Miss California

[.curve]

you give him too much credit...

/done

Or you give him too little credit.

Ironic you say you flame ignorance to the ground. Your logic is that if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. That's ignorance.

hes not saying that.

Not saying what?

[Ryoko]

There are a lot of ignorant voters out there unfortunately, lol. However, what proposition 8 did was to add that marriage is explicitly between a man and a woman. Prior to that for "traditional marriage" it was an unspoken rule that it was between a man and a woman. Therefore, I do not find it all that ignorant to say that prop 8 kept marriages "traditional".

However, this is an absurd concept because marriages are no longer traditional. I agree with Ryoko that "traditional marriages" have long lost their meaning. It has changed from a "2 people joined as one to stick together through thick and thin" into "2 people joined as one until one of them gets bored and leaves/cheats". (OFFTOPIC : this mindset is totally related to SRO bots btw, where they cheat whenever they get bored.)

Also remember, many many people vote solely on a religious conviction or beliefs, especially on the hottest morality based issues, like same sex marriages, abortion, cloning, etc. and with no real arguments on 'why' which could be percieved as ignorance (Dont look at me, I believe in the history and discovery channel)

[cpinney]

Or you give him too little credit.

Ironic you say you flame ignorance to the ground. Your logic is that if someone doesn't agree with you, they're wrong. That's ignorance.

hes not saying that.

Not saying what?

that everyone that disagrees with him is wrong

[XemnasXD]

There are a lot of ignorant voters out there unfortunately, lol. However, what proposition 8 did was to add that marriage is explicitly between a man and a woman. Prior to that for "traditional marriage" it was an unspoken rule that it was between a man and a woman. Therefore, I do not find it all that ignorant to say that prop 8 kept marriages "traditional".

keep up with me...

I never said that saying prop 8 keeping marriages traditional was ignorant. Im not going to keep repeating myself so im going to clarify this once though i didn't think it needed clarifications. If the sole purpose of your Yes vote on Prop 8 was made under the assumption that prop 8 was all about keeping marriage traditional then you are ignorant. Gay marriage is not about traditional marriage and that is a misconception that many many people often make. I don't care about what you breeders want to do with your wedding rings, vows, picket fences, and 2.5 children. Gay marriage or the right for a man/woman to marry another man/woman is about getting that union acknowledged by the state and federal Gov't.

NEWS FLASH - Gay people have been getting married for years, since the 70's and probably further. All you need is a priest and BAM ceremony over, marriage official. The problem is that many of the legal and civil rights that heterosexual couples have are not granted to gay couples. Leaving money, property, making a will, receiving benefits, etc ALL of that becomes muddled and messed up. Why a religious institution affects state and federal business is unknown but it certainly violates separation of church and state. That is why voting on prop 8 to keep marriage traditional is a vote in ignorance because gay marriage has nothing to do with traditional or non-traditional marriage at all. This is about legal and civil rights being denied on religious grounds.

So if you went to the polls that day to fight a culture war you are ignorant....yeah your entitled to your opinion and blah blah blah but if your vote for prop 8 was simply to keep marriage traditional with no more though behind it then you missed the whole point. I'd be willing to bet my life that most of the people who voted yes on prop 8 that day didn't even think about any of the above issues mentioned. All they thought was "Gays getting married, oh hell no." /yes and that was the end of it....





curve every time you post i lose like 8 brain cells just from reading it...you gotta stop man...

[chickenfeather]

keep up with me...

I'm way ahead of you, if you're implying I'm slow.

I never said that saying prop 8 keeping marriages traditional was ignorant.

Now, to clarify whether or not prop 8 was about traditional marriage we must define what the terms "traditional marriage" and "gay marriage" are and also define what prop 8 is.
I define them as the following :
"Traditional marriage" is marriage between a man and a woman.
"Gay marriage" is marriage between a gay couple.
Prop 8 added a line to the law that said marriage is between a man and a woman.
Essentially, prop 8 does "keep marriage traditional" and that is what it is about. It certainly does not support gay marriage. Is this not logical?

Im not going to keep repeating myself so im going to clarify this once though i didn't think it needed clarifications.

Good for you.

If the sole purpose of your Yes vote on Prop 8 was made under the assumption that prop 8 was all about keeping marriage traditional then you are ignorant. Gay marriage is not about traditional marriage and that is a misconception that many many people often make.

I believe your definition of "traditional marriage" is different than the majority of those ignorant voters as well as mine. Traditional marriage is the mirror opposite of gay marriage so in a twisted sort of way it is related. This is where the problem lies.

I don't care about what you breeders want to do with your wedding rings, vows, picket fences, and 2.5 children.

Nor do I.

Gay marriage or the right for a man/woman to marry another man/woman is about getting that union acknowledged by the state and federal Gov't.

Why bother? Traditional marriage between a man and a woman wasn't acknowledged by the state and federal gov't until they added it in with prop 8. Everything ran fine with or without it. Why have government tell us who we can or cannot marry?

NEWS FLASH - Gay people have been getting married for years, since the 70's and probably further. All you need is a priest and BAM ceremony over, marriage official.

Exactly. It's been going on, we don't need the government involved in this process.

The problem is that many of the legal and civil rights that heterosexual couples have are not granted to gay couples. Leaving money, property, making a will, receiving benefits, etc ALL of that becomes muddled and messed up.

This is true.

Why a religious institution affects state and federal business is unknown but it certainly violates separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. Marriage has intrinsically religious roots and should not have been managed by the government in the first place.

That is why voting on prop 8 to keep marriage traditional is a vote in ignorance because gay marriage has nothing to do with traditional or non-traditional marriage at all.

Please read above.

This is about legal and civil rights being denied on religious grounds.

For those who voted based on religious grounds, this is correct. I would not say it was the sole reason tho.

So if you went to the polls that day to fight a culture war you are ignorant....yeah your entitled to your opinion and blah blah blah but if your vote for prop 8 was simply to keep marriage traditional with no more though behind it then you missed the whole point.

Please read above. Logic makes a direct connection between prop 8 and traditional marriage.

I'd be willing to bet my life that most of the people who voted yes on prop 8 that day didn't even think about any of the above issues mentioned. All they thought was "Gays getting married, oh hell no." /yes and that was the end of it....

That is exactly what people were thinking because that is what it was about. We're arguing semantics here while saying the same thing. No gay marriage = we are taking away rights from a group of people.

[Ryoko]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. Marriage has intrinsically religious roots and should not have been managed by the government in the first place.

For those who voted based on religious grounds, this is correct. I would not say it was the sole reason tho.

This is never going to change. Theres millions and millions of people with these beliefs. They also vote. And they also run for office. They are everwhere. You will never, ever have complete absolute seperation of church and state.

Even if the government some day promised they'd never use the word "god" again, the moralistic principles it was founded on will remain, and people in office will still go to church.

[XemnasXD]

you're too far ahead infact...step back...

I believe your definition of "traditional marriage" is different than the majority of those ignorant voters as well as mine. Traditional marriage is the mirror opposite of gay marriage so in a twisted sort of way it is related. This is where the problem lies.

my definition of traditional marriage is marriage between a man and a women. I don't think this conflicts with anyone elses definition.

Why bother? Traditional marriage between a man and a woman wasn't acknowledged by the state and federal gov't until they added it in with prop 8. Everything ran fine with or without it. Why have government tell us who we can or cannot marry?

Traditional marriage is the only type of marriage recognized by most of the US. If it wasn't then there would be no such thing as marriage benefits from the military or other jobs. As for your anarchist views, they are irrelevant to my point and this discussion.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. Marriage has intrinsically religious roots and should not have been managed by the government in the first place.

it's in the first amendment to the constitution though not explicitly stated its meaning is not left up to interpretation or implication that is to say its meaning is clear and the clause has been both validated and recognized by several gov't institutions over the course of US history.

That is exactly what people were thinking because that is what it was about. We're arguing semantics here while saying the same thing. No gay marriage = we are taking away rights from a group of people.

From a heterosexual/anti-gay viewpoint Prop 8 was primarily about securing traditional marriage in the above mentioned terms. From a Homosexual/Pro-gay viewpoint Prop 8 was primarily about civil rights. We are not arguing semantics here, this is not a wording conflict.

If the sole purpose of your vote of Yes on Prop 8 based in the belief that the issue of gay marriage was about the right for same sex couples to be married than that is an ignorant vote because it does not take into account the other legal implications of that action. This is to say that that most people who voted yes on Prop 8 were not saying that gay couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage, they were simply saying that marriage should be between a man and a women. Those are two different issues based in two different institutions, not semantics. One is primarily grounded in religion and the other is primarily grounded in civil rights. Polls taken and studies have shown that most people don't have a problem with gay couples receiving the same civil benefits as straight couples but when the word and issue of marriage comes into play people switch from Civil to Religious and for some reason a civil rights issue becomes an issue of morals. Again this is not semantics their are conflicting ideals here but it is not the wording, it's the duality and complexity of the issue in relation to the average american....

[chickenfeather]

you're too far ahead infact...step back...

heh

my definition of traditional marriage is marriage between a man and a women. I don't think this conflicts with anyone elses definition.

If you agree with this definition as well, then prop 8 does deal with traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage is the only type of marriage recognized by most of the US. If it wasn't then there would be no such thing as marriage benefits from the military or other jobs. As for your anarchist views, they are irrelevant to my point and this discussion.

Like I said earlier, it was an unspoken rule. Nowhere in Cali's constitution did it say traditional marriage was the way to go until prop 8.
As for your desire to have aspects of your life controlled by the government, they are relevant to my point and this discussion.

it's in the first amendment to the constitution though not explicitly stated its meaning is not left up to interpretation or implication that is to say its meaning is clear and the clause has been both validated and recognized by several gov't institutions over the course of US history.

Anything not explicitly stated will be reliant upon the interpretation of the courts and subject to change depending on the views of society.

From a heterosexual/anti-gay viewpoint Prop 8 was primarily about securing traditional marriage in the above mentioned terms. From a Homosexual/Pro-gay viewpoint Prop 8 was primarily about civil rights. We are not arguing semantics here, this is not a wording conflict.

If what you say is true, then I have both an anti-gay and a gay viewpoint because I believe prop 8 was about securing traditional marriage as well as violating civil rights. It is not necessary to have one and not the other. This is why I am opposed to prop 8.

If the sole purpose of your vote of Yes on Prop 8 based in the belief that the issue of gay marriage was about the right for same sex couples to be married than that is an ignorant vote because it does not take into account the other legal implications of that action. This is to say that that most people who voted yes on Prop 8 were not saying that gay couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage, they were simply saying that marriage should be between a man and a women. Those are two different issues based in two different institutions, not semantics. One is primarily grounded in religion and the other is primarily grounded in civil rights. Polls taken and studies have shown that most people don't have a problem with gay couples receiving the same civil benefits as straight couples but when the word and issue of marriage comes into play people switch from Civil to Religious and for some reason a civil rights issue becomes an issue of morals. Again this is not semantics their are conflicting ideals here but it is not the wording, it's the duality and complexity of the issue in relation to the average american....

The above argument applies only to those who voted based on their religion. You have disregarded those who did not vote because of their religion and assumed everyone who voted for prop 8 did so for religious reasons. I was unaware of the polls, but those who switched their views when the term marriage was brought into play are obviously religious.

[XemnasXD]

Anything not explicitly stated will be reliant upon the interpretation of the courts and subject to change depending on the views of society.

True, an error of wording on my part but the clause is explicit even if its wording isn't "there will be separation of church and state" verbatim. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" It's meaning is clear and contrary to my former statement, very explicit...

If what you say is true, then I have both an anti-gay and a gay viewpoint because I believe prop 8 was about securing traditional marriage as well as violating civil rights. It is not necessary to have one and not the other. This is why I am opposed to prop 8.

I never said it was impossible to have both, these are different ideals but not conflicting ideals which is my entire point. The sides are not opposites of one another, the reason behind their decision is where i am drawing a line not the decision itself.

The above argument applies only to those who voted based on their religion. You have disregarded those who did not vote because of their religion and assumed everyone who voted for prop 8 did so for religious reasons. I was unaware of the polls, but those who switched their views when the term marriage was brought into play are obviously religious.

I have disregarded with no one. Further studies have shown that the supporters of Prop 8, demographic wise, were largely the uneducated, the religious, and the conservative. Im repeating myself with this statement by the way so again...keep up.

"If the sole purpose of your vote of Yes on Prop 8 based in the belief that the issue of gay marriage was about the right for same sex couples to be married than that is an ignorant vote because it does not take into account the other legal implications of that action."

That statement does not imply that ALL those who voted yes on prop 8 voted out of religion. It does however target those people in some way and as studies have shown they played a large part in passing the bill. The decision to vote Yes based on the ideals of preserving traditional marriage is not one that takes into account all of the implications of the decision and largely it ignores the real issue which is not religious or social but one of civil rights. If you voted yes on Prop 8 knowing full and well the real issues at hand the kudos to you and go **** yourself but based on the demographics that lead the victory of the bill i would say that their decision was one based on ignorance and religion as they were primarily uneducated and religious...You may have to connect some dots here but you're not curve so i trust you'll get it.

[lavapockets]

Traditional marriage is the mirror opposite of gay marriage so in a twisted sort of way it is related. This is where the problem lies.

Emm, no. "Traditional Marriage" is a catch-phrase coined by the Christian Evangelical right to describe what they consider marriage to be. It is marriage by their values, standards, and practices, which may or may not belong to the entire population. Marriage in the US is what marriage has always been - a binding contract between two (hopefully consenting) parties with rights and privledges to possession of property, inheritance, protection, etc. When you get married, it's not official until the state you live in has approved it, religious ceremony or not. What that means is that marriage is only legally binding when the government says so. Now, the US may historically have been a majoritarian Christian society, but our goverment is very explicitly non-religious. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, marriage is simply a legally binding contract. Adding any stipulations about who has access to, or does not have access to, the rights and privledges of engaging in such a contract is in violation of the Equal Protection clause. Hopefully when the Court in CA rules on the suits filed in the wake of Prop 8 passing, they will also come to this conclusion.

The decision to vote Yes based on the ideals of preserving traditional marriage is not one that takes into account all of the implications of the decision and largely it ignores the real issue which is not religious or social but one of civil rights.

+1 see above

[Ryoko]

Now, the US may historically have been a majoritarian Christian society, but our goverment is very explicitly non-religious.

Only on paper. Did you miss the video clip of our last president receiving communion? Wasnt nearly the first, probably wont be the last, and thats all throughout the "government." (Wait, if I recall correctly, he was denied it, for one of his political views!) Obama is Christian as well.

[XemnasXD]

im not sure if i want that suit to go through, it seems like a cheap shot to override a cheap shot. As much as i dislike it, the bill passed. I suppose if the evidence of some illegal measure actually exist then it will be all be fair but all people and the media will see is gays using the courts to overturn a democratic decision. I'd rather let the people override the decision so at least then theres no discrepancy on where the decision is coming from then if ppl want to be mad they can just go back to being mad at each other equally...

i just see a shitstorm coming and i hate watching them happen....

[lavapockets]

Now, the US may historically have been a majoritarian Christian society, but our goverment is very explicitly non-religious.

Only on paper. Did you miss the video clip of our last president receiving communion? Wasnt nearly the first, probably wont be the last, and thats all throughout the "government." (Wait, if I recall correctly, he was denied it, for one of his political views!) Obama is Christian as well.

You seem to be confusing a person's private religious values and the law. Any and all of our presidents can receive communion if they so wish, as long as the government isn't mandating that everyone do so. Just because a president is openly religious does not mean the state is mandating religious values. You have read the Constitution, right?

@Xem - If a law is found to be in violation of a part of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it was passed democratically. Which is why I hope they rule on the Equal Protection clause, and not something else.

[XemnasXD]

i know it won't matter legally put the media is going to put such a huge spin on it and everyones just going to follow into it like sheep....this is less discussion about the actually issue and more expressing my lack of faith in humanity at this point...

[lavapockets]

i know it won't matter legally put the media is going to put such a huge spin on it and everyones just going to follow into it like sheep....this is less discussion about the actually issue and more expressing my lack of faith in humanity at this point...

lol, true. A healthy dose of cynicism never hurts

[Ryoko]

You seem to be confusing a person's private religious values and the law. Any and all of our presidents can receive communion if they so wish, as long as the government isn't mandating that everyone do so. Just because a president is openly religious does not mean the state is mandating religious values. You have read the Constitution, right?

Are you denying that the religious followings of our leadership and officials does influence the decisions they make, and how they approach moral and ethical political issues?

[lavapockets]

You seem to be confusing a person's private religious values and the law. Any and all of our presidents can receive communion if they so wish, as long as the government isn't mandating that everyone do so. Just because a president is openly religious does not mean the state is mandating religious values. You have read the Constitution, right?

Are you denying that the religious followings of our leadership and officials does influence the decisions they make, and how they approach moral and ethical political issues?

I never said it had anything to do with their decision-making process. The president may want to ban gay marriage for his own personal or religious reasons, which Bush did, but it does not mean if he passes that as a law it is automatically constitutional. That's why we have a court system. So people can challenge unconstitutional laws.

[Ryoko]

If memory serves me right, my state voted on whether or not it was banned for our state. Bush didnt pass an 'unconsitional law' taking sole responcibility

[lavapockets]

I never said it had anything to do with their decision-making process. The president may want to ban gay marriage for his own personal or religious reasons, <--- which Bush did, but it does not mean if he passes that as a law it is automatically constitutional. That's why we have a court system. So people can challenge unconstitutional laws.

That was a hypothetical btw. I might have phrased it badly, try it now.

[Mr.Ganji]

im getting sick of all this attention on miss california...shes stupid. end of story.

lol ill get flamed for this but i voted yes on 8
keep marriage traditional

Me too! High five!

[woutR]

About the gay debate: gays marrying won't affect anyone's quality of life except for the gays. To deny them of this right because some people think manlove is wrong is retarded, bigoted and unrealistic.
Marriage is something between two people who love each other and want a recognition of this, regardless of sex. It's none of your business if a man can love another man or if they can marry.
This might come as a shocker, but if you treat equal people differently based on their skin color, their beliefs or their sexual preferences it's called discrimination.
So no, it is not ignorance to state that it's wrong to think gay marriage is wrong, because it is.
Everyone should have the right to marry. Traditional has nothing to do with it, because where do you draw the line with traditional and modern? Can't marry in white if you got knocked up before the marriage? Or can't even have sex before the wedding?
How would you like that, you can't have sex with the woman you love until you marry?
It's not that different to stating gay marriage being wrong, both these ludicrous values were created by the Church. Why follow just the value that suits you? It's pure hypocrisy to condone premarital sex and deny gays to marry.

I'm glad I'm from Holland where gays can just live their life and do as they please. It doesn't bother me one bit to see gays getting married, it only makes me happy to see them be able to do it.

[.curve]

That statement does not imply that ALL those who voted yes on prop 8 voted out of religion. It does however target those people in some way and as studies have shown they played a large part in passing the bill. The decision to vote Yes based on the ideals of preserving traditional marriage is not one that takes into account all of the implications of the decision and largely it ignores the real issue which is not religious or social but one of civil rights. If you voted yes on Prop 8 knowing full and well the real issues at hand the kudos to you and go **** yourself but based on the demographics that lead the victory of the bill i would say that their decision was one based on ignorance and religion as they were primarily uneducated and religious...You may have to connect some dots here but you're not curve so i trust you'll get it.

Oh you mentioned me, cute.

Weird though that the demographics I found stated that the majority of voters voted based on their political stand points. Not the religious or ignorant views which you apparently found.

[XemnasXD]

its not weird. you're often wrong and ill-informed. This should be expected from you...

[.curve]

its not weird. you're often wrong and ill-informed. This should be expected from you...

Twos sites are both wrong? I've yet to see any support of what you're saying.

[woutR]

Oh you mentioned me, cute.

Weird though that the demographics I found stated that the majority of voters voted based on their political stand points. Not the religious or ignorant views which you apparently found.

What kind of political standpoint can you have to vote no to gay marriage?

[XemnasXD]

its not weird. you're often wrong and ill-informed. This should be expected from you...

Twos sites are both wrong? I've yet to see any support of what you're saying.

The problem with you .curve is that you're not thinking before you post. You're not even comprehending the information you are waving in front of my face. Let me break this down for you.

You are probably referring to the fact that primarily republicans voted for prop 8 and primarily democrats voted against prop 8. Now lets step back and analysis those two groups. When you do that you'll probably find the demographics i listed as for prop 8 are also demographics that heavily support the who, oh, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. We're still looking at the same information only where I narrowed down the demographics you just posted the overhead and told us something we already knew, republicans don't like gay marriage. That doesn't change the fact that the people who helped pass prop 8 were primarily uneducated and religious.

You're not saying anything curve. You never say anything curve. You just post stuff and throw a dumb look of undeserved accomplishment on your face curve. Stop killing my brain cells curve.

[.curve]

its not weird. you're often wrong and ill-informed. This should be expected from you...

Twos sites are both wrong? I've yet to see any support of what you're saying.

The problem with you .curve is that you're not thinking before you post. You're not even comprehending the information you are waving in front of my face. Let me break this down for you.

You are probably referring to the fact that primarily republicans voted for prop 8 and primarily democrats voted against prop 8. Now lets step back and analysis those two groups. When you do that you'll probably find the demographics i listed as for prop 8 are also demographics that heavily support the who, oh, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. We're still looking at the same information only where I narrowed down the demographics you just posted the overhead and told us something we already knew, republicans don't like gay marriage. That doesn't change the fact that the people who helped pass prop 8 were primarily uneducated and religious.

You're not saying anything curve. You never say anything curve. You just post stuff and throw a dumb look of undeserved accomplishment on your face curve. Stop killing my brain cells curve.

No, see, you've narrowed it down farther than I intended. Back it up a bit more, and I am saying that political views were more of the reason for Prop 8 passing than the uneducated and religious, as you said.

Every time you say my name, I get a chubby.

[XemnasXD]

just saying your name huh, wouldn't be the first time, im pretty good when it comes to things like that....

i said the people who passed the bill were primarily uneducated and religious. I don't know for a fact what amount of either of those had on their vote but if you ask a person which thing holds more power over the choices they make A) The Republican Party or B) God they are probably going to say God...

I know you have trouble connecting dots so this should help. People don't become republican and then become conservative or christian or uneducated. They start off as those things and THEN become republican because they see a party that represents their views and ideas. Understanding that then you should understand that people there is a priority order. People who are conservative and republican will primarily vote for things that are conservative. Religious people will vote for things that support their religion. Now understanding that it should be obvious at this point that if most of the people who voted for Prop 8 were uneducated and religious it would make sense that those factors probably played a higher role in their decision making process regardless of them being republican or not. Most people did not go to the polls that day and vote Yes on Prop 8 for the party, the decision was more personal than that....




i'd stay and make you cum but you haven't even taken me out yet...

/done with you

[.curve]

Most people did not go to the polls that day and vote Yes on Prop 8 for the party, the decision was more personal than that....




i'd stay and make you cum but you haven't even taken me out yet...

/done with you

That line bugs me. You're making assumptions. I'm going off of the results I am finding.

I like to skip the formalities, so I won't be taking you out.

[Sharp324]

Are gays still butt hurt over this, pardon the pun.