World of Pageantry

World of Pageantry

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Are you voting?
Poll ended at Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:07 am
Yes 70%  70%  [ 26 ]
No 16%  16%  [ 6 ]
Under 18 13%  13%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 37
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:13 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:23 am
Posts: 2342
Location: Home
I know I've been blowing the prop 8 passing out of the water a little too much today, but I'm still confused. Don't atheists get married all the time? If religious institutions are so concerned about keeping marriage sacred, why would they allow them to marry and not gays? How come there hasn't been a proposition aiming to outlaw atheist marriage? The outcome of this debate is a HUGE step backwards for America, and because the church I attend encouraged us to support it, this solidifies my previous decisions on abandoning religion in my life.

_________________
"I haven't slept for ten days......because that would be too long." - Mitch Hedberg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Upland, CA
Nreuest wrote:
...but I'm still confused.


That's because you have allowed yourself to believe everything you read and hear. It is NOT just about religion!!!!!! Many peole just see it as protecting the "family unit" and that has little to do with religion. Throughout the history of man many sociaties have tried to stray from the monogimous man/woman relationships and they fail. the leadership of ancient Rome fell into the pit of sexual depravity and the empire crumbled. It was said of Nero that he was every woman's man and every man's woman. Societies re-establish rules of behavior to right themsleves or they fall into oblivion. When societies become obsessed with sex, as ours is becoming, they lose their focus and productivity. Look at the insane popularity of "Girls Gone Wild" as an example. The girls that are "talked into" revealing themselves run a huge risk of it coming back to haunt them later in life and limiting their future success. When Christianity moved into Europe in the middle ages it caused those societies to impose moral standards that eventually lead to the focus that resulted in the Renaissance and the industrial revolution. There is a lot more to life than just sex!

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
Pageantry Webmaster


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:12 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:25 pm
Posts: 361
Location: corona
my "family unit" is not endangered in the slightest by giving EQUAL RIGHTS to same sex couples.

strangely, when I woke up this morning everything in regards to my marriage and my family were exactly the same as it was yesterday and all the days before when gay marriage was legal.

I am certain my children will one day look back at these times and marvel at how prejudicial we were (and by we I mean you).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:07 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:23 am
Posts: 2342
Location: Home
Bandmaster wrote:
Nreuest wrote:
...but I'm still confused.
That's because you have allowed yourself to believe everything you read and hear.


I'm not one of those people.

Bandmaster wrote:
Societies re-establish rules of behavior to right themsleves or they fall into oblivion.


Definitely agree, and it seems like this cycle is happening much more frequently nowadays than it did way back when. But this change of behavior is more than likely going to lie within gay acceptance, it's the one thing that has always been inconsistent in this debate.

Bandmaster wrote:
It is NOT just about religion!!!!!!


I know, but that's the aspect of this debate that going to have the biggest impact on future government decisions in this matter. As far as protecting the family unit, what exactly is there to protect? What could possibly be more harmful in kids finding out about same-sex couples than when they learn what their mom and dad did in their wedding bed? Ah, whatever...

Thing about this debate is that the results won't directly impact me, yet I'm prematurely predicting a religious society and that it eventually will affect me. Gotta be a phase I guess, I just feel really sorry for these people now.

_________________
"I haven't slept for ten days......because that would be too long." - Mitch Hedberg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:57 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Posts: 3598
Location: Escondido, Ca
Nreuest wrote:
I know I've been blowing the prop 8 passing out of the water a little too much today, but I'm still confused. Don't atheists get married all the time? If religious institutions are so concerned about keeping marriage sacred, why would they allow them to marry and not gays? How come there hasn't been a proposition aiming to outlaw atheist marriage? The outcome of this debate is a HUGE step backwards for America, and because the church I attend encouraged us to support it, this solidifies my previous decisions on abandoning religion in my life.


You should SERIOUSLY read "Ishmael" a book by Daniel Quinn. From your daily comments on WoP, I can tell you would probably love the book. Seriously a life changing book....check it out.

_________________
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Upland, CA
laurab wrote:
I am certain my children will one day look back at these times and marvel at how prejudicial we were (and by we I mean you).


I am NOT prejudicial, I am a realist! I have many good friends that are gay/lesbien and I have much respect for them. But they do not wear their sexuality on their sleeves. I don't think its right for anyone the wear their sexuality on their sleeve. My religious upbringing taught me to believe that certain things should be kept private and not flaunted openly. What people do in their own bedrooms is none of my business.

I am hoping that our children won't look back one day and say this is when the American way of life started to disappeared. Everyday it seems the American Family is put under more pressure and my worry is that if doesn't survive neither will our society. Same sex realtionships don't threaten families but same sex "marriage" does. Anything that weakens the status of the family, which is the basic product of marriage, is not a good thing!

Bandmaster wrote:
The voters of California also choose to protect the sanctity of the family. I don't see it as a vote against homosexual partnerships, but instead protecting what is seen as traditional role of the family. The institution of "marriage" was designed to be a man/women relationship with the idea of procreation and raising a family. If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken. I believe the voters would pass this idea overwhelmingly!

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
Pageantry Webmaster


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:40 pm 
Offline
New Recruit
New Recruit

Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 1:37 am
Posts: 62
I still can't believe proposition 8 passed. It's one of the most ridiculous things ever. I don't like people telling me that we should all treat people the way we want to be treated... And no one wants to be told that they can't get married!!! Whatever happened to liberty and equality? I swear everyday for the pledge of allegiance we might as well say "for liberty, and justice for all[except homosexuals]" Since we passed prop 8, can you give me ONE good reason why shouldn't say that? For those who said yes, don't give me, "its offensive" because that just means you voted for discrimination. "It would make us look like a discriminant country". Well... DUH you voted for it! Nice job on taking a step back into society america.

From this, we might as well have learned that its NOT ok to be gay. and being gay isn't like being a certain race... its like... being tall. Lets say 6'2. You obviously weren't born 6'2... but you're going to get their eventually. And you can't help it. You can't just tell a gay person to stop being gay. That's like telling straight people to start being attracted to the person of the same sex.

_________________
Kenneth Alcazar
Marching Don
Drum Major


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:53 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:44 am
Posts: 404
Location: San Diego, CA
Here are my thoughts:

The train prop is such a waste. What a scam! We have AMtrak. We have Coaster/Metrolink, the trolleys, etc... This will not take cars off the roads. Please explain how it will. I spent 5 years in Japan. California is 180 from Japan. The high speed train will never work here. Japan cities and infrastructure are built around the train system. That is not the case or will not be the case here in the USA, if they develop a high-speed train. Say you take the high speed train, you still have to have transportaion to get around once you arrive at the train station. Amtrak, Coaster, and Metrolink trains are not exactly filled or even close to it. Just doesn't make any sense.

Prop 2 & 4 and prop K (in San Francisco): Let's see. Protect livestock, but not minors (humans). Eventhough Prop K failed, it still received 42.4% for it!!! For those who don't know. Prop K was to make prostituion legal in san Fransciso. In the northeast, they made possessing an ounce of marijuana or less just a $100 fine now. Where have our values gone??? I predict we will see a prop in the future that will ban eating red meat. Sounds ridiculous. Well, I thought Prop K was too. That didn't exactly fail by that large a margin.

The surprise was to see all the green iniatives fail. I voted against them all, but i thought at least one would pass. I think folks are starting to see through the global warming myths.

Prop 8: The people have spoken...again! This time, the state constituion has been revised. The judges should not even hear any lawsuits against Prop 8 or gay marriage. the only ones they will have to hear will be about the ones who got married in the 4 month window up until this election. My advice, put it on the ballot in the future and try again. respect the system and the votes. Don't try and destroy our system to get your way. My advice though is this...do not try and argue for gay marriage based on civil rights. You will never get it passed, if you do. This debate in my opinion is all about moral, beliefs, traditions, ethics, etc...Why are people surprised it passed? Marriage has been between a man and woman for eons. It is going to take time to reverse that and the movement for that only started happening only recently, in comparison. If you disagree, don't curse, swear, name call, etc... respect the system and try again. You are free to do this.

_________________
Image

Official Photographer of the WGASC
http://www.freyphotos.com
wgascphotos@cox.net


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:27 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:20 am
Posts: 293
Location: Sacramento, CA
RE: Wearing your "sexuality" on your sleeve.

Do your straight friends hold hands in public? Kiss their wife/husband when they meet for lunch at the cafe? Wear wedding rings?

Then they wear their sexuality on their sleeve. EVERY DAY.

Wanting to be married to my partner and raise our children as a family is not wearing my sexuality on my sleeve. IT'S A BASIC RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.

_________________
~twinmomma


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:36 pm 
twinmomma wrote:
Do your straight friends hold hands in public? Kiss their wife/husband when they meet for lunch at the cafe? Wear wedding rings?

Then they wear their sexuality on their sleeve. EVERY DAY.

Wanting to be married to my partner and raise our children as a family is not wearing my sexuality on my sleeve. IT'S A BASIC RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.


Who's stopping you from holding hands in public? Are you saying that because someone pointed and laughed at you for holding hands with someone of the same sex in public is going to stop you from doing it ever again? What happened to Gay pride?

Basic right? Did you forget that America had to fight for our rights we have now? Gays and Lesbians fought for their right to marry 8 years ago and they lost, they fought again this year and lost, albeit closer than before. You're getting there.

I think Bandmaster said it best when he said:
Bandmaster wrote:
I don't see it as a vote against homosexual partnerships, but instead protecting what is seen as traditional role of the family.

Myself and I'm sure most of the other voters who voted for Prop 8 have nothing against homosexuals. I hope that one day you can have the same rights as traditional marriage couples, but:

Bandmaster wrote:
If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken.


That's my only problem with Prop 8. You want to go against thousands of years of what marriage has stood for and still call it marriage.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 2412
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
EGAD! There's so much activity on here, I don't know what to respond too! :mw:

A couple of thoughts:
twinmomma wrote:
Do your straight friends hold hands in public?

No.

twinmomma wrote:
Kiss their wife/husband when they meet for lunch at the cafe?

Definitely not. In fact, I find PDAs to be offensive.

twinmomma wrote:
Wear wedding rings?

A very small number do, but most don't. I disagree with this argument on other grounds BECAUSE: All a wedding ring says is "I'm not available." It doesn't say "I'm straight and married to someone of the opposite-sex." If you want to wear a wedding ring, WEAR A WEDDING RING.

twinmomma wrote:
Wanting to be married to my partner and raise our children as a family is not wearing my sexuality on my sleeve. IT'S A BASIC RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.

It's interesting that you didn't mention a single example of "rais[ing] [your] children as a family" in your last post. It was all about being affectionate in public. I don't know about your kids, but most kids find kisses and hugs icky and gross.

Everyone in favor of same-sex marriage (and by everyone I mean the majority) wrote:
You wouldn't want someone to deny you your right to get married, so don't deny same-sex couples theirs.

The logical fallacy in this is so glaring, I'm compelled to mention it. I know, I know, it's not PC, but hey, someone's got to do it. Here goes:

I wouldn't want someone to deny me my right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I have done nothing to deny that right (ie to marry a person of the opposite sex) to ANYONE.

_________________
It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:13 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
tSz42 wrote:
Bandmaster wrote:
If we want a similar institution for same sex unions, then lets create one that is more idealy suited for those circumstances. Call this new institution what ever you want, except the term "marriage" is already taken.


That's my only problem with Prop 8. You want to go against thousands of years of what marriage has stood for and still call it marriage.

Who gave you the right to define marriage? Marriage existed in dozen of societies for thousands of years before Christ came along, and it wasn't always "one man, one woman." Islam approves of polygamy to this day. Homosexual relations were NOT frowned upon by many ancient societies: Greeks, Romans, Macedons... there's even strong evidence of accepted homosexual relationships in ancient Jewish and Islamic societies.

Slavery existed for thousands of years before being (justly) abolished. So did the concept that a woman was her own human being and not just "property" of a male. You wouldn't DARE insinuate that white women or blacks don't deserve the same rights as white males, yet the concept that women and blacks are equal to white males have only existed in this country for about 100 and 50 years, respectively. So that argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition) about marriage being "the same" for thousands of years really doesn't mean squat.

So your God tells you homosexuality is a sin. So your God tells you marriage is for one man and one woman. How good for you. Fine, so no Christian church EVER has to perform a marriage ceremony for members of the same sex. I am 100% okay with that.

But your God and your traditions mean absolutely zero to me, and neither I nor anyone else should be forced to abide by rules and restrictions of a religion we are not a member of.

mkosbie wrote:
twinmomma wrote:
Do your straight friends hold hands in public?

No.

I think you're either being disingenuous, are hopelessly inobservant or you lead an extremely sheltered life. I cannot remember EVER going out in public ANYWHERE and not seeing someone holding hands.

mkosbie wrote:
twinmomma wrote:
Kiss their wife/husband when they meet for lunch at the cafe?

Definitely not. In fact, I find PDAs to be offensive.

How very sad. There's a big difference between a loving peck and a make out session. My wife and I kiss in public all the time, and if a one-second peck on the lips bothers you, your social viewpoints are more warped than the Taliban.

mkosbie wrote:
Everyone in favor of same-sex marriage (and by everyone I mean the majority) wrote:
You wouldn't want someone to deny you your right to get married, so don't deny same-sex couples theirs.

The logical fallacy in this is so glaring, I'm compelled to mention it. I know, I know, it's not PC, but hey, someone's got to do it. Here goes:

I wouldn't want someone to deny me my right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I have done nothing to deny that right (ie to marry a person of the opposite sex) to ANYONE.

Including your bigotry in your argument doesn't make it any more legitimate or reasonable. Besides, your argument is a poor one because it's too narrow.

Example: you love apples. You hate oranges. You think everyone should have the right to eat apples, but NO ONE should have the right to eat oranges because you don't like them. What sort of "logic" is that?

Meanwhile, the orange-rights lobby simply wants the right to eat oranges. They don't want to remove the right to eat apples. Giving orange-eaters the right to eat oranges does not affect, at all, the rights of apple-eaters (any effects to the contrary claimed by apple-eaters are purely imaginary).

But no, the apple lobby likes apples, and insists that EVERYONE can only eat apples, because that's all anyone's eaten for the last 2,000 years. Even though allowing oranges to be eaten would cause absolutely no harm to the apple-eaters, they continue to oppose it.

Why? My guess is because they're a bunch of hateful, selfish, close-minded bigots for whom the happiness of others is meaningless. Because there are certainly no reasonable, logical arguments to support their mulish opposition to oranges.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:34 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:20 am
Posts: 293
Location: Sacramento, CA
Two things, and then I'm out of this argument. I'm focusing my efforts on the grassroots campaigns going on in my hometown. But, I have to address this statement:

Quote:
It's interesting that you didn't mention a single example of "rais[ing] [your] children as a family" in your last post. It was all about being affectionate in public. I don't know about your kids, but most kids find kisses and hugs icky and gross.


I don't bring up raising my children as a family because the "other" side didn't care a rat's you know what about my raising my children as a family. ALL they cared about was the word marriage and whether or not their kids would get cooties in school during sex ed from my kids. Let's get something clear: My children will be and are being raised as a family. That cannot be legislated. Effectively, what's being legislated is their right to LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS with my wife because they are biologically mine. Instead, we have to spend our life savings (hahahaha if we had any) on securing attorneys, establishing trusts, and making sure such agreements are as "challenge-proof" as possible so if something happens to one of us, our parents don't try and step in and go against our wishes.

My children, my wife, and I, will be a family whether you try and legally tear us apart or not. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S OK TO TRY AND DO SO. Just because we as a community have said we are going to be committed and raise families anyway doesn't mean you can say "that's fine, but you're still second-class citizens."

It is disgusting to me that people believe my love for my wife and my children would be more enriched if she were a man. It's disgusting to me that people believe that people would choose to be gay, when being gay means people treat you this way -- YOU LITERALLY WROTE INTO OUR CONSTITUTION that I am not as good as a straight person. DO YOU GET THAT? There is no other way I can say it.

Lastly, I'd like to ask permission from Hostrauser to use your signature tag line in other places. I love it.

_________________
~twinmomma


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Upland, CA
Well I guess because of Hostrauser's reasoning we now must legalize poligamy, marriage between brothers and sisters, and with the passage of Prop 4 we should abolish all age limits for girls to get married, the North American Man/Boy Love Association should be given freedom to do whatever they want, and beastiality should be tolerated. Oh wait.... the animals can't yet give their verbal consent, so I guess we'll have to protect the animals! :roll:

Under his guidence society will never be allowed to set limits on behavior... anything goes! And with the inherent weaknesses in the human race it means there will always be people that want to do anything! Total freedom is a wonderful thing, even if it destroys us in the process! :shock:

Sarcasm off...

How does society draw the line on behavior when people cry for their rights and freedom? There will always be someone that doesn't like the rules! If we have no rules then we go the way of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Macedonians and become just be a side note in some future history book.

_________________
Dave Schaafsma
Pageantry Webmaster


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:48 pm 
Hostrauser wrote:
Also, explain how gay marriage infringes upon freedom to worship or practice religion?



Bishop Kevin J. Boland wrote:
There is to be no separation between one's faith and life in either public or private realms.


By voting NO on prop 8, that means that I would be separating my public and private view points on what marriage means. So now I ask this: Who are YOU to define what marriage is?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
  http://www.worldofpageantry.com Copyright © 1996 - 2006 Email:  admin@worldofpageantry.com  

Site design and maintenance by Dave Schaafsma at Dave's Web Dynamics