[Scape]

Voters Choose Not to Legalize Prostitution in San Francisco

Michigan Proposition 1: Allow Medical Marijuana passes

Interesting. Btw what was the reason to ban SSM?

[Brenda]

Californians are dumbfucks, that was the reason

[Scape]

It looks like California has shot down Prop 4, the anti-abortion parental notification initiative so I have my doubts on that.

[martin14]

that requires notification of a parent/guardian prior
to performing an abortion on a minor.

if it seems a no vote, i wonder what the current law states,
cause i dont see this as being unreasonable.


lily is just pissed because the government left the decision to the people,
rather than imposing a structure the majority dont agree with.

[Scape]

Well wasn't the more touted reason against SSM was that people could then end up marrying anything from goats to furniture if SSM was to 'open the door' as it where? That was the only reason I have heard why SSM should be banned by the state. I have never seen it be an issue in the church because the state does not lord over the church and the church does not control the state (at least not yet). So what was the real reason? Only thing I can think of as the real reason was fear of change considering polygamy is considered ok in the states already. Myself I am mostly ambivalent but I do concede the point this is discrimination that makes 2nd class citizens of otherwise supposedly equal peers.

[travior]

I think it is more of a matter of the fact that people are getting tired of judges creating legislation by their whimsical interpretation of the constitution (federal or state) without the will of the people being taken into consideration.

The matter was put before the people to end the debate over whether or not the judge was speaking for the good of the people or not. The people voted and the people spoke. That is the wonderful thing about a democracy. You don't always get rules rammed down your throat. You may not like the outcome, but a majority of the voting population said no to SSM's.

No explaination that can be given will be of the type you are asking for to justify the ammendment. The only thing anyone can do is vote their beliefs and conscience. You cannot ask someone to throw their beliefs out the window just because you disagree with them. If that were the case, we would still have a state church/religion. We are given the freedom to have an opinion and to be able to stand on our morals and values. We do not have to compromise our beliefs just to satisfy the flavour of the day. I am proud that the people of California were not bullied into submission.

If SSM's were legalised, what would stop polygomists from pushing their cause? Are you open to multiple spouses, marriage to animals, marriage to minors? Where does it stop? You give SSM's the green-light and it begins to unravel the fabric of the American society. SSM's are of no benefit to society. That is my opinion, you are entitled to disagree with it, but there is absolutely nothing you can say that will move me from my position. I respect your viewpoint, all I ask is that you respect mine.

[martin14]

Scape Scape:

Well wasn't the more touted reason against SSM was that people could then end up marrying anything from goats to furniture if SSM was to 'open the door' as it where? That was the only reason I have heard why SSM should be banned by the state. I have never seen it be an issue in the church because the state does not lord over the church and the church does not control the state (at least not yet). So what was the real reason? Only thing I can think of as the real reason was fear of change considering polygamy is considered ok in the states already. Myself I am mostly ambivalent but I do concede the point this is discrimination that makes 2nd class citizens of otherwise supposedly equal peers.

I can understand the slippery slope argument.
After all, the US did free the slaves, and look what happened..

it's a joke, folks.



one point i need to clarify.. are we discussing marriage,
or someo ther form of civil union ?

[travior]

The ammendment in question involved the ability to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples. That includes civil unions.

[martin14]

travior travior:

The ammendment in question involved the ability to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples. That includes civil unions.

aha, ok thanks.

[dog77_1999]

Scape Scape:

Well wasn't the more touted reason against SSM was that people could then end up marrying anything from goats to furniture if SSM was to 'open the door' as it where? That was the only reason I have heard why SSM should be banned by the state. I have never seen it be an issue in the church because the state does not lord over the church and the church does not control the state (at least not yet). So what was the real reason? Only thing I can think of as the real reason was fear of change considering polygamy is considered ok in the states already. Myself I am mostly ambivalent but I do concede the point this is discrimination that makes 2nd class citizens of otherwise supposedly equal peers.

That was one of the reasons. Slippery slope would allow for other things such as bestiality, poligamy, marrying cousins, etc to be legal. I think another part was how the gay community went around trying to obtain these rights. Having gay pride parades where people are dressed in the most provacitive fashion is a turn off for most people. I could see people getting sick of judges making laws, but Californians have been ok for quite some with that, so it isn't that.

To be honest I think it creates alot of practical problems. I wouldn't say they are on the level of 2nd class citizens though. I would think doctor visits and tax purposes would be the most damaging, but drafting a will solves alot of the issues raised up.

I really couldn't care less about it. Marriage to me is through my church, not the government. Gays could get married for all I care. What they do in their bedroom is their own business.

I will say I think it is a matter of time before gay marriage is accepted. I think there needs to be some patience in the gay community. I also think they need to be less flamboyant in public. It would help their image among conservatives. For now, I would focus on getting civil unions into law. Basically the same thing as a marriage except in name. From conservatives I talked to, they seem ok with that.

[Scape]

travior travior:

I think it is more of a matter of the fact that people are getting tired of judges creating legislation by their whimsical interpretation of the constitution (federal or state) without the will of the people being taken into consideration.

Of all the arguments presented it is this one that I think is closest to the mark with a ring of truth. I suspect that it was the judiciary that made the 1st move to make this law because of the paralysis of every other branch. This social change can only be made stronger if it is ratified by the vote but to me that is as sound as having a vote on slavery with the vote being split between slave owners, stock holders who have stock in the slave owners trade and the slaves. The game is rigged and badly fixed towards Mormons who don't even live in the state.

For all those that had gone through the hoops and got the marriage and as of today are told it is now null and void that may be grounds for that may bring this issue to a head. For them it was rammed down their throat from day one and I do not see they will ever take no for an answer.

[Pseudonym]

So anyway, I was reading through this thread all serious like, enjoying the back and forth, when suddenly hwacker drops in with this:

hwacker hwacker:

BEING MARRIED IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, ARE YOU PEOPLE ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD ?

I don't know why, but the sheer ridiculousness of this popping up had me laughing for a few minutes. Just incase you wanted to know.

[Scape]

He's great for that. I have had more then a few gutbusters from reading Hwackers drivebys. I still like to hear what he has to say even when it comes off zany because it makes me challenge my assumptions.

[Pseudonym]

It might even be fun if he actually bothered trying to substantiate his claims. "MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT" is a conclusion, not an argument.

Oh, and I just finished reading the thread. I should have kept up with this. I left simjanes2k all alone. Poor guy.

Quick question: Why is religious belief not regarded as a good reason for voting against SSM?

[roger-roger]

Because then you have a non secular reason for creating a law in a secular government. "Because Zeus says so!" is not a reason to support a law that effects people who do not follow your form voodoo.