• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

OK, so he's against it, but that's OK, because he didn't agree with one very specific piece of legislation, even though he agrees with its goal?

Isn't what's in his heart -- being against gay marriage -- what makes him a bigot and homophobe? I'm afraid that's the only place it could be.

But somehow, I supsect that's still OK with you.
Yes -- because taking the the position itself doesn't make you a bigot, only actually trying to implement it does.
:roll:
 
Your use of Obama makes a perfect point. Obama has said that he is personally against gay marriage. I support his right to that opinion. However, Obama also said that he did not support Prop 8 because he did not believe that he should subject others to live by his views.

That is exactly what I am saying.

No one should have the right to tell others how to live their lives unless it involves crime and/or hurting another person.


Obama is trying to have it both ways........On the one hand he is against gay marriage on the other he does not support prop b.....Even you can see the hypocrisy in that........
 
As long as you don't try to foist your beliefs and require others to live by your personal views. I'm fine with it.
So.. you oppose the welfare state... right?
 
What you have to do is get the people behind you on the issue.........You are not able to do that not will you be able to in the future........Some day if this country becomes another Sodom then that might happen..........

Oh nd I thought you said that the referendum in California was going to be defeated........What happened?


What happened was a last minute influx of deceitful ads that we funded by the Mormon church and other religious groups. Like the swift-boat lies, they were blatantly dishonest but were effective.

What we do know is that California has come radically far from 2000. Without the lies and dishonesty, the proposition would have failed. Unfortunately out of state groups brought their agenda into our state.

It will be back on the ballot in a couple of years and with the progress that fairness and justice are making, California will once again be a beacon to the nation on doing the right thing and moving forward with equality.
 
What happened was a last minute influx of deceitful ads that we funded by the Mormon church and other religious groups. Like the swift-boat lies, they were blatantly dishonest but were effective.

What we do know is that California has come radically far from 2000. Without the lies and dishonesty, the proposition would have failed. Unfortunately out of state groups brought their agenda into our state.

It will be back on the ballot in a couple of years and with the progress that fairness and justice are making, California will once again be a beacon to the nation on doing the right thing and moving forward with equality.


I guess you did not have a problem with the millions of dollars that the whacko left poured into defeat the proposition, alot from out of state............


How do you explain the huge margin it passed by?
 
What happened was a last minute influx of deceitful ads that we funded by the Mormon church and other religious groups. Like the swift-boat lies, they were blatantly dishonest but were effective.

The increase in the African-American vote -- a group overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage -- pretty much corresponds to the margin of defeat. If you want to try be all simplistic about it, that there is just as plausible an explanation as your preferred anti-Mormon (some might call it religious bigotry) take on it.
 
There is no difference. Anyone who believes that any American is not entitled to the same rights/privileges as any other American is a bigot.

I am certain the racists who fought against the civil rights laws didn't consider themselves bigots either. Afterall, they were on the right....god was on their side.

Homophobia is simply the last bastion of bigotry in the United States and like the rest, it will fall as well.
No the first and remaining bigotry in the United States is against women. Now gays are trying to cut to the front of the equality line ahead of women like everyone else does. Because the media, government and every institution is dominated by men, this is a-ok to everyone of them. It is not ok to me.

Most sexists, particularly on the left, quickly reveal themselves to be such bigots.
 
I'm ok with anyone having their personal views. This is America, they are entitled to it. I believe strongly in the Constitution and would stand up for their right to advocate their beliefs, no matter how much I disagree with them.

However, that is their personal belief and everyone is entitled to their own.

As long as you don't try to foist your beliefs and require others to live by your personal views. I'm fine with it.

Ah. I suppose, then, you're against Obama on his planned wealth-spreading, too -- right? Someone wanting to keep what they earn is just the way they choose to live their lives, isn't it? And you're for cutting all the social spending and just have the government build roads, deliver mail, and defend the shores?
 
No difference, as no one chooses either. And no difference, as you shouldn't hate anyone for the way they are born, and are not entitled to deprive them of their rights because of the way they are born.

I found it interesting that the gay activists changed the decision to be gay from a matter of personal freedom choice to a matter of being a genetic birth defect - claiming then they were being discriminated against not for reasons of freedom, but of racial equality as gays are then genetically a different race of people.

IF being gay is not a matter of personal choice but instead a matter of genetic deviation, then the subject of whether being gay is a social good or a social harm becomes relevant. If a harm, gays should be discouraged from having any children to avoid passing on harmful genetic deformity to another generation.

However it also means a person can question giving rights to someone because of a mental complusion. There are people who "are just born" to want to steal, want to do violence etc. This doesn't mean then that person has a right to engage in their defective genetic mental inclinations as a constitution or legal right, although it could be argued as a society we should attempt medical care or institutionalization of such people.

Every time I hear that people are gay because they "are born that way" leads me to conclude therefore it isn't a topic of personal choice and instead is a topic of birth defects. If so, we should be attempting to find a cure. Possibly gene therapy.
 
Last edited:
...Anyone who believes that certain people are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of society based on characterisitics such as gender, skin color, sexual orientation, age....are plain and simply bigots.

Yep it sure is black and white isn't it! There are certainly some pedophiles and sheep herders that will join you in that philosophy.
 

I found it interesting that the gay activists changed the decision to be gay from a matter of personal freedom choice to a matter of being a genetic birth defect - claiming then they were being discriminated against not for reasons of freedom, but of racial equality as gays are then genetically a different race of people.

IF being gay is not a matter of personal choice but instead a matter of genetic deviation, then the subject of whether being gay is a social good or a social harm becomes relevant. If a harm, gays should be discouraged from having any children to avoid passing on harmful genetic deformity to another generation.

However it also means a person can question giving rights to someone because of a mental complusion. There are people who "are just born" to want to steal, want to do violence etc. This doesn't mean then that person has a right to engage in their defective genetic mental inclinations as a constitution or legal right, although it could be argued as a society we should attempt medical care or institutionalization of such people.

Every time I hear that people are gay because they "are born that way" leads me to conclude therefore it isn't a topic of personal choice and instead is a topic of birth defects. If so, we should be attempting to find a cure. Possibly gene therapy.

Hey, Eugenetics! I'm all for it. Blind people, deaf people, anyone with any clinical disorders, people with diabetes, heart defects, down syndrome, autism.. anyone who is not perfect. They should all be studied to see how they negatively affect society and barred from reproducing so as to keep their dirty genes out of our clean pool.

And maybe eventually we can get rid of all of those pesky heterosexuals who claim they were "born that way".
 
I guess you did not have a problem with the millions of dollars that the whacko left poured into defeat the proposition, alot from out of state............

How do you explain the huge margin it passed by?

What, it wasn't the whacko left, it was the religious right that provided the funds...
 

I found it interesting that the gay activists changed the decision to be gay from a matter of personal freedom choice to a matter of being a genetic birth defect - claiming then they were being discriminated against not for reasons of freedom, but of racial equality as gays are then genetically a different race of people.

IF being gay is not a matter of personal choice but instead a matter of genetic deviation, then the subject of whether being gay is a social good or a social harm becomes relevant. If a harm, gays should be discouraged from having any children to avoid passing on harmful genetic deformity to another generation.

However it also means a person can question giving rights to someone because of a mental complusion. There are people who "are just born" to want to steal, want to do violence etc. This doesn't mean then that person has a right to engage in their defective genetic mental inclinations as a constitution or legal right, although it could be argued as a society we should attempt medical care or institutionalization of such people.

Every time I hear that people are gay because they "are born that way" leads me to conclude therefore it isn't a topic of personal choice and instead is a topic of birth defects. If so, we should be attempting to find a cure. Possibly gene therapy.

got some links? I have known gays for a lot of years, and never heard one say it was a voluntary decision on their part, OR a birth defect.
 
Obama is trying to have it both ways........On the one hand he is against gay marriage on the other he does not support prop b.....Even you can see the hypocrisy in that........
Actually, he like any rationally minded person sees this thing quite simply.
Obama's faith and religious belief tells him he ought to be against gay marriage.
However this is a secular nation founded on secular principles where there is a wall of separation between church and state.
There is no other reason other than that of religious faith that would be against gay marriage, hence why Obama is not in support of Proposition b.
Sadly the bigoted homophobes see it otherwise.
 
I guess you did not have a problem with the millions of dollars that the whacko left poured into defeat the proposition, alot from out of state............


How do you explain the huge margin it passed by?

It didn't pass by a large margin. The vote was actually quite close.

Personally, I would prefer none of the money come from out of state. But when you look at the percentages, the vast majority of the pro prop 8 came from out of state. Very little money came from out of state for the anti- prop 8 campaign.
 
It didn't pass by a large margin. The vote was actually quite close.

Personally, I would prefer none of the money come from out of state. But when you look at the percentages, the vast majority of the pro prop 8 came from out of state. Very little money came from out of state for the anti- prop 8 campaign.
What's really interesting is where the majority of the Money came from - Utah.
Doesn't the Mormon community have their own state to theocratize?
 
What's really interesting is where the majority of the Money came from - Utah.
Doesn't the Mormon community have their own state to theocratize?

The funny thing is that a few years back there was a similar measure on the Utah ballot but instead of saying "marriage is between one man and one woman"....it said "marriage is between a man and a woman"......can you read between the lines.....:doh
 
What's really interesting is where the majority of the Money came from - Utah.
Doesn't the Mormon community have their own state to theocratize?

They have already done that... it is time to branch out.
 
By jfuh
There is no other reason other than that of religious faith that would be against gay marriage, ...
I have to disagree with this, and I am sure that there are others who do also.

I for one am not religious and it is my firmly held belief that marriage is a union between one man, and one woman. Not one person, and another.

Historically, it has always been between a man, and a woman, starting with it being a contract of property and then as mankind (in general) moved away from that concept, into it being about love.
Yet still, a union between one man, and one woman.

As far as I am concerned, everybody already has the same 'Right', the 'Right' to marry someone of the opposite gender (with limitations).
Anyone asking for same gender couples to be able to marry is asking for the creation of a new 'right'.

I also see this as an issue of disrespect on the part of those desiring such unions to try and call it a marriage.
i.e.: They want to be respected, but are showing disrespect by trying to usurp the term marriage for their own benefit.​
 
The funny thing is that a few years back there was a similar measure on the Utah ballot but instead of saying "marriage is between one man and one woman"....it said "marriage is between a man and a woman"......can you read between the lines.....:doh
Can we say hypocrites??
 
By jfuh
There is no other reason other than that of religious faith that would be against gay marriage, ...
I have to disagree with this, and I am sure that there are others who do also.

I for one am not religious and it is my firmly held belief that marriage is a union between one man, and one woman. Not one person, and another.

Historically, it has always been between a man, and a woman, starting with it being a contract of property and then as mankind (in general) moved away from that concept, into it being about love.
Yet still, a union between one man, and one woman.
It is still a contract of property before the state, nothing more nothing less. And as it is a contract like every other contract before the state, there is no matter of ones race, sex or creed.
Historically, only the literate can enter into a contract before the state, then it was those who were of a certain sex and then race and not another; then it was changed to include everyone - with the exception of this property contract before the state for homosexuals.
Rate it as you will, it's still a contract before the state and thus there is no reason why gays should not be allowed.
But as you pointed out, it's a belief of yours - it was at one point also a belief that Africans were sub human - so what legitimacy does your belief have over my belief or that of anyone elses? Once the state made marriage a state issue, then like contracts of everything else there can be no limitations whatsoever of someone's sexuality.

Coolguy said:
As far as I am concerned, everybody already has the same 'Right', the 'Right' to marry someone of the opposite gender (with limitations).
So there you go, forcing your sexuality onto someone else. This is quite despicable.

Coolguy said:
Anyone asking for same gender couples to be able to marry is asking for the creation of a new 'right'.
No, not the creation of some new right, you have the right to choose anyone according to your sexuality because you are straight, but should you be gay you have said right taken away from you.
Homosexuals are simply asking for the equality of the same right to property and recognition under the state as heterosexuals already enjoy.

Coolguy said:
I also see this as an issue of disrespect on the part of those desiring such unions to try and call it a marriage.
i.e.: They want to be respected, but are showing disrespect by trying to usurp the term marriage for their own benefit.​
So if your neighbor were gay and they married that's disrespectful to you and your marriage? WTF??
 
What's really interesting is where the majority of the Money came from - Utah.
Doesn't the Mormon community have their own state to theocratize?

No theocracy here, but the influence is certainly felt. There are no bars, just a few private clubs. Beer is in the stores, hard stuff is at the state liquor store.
BTW, the LDS in California number about 2%, not exactly a majority....I suspect that Catholics and mainstream protestants voted against gay marriage as well, or could I be all wrong about that?
 
Can we say hypocrites??

more like stupid, IF what you infer is true. What happened way back then is unlikely now, at least not in large numbers. First, the ratio of men to women won't support it, and modern women are not likely to share the man's wealth and assets with a sister-wife...
I have met only one mormon man who thinks the idea is good, and I am pretty sure that if his wife knew how he felt, she would cut him in the most unkind way....
 
Mormonism and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

blanket statement, unfounded, no support for such an ignorant comment...
I have lived as a baptist and a mormon, and have had friends who claim to be christians of many faiths. We have hypocrites, yes, but in my experience, far fewer than most protestant faiths. As for catholics, you can sin all you want, and be forgiven, as long as you go to confession, right? I doubt that a priest will agree with that, but I have known more than a few catholics who whore around one day, confess the next, and repeat the cycle again and again....
 
Back
Top Bottom