurate.

 

[Terrell]

My opinion...I want another Proposition....eliminate marriage as a State right, don't regulate the churches/religious centers and let them marry whom the want....HOWEVER, all people who want benefits via the State, whether straight, gay, bi, lesbian, whatever...must get a separate State-equivalent of marriage (don't know what it should be called, I don't really care either as I HATE over-regulation).

Just don't tread on me, or anyone else's Rights...or has that been forgotten?!? *sigh* back to lurking...

Because "marriage" is not a religious institution, it is a law institution, the ceremony is only done to sanctify the agreement made between two people under the law in accordance with whatever religion they belong to. Giving the religious right control of the concept of marriage is unconstitutional because the concept of marriage itself does not belong to religion in the first place. In fact, in the earliest recorded history of Western marriage practices, even Christians did not view marriage as religious in nature, it is merely a figment of the modern religious right's imagination. (go look it up, folks, I ain't lying)
And as I have said before... giving gay people the right to use the same part of the legal processes of marriage is a lot easier, less expensive and less time-consuming than having EVERYTHING re-written to accommodate a bunch of people who seek entitlement over a legal concept by claiming that it "defiles" the idea of marriage according to their religious values when their religious values can not (and should not) be factored into government legislation.

If I have to repeat this again, I will be very sorely disappointed.

 

[Tntnnbltn]

i proudly type this post on my apple macbook pro.

yayy. its funny that an huge corporation like apple donated 100,000 and a rock band (Fall Out Boy) donated 50,000. youd expect a huge company to donate more than just double, wouldn't you? great news!

Note to self: Buy Fall Out Boy's latest album on iTunes.

 

[grandjedi6]

 

[btkadams]

Note to self: Buy Fall Out Boy's latest album on iTunes.

word. fall out boy is the bomb. and apparently tolerant.

 

[Mii]

Just voted no to 8 on my absentee ballot.

Same for Prop 4.

Just for the record:

YES:
1A
2
3
5
11
12

NO:
4
6
7
8
9
10

There really ought to be a PoliGaf - Cali Edition.There's some pretty important PROPs this year we ought to be discussing.

 

[Robert-GCA]

I also voted no on 8 on my absentee ballot. I know I have friends who will be voting yes and that's mainly from their religious upbringin/background. My mom went back to teaching about 6 years ago, and not once has she had to bring up anything about marriage in the 1st or 3rd grade classes that she taught.