-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Prop 8
- Thread starter Kristy Haruka
- Start date
- Status
ok, enough is enough. I wasnt going to respond anymore because all i see are ridiculous responses and comparisons but im getting tired of seeing all this separation of church and state. None of you know anything about the statement "separation of church and state. Go learn about its origins. Lets play a little game, can anyone tell me the real meaning and origins behind separation of church and state cuz I bet none of you can. And chawla, it was already voted on and it passed so why are you telling people to vote no?
It means the government shouldn't be able to interfere with religious groups afaik. It should also mean local religious groups should not be able to influence government decision into discriminating against minority groups.
"Hey, my imaginary friend thinks men can only love women and vice versa so we're going to pass a law that says they can't marry."
That's fairly illogical.
But you see, the majority of people in California have that same "imaginary friend" and voted based on that. We have the right of religion and the right to freely exercise our beliefs of that religion. These people were not forced to have the opinion and have it on their own. I am not forced to believe that opinion but i chose to have it. You see, our country votes on matters, because we are America and the founding fathers made the Government "for the people and by the people". Who is to say what is right and what is wrong. The majority of people in California, California of all places, one of the most liberal of all states, still made their decision against it. I am sorry but in America we get to have whatever faith we want and a large majority of people in the US are religious and vote according to what they feel is right, what each person feels is right. We all have our own opinions of right and wrong but who are you to tell me that my opinion is wrong, who am i to tell you your opinion is wrong. The majority of opinions in California on the issue were the same and thus the vote came out as it did and no one has the right to argue. If we cant even vote on what goes on in our country and what our government, that is there to serve us, does, if we cant vote on that then what point is there in us being Americans. And I am not posting any more because there is nothing more to argue. The people of California voted end of story.
And they voted to strip their fellow men of rights. Just because people vote to force a minority group to relinquish their rights doesn't make it any more right. Guess what? About 100 years ago your people would have voted to force a visible minority into a different school just because they were different. They would not be allowed to marry either because they weren't human.
I await the day your kind dies out and people treat each other with respect. Then we'll reach the end of this story. Until then, I'll just have to hope you don't have any gay children that you will make life miserable for. You're projecting a very hostile environment for a gay child to grow up in.
I await the day your kind dies out and people treat each other with respect. Then we'll reach the end of this story. Until then, I'll just have to hope you don't have any gay children that you will make life miserable for. You're projecting a very hostile environment for a gay child to grow up in.
oh my god lol how dumb can people get. people have ALL the right to argue. and this is just one of the many stupid things in your post. So yeah stop posting your posts are full of shit anyway.
Would you like it if there was a proposition vs straight marriages and it passed? This is what you guys have done to gays too. I know it will never happen but you should stop being so selfish, and it's not like gay marriages would affect you at ALL.
It's not an issue of race. The problem with racism, segregation, etc. was that they were being denied equal rights in the eyes of the law. Marriage should never have been established as a legal institution. Tax breaks for people in "civil unions," fine, but marriage itself should be nothing but a ceremony performed by your religious institution of choice. The government recognizing marriage as a legal institution in and of itself violates the separation of church and state you people in this thread argue so dearly for.
If homosexuals want to go out and start their own religion in which they can get married, fine. If they want to get married under an existing religion that is friendly to homosexuals, fine. The only thing the government needs to recognize is the concept of a civil union. Make straight people who want tax breaks go and get one too. If marriage is no longer a legal thing but a religious one (and it doesn't even matter what religion you are, as they all incorporate it in one form or another) then no one is being denied any rights.
That's right, you think that America has a government for the people and by the people where nobody has the right to argue...and you had the nerve to accuse someone else of being socialist earlier in this thread.
Maybe the reason why people are arguing against this is because the supporters of the anti-gay movement use such blatantly hypocritical reasoning in their "arguments". Deck Knight tried to bring up the same point, that we should listen to the majority as if it is the absolute word of truth and that nothing people think should ever be questioned, no matter how absurd the logic (although im having a tough time describing what you said as logical) is. Needless to say, if you think that the majority should be followed without question then I would assume that you would have supported slavery in the south circa 1880? I assume that you would have been against women having the right to vote if you lived in 1915? Because if you are, then I guess you really are done arguing because you have proven your point. If not, then I would suggest adopting a consistent point of view.
There was a time when slavery was accepted, and the majority supported it. There was a time when only men were allowed to vote, and the majority supported it. I would have supported neither, and if you took a vote today, I'm sure the vast majority of people would be against both.
As I've said before, the issues are fundamentally different, as the two above deal with fundamental legal rights, and the issue of gay marriage, well, shouldn't. It only does because the government insists on involving itself in what was originally a strictly religious process.
As I've said before, the issues are fundamentally different, as the two above deal with fundamental legal rights, and the issue of gay marriage, well, shouldn't. It only does because the government insists on involving itself in what was originally a strictly religious process.
Any government primarily serves itself first and formost, and will seek to safeguard whatever value system the majority of its members hold true, irregardless of whether it truly benefits the people.
Were governments truly for the people and by the people it would be made up of the broadest range of individuals from across the socio-political spectrum ...
Yeah, representative government is stupid. I've said that myself.
But a "broad range of individuals from across the socio-political spectrum" did come out and vote for proposition 8. Do you even understand how the ballot initiative process in California works? There was no government/legislature involvement. A non-government person proposed a law, collected a required number of signatures, and the people from all classes/races/walks of life voted on it.
And, uhh, yes a government exists to serve the majority. That's why we, you know, vote on things ?_?
So how is this relevant to a topic about, specifically, Proposition 8? And arguments about Proposition 8? If you want to start a topic on the government in general, believe me, I will have a lot of negative things to say. But the process by which Proposition 8 was put on the ballot, and made into law, was largely devoid of government involvement.
Again, a subject for another thread. Representative government is full of problems. Legislators did not make or vote on the subject at hand, beyond their single vote as a citizen.
If a government is made up of representatives, yes, they will make the people like them until they get into office, and from that point on it's a total crapshoot if they're going to actually do what they say or not. But in this specific election, the people themselves decided.
A term to learn, Lexite, is "tyranny of the majority".
Imagine if a population was, say, split into two groups - the little-endians and the big-endians. A quarter of the population is little-endian, the three quarters is big-endian.
Assume all members of a group vote the same way - it's easy to see that in a simplistic democratic system, the big-endians can vote for the little-endians to be second-class citizens - deprive them of their rights, remove their right to vote, force them to wear a star. Eventually you get a Kristallnacht.
The solution is the judiciary and a bill of rights - the idea is that you set down, in paper, that certain rights are /not up for voting/. They are 'inalienable' - you /cannot/ remove them. And then the judiciary has the power to strike down all laws that violate that bill of rights, /no matter how much popular support they have/.
Unfortunately, it's not a complete defence - as prop 8 shows, the majority can just modify the bill of rights to render the judiciary powerless.
Imagine if a population was, say, split into two groups - the little-endians and the big-endians. A quarter of the population is little-endian, the three quarters is big-endian.
Assume all members of a group vote the same way - it's easy to see that in a simplistic democratic system, the big-endians can vote for the little-endians to be second-class citizens - deprive them of their rights, remove their right to vote, force them to wear a star. Eventually you get a Kristallnacht.
The solution is the judiciary and a bill of rights - the idea is that you set down, in paper, that certain rights are /not up for voting/. They are 'inalienable' - you /cannot/ remove them. And then the judiciary has the power to strike down all laws that violate that bill of rights, /no matter how much popular support they have/.
Unfortunately, it's not a complete defence - as prop 8 shows, the majority can just modify the bill of rights to render the judiciary powerless.
The "right to marry" is not in the Bill of Rights now, is it? It should not even have anything to do with the government. When the same government that "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" codifies a religious institution such as marriage into law and assigns it legal benefits, it violates its own law. When it then forces religious institutions to perform religious ceremonies for the purpose of conferring legal benefits upon a group of people against said religious institution's beliefs, especially when there are other means of procuring those benefits, it just threw the Constitution out the window.
The obvious solution is, as I've been saying, to respect the first amendment and not interfere with the religious institution of marriage in the slightest. Do not say who can marry or not, and do not associate any legal status with being married. Force both gay and straight people to enter into secular Civil Unions if they wish to get the legal benefits currently associated with marriage. Marriage should not be a right because, in its purest sense, marriage should not mean anything, beyond two people making a commitment to one another in the eyes of their deity of choice. If the government wants to give two people tax breaks for entering into such a union, let it be under some different system in which religion is not involved.
The obvious solution is, as I've been saying, to respect the first amendment and not interfere with the religious institution of marriage in the slightest. Do not say who can marry or not, and do not associate any legal status with being married. Force both gay and straight people to enter into secular Civil Unions if they wish to get the legal benefits currently associated with marriage. Marriage should not be a right because, in its purest sense, marriage should not mean anything, beyond two people making a commitment to one another in the eyes of their deity of choice. If the government wants to give two people tax breaks for entering into such a union, let it be under some different system in which religion is not involved.
I wasn't responding to you, Syberia, I was responding to Lexite's apparent assumption that the will of the people overrides everything.
I have no problems with your position - as long as gay and straight people get the same rights in a civil union, it's not a problem.
But in the current system, marriage /is/ a government entity, and it's /not/ going away. Freedom of religion isn't a factor in something that's been involved with the state for so long. In the current situation, gay marriage is a better solution than no gay marriage. Yours would be the optimal solution, but we can't get there from here.
I have no problems with your position - as long as gay and straight people get the same rights in a civil union, it's not a problem.
But in the current system, marriage /is/ a government entity, and it's /not/ going away. Freedom of religion isn't a factor in something that's been involved with the state for so long. In the current situation, gay marriage is a better solution than no gay marriage. Yours would be the optimal solution, but we can't get there from here.
Syberia, I agree on the point that marriage shouldn't be in the government's dictionary at all. However, that still raises the question of why it's only homosexual couples who can't call themselves married in the eyes of the law and not both homosexual couples AND heterosexual couples.
I would, of course, argue that it should be the latter and not the former.
It seems, to me, a pretty massive assumption to claim that marriage is a uniquely religious institute - that certainly is not my impression. Similar kinship ceremonies have occurred in many cultures in many situations, not all of them religious. Are you claiming that atheists should not be able to marry? Obvioulsy you are not, but you tread toward that line by selling out to the lie that marriage is by necessity a religious affair. There are massive benefits to the state if it encourages family-building (gay or straight) - it boosts stability, it boosts health stats, it seems perfectly reasonable for the state to encourage marriages. Marriage is, after all, a basic, widely-recognised, widely celebrated civic contract, not a religious one.
[Edit] Hmm, I see you distinguish between marriage and civil unions. Sorry. I guess my point is that marriage is the commonly recognised form of civil union, and will most likely remain that way. Do away with civil unions - extend marriage to homosexuals. Let religious nuts invent their own terms for their own non-civic, newly invented "marriages".
[Edit] Hmm, I see you distinguish between marriage and civil unions. Sorry. I guess my point is that marriage is the commonly recognised form of civil union, and will most likely remain that way. Do away with civil unions - extend marriage to homosexuals. Let religious nuts invent their own terms for their own non-civic, newly invented "marriages".
"do away with civil marriage, extend civil unions to homosexuals"
really it's the same thing but it actually respects the feelings of the religious (which most of the pro-gay marriage people fail to do)
again, are you trying to correct a legal injustice or are you trying to stick it to evangelicals
Now Im only posting because you made a rediculous and completely invalid point. You statement doent agree with anyhting I said. Yes Obama is now my president, no i do not think he is the right choice, but it is the choice that tha American people made. You do not like the decision that was made about prop 8 but it has been decided, I dont like who the country, but that was who was chosen. I support that the country chose him, but I do not support him as I do not feel he is right for our country at this time, but the people chose him.
Ideally, yes, marriage would be eliminated as a legal term. But it's a bit late for that. I don't think you'll be able to find enough people who support eliminating marriage in a legal sense so it's probably easier to apply the legal term marriage to gays as well. For those who are saying "Go join your own religion and get married there" I have to ask. Would you recognise that marriage? Do you recognise marriages made outside of your faith that don't agree with yours (for example, polygamy in mormonism [and by the way, how fucking ironic is it that the MORMONS sponsored a ballot initiative to define marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman])?
Some of these homosexuals were married by a church. Are they still married or do you not recognise that union?
That's not what anyone is saying, is it? Religious people would do what they have always done - get a marriage (e.g. the legal marriage license) and dump whatever religious beliefs they want into a 'marriage ceremony'. The religious component is only in addition to marriage, it is not marriage itself.
My question is, why does Ancien Regime feel it would be an okay idea to establish two entirely separate kinds of marriage differentiated on the (trivial) basis of gender just to appease theocrats? That sounds like erosion of US Constitution to me... ...it also sounds like it violates religious freedoms.
- Status