California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Penthesilea]

God predates all

This is evidence by the fact that God punished the dinosaurs for sodomy.

[Tristam]

Yes, though there are not alternative motives to ban interracial marriage outside of ignorance/racism.

A groom and a bride, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This sacrament has been defined for thousands of years as that, why attempt to redefine something that was created by the lineage of people who are trying to preserve it as is. This is an invasion of religious tenets. You can't claim marriage for yourself and then redefine it as something that it isn't.

Replace thousands with decades or hundereds, and then only in certain cultures, and you are correct.

[0ni0n]

This is evidence by the fact that God punished the dinosaurs for sodomy.

I thought it was for infidelity. We should ask McCain, he would know.

[Dezzimal]

Replace thousands with decades or hundereds, and then only in certain cultures, and you are correct.

If you think the bible is decades or hundreds of years old, then you're right.

[Tristam]

If you think the bible is decades or hundreds of years old, then you're right.

Considering the last books were written ~AD100, it's tough to say the modern incarnation of the bible is thousands of years old. Especially since it's been rewritten who knows how many times.

Either way, there are plenty of other (older) cultures where marriage is defined differently.

[Vandalhart]

This is evidence by the fact that God punished the dinosaurs for sodomy.

Sodomy of Humans because we were all created at the same time and sodomy is also a sin.

[Saithorx]

Regardless of religeous beliefs, change is uncomfortable especially when you are fine with the way things are. People hate change. Now, go change peoples opinions before the next time it is put to a vote.

[Maguspk]

Considering the last books were written ~AD100, it's tough to say the modern incarnation of the bible is thousands of years old. Especially since it's been rewritten who knows how many times.

Either way, there are plenty of other (older) cultures where marriage is defined differently.

And like I said, America's marriage isn't defined by those other cultures it's defined by the Christian version of marriage. Arguing our form of marriage should behave differently is pointless before you acknowledge that we first need to redefine marriage itself to encompass a broader spectrum, but even then you run into the problem of redefining something that's been a particular way for so long that it becomes burdensome, simply to accommodate a legal language.

[Seraph]

Civil Unions aren't portable across states and aren't recognized by the Federal government. If you redefined non-religious marriages as Civil Unions straight couples everywhere would revolt.

Which is the point. See it yet?

This is the beauty of changing how the system works. If you alter the defination of civil union at a federal level, you can make it so that it is recognized across state boundries and by the federal government. The current situation isn't the problem, it's just the lack of ability to compromise that people often have.

I'm just offering a possible solution in which both parties get what they want. I never said it would actually happen.

Spoiler: show

Remember the whole part about people being assholes?

[0ni0n]

Strictly speaking, so are contraception and masturbation. According to Judaism bylaws and some christian practice, a couple should not fornicate other than for the purpose of procreation.

[Penthesilea]

I thought it was for infidelity. We should ask McCain, he would know.

Adam and Steve were riding around on dinosaurs and Adam saw Steve and he got hot... so he "did" him. Then when he got back home Eve was upset and wanted a divorce... which GOD does not like so he created the Catholic Church. So Adam went back to Steve who was now a Catholic Christian and would only "do it" if he was married... so Steve married him and they "did it" some more. Now Adam had committed bigamy... which made the dinosaurs angry and they died of hearbreak and disappointment. That's sad.

SO actually... it wasn't exactly GAY MARRIAGE that killed the dinosaurs... but really MULTIPLE WIVES or BIGAMY.... or actually MORMANISM that killed the dinosaurs!

[meson]

Yes, though there are not alternative motives to ban interracial marriage outside of ignorance/racism.

A groom and a bride, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This sacrament has been defined for thousands of years as that, why attempt to redefine something that was created by the lineage of people who are trying to preserve it as is. This is an invasion of religious tenets. You can't claim marriage for yourself and then redefine it as something that it isn't.

Yes you can, and yes we must if we are to uphold our separation of church and state. Just because so many religions have defined marriage over the years as such does not mean our society must follow suit. In our pursuit of a more just world we cannot be bound by the prejudices of old. What argument is there against gay marriage that does not stand on religious tenet or a need to uphold traditional definitions? Maintaining the status quo is not an excuse for discrimination.

[zoobernut]

Marriage in the most general sense predates them but the marriage enforced by the state and practiced by the "church" is the prototypical Christian marriage. You don't get a marriage license and then go to the courthouse and get a Hindu Wedding.

Although one could argue marriage ought to be redefined, assuming it has isn't true.

This is not true in the legal sense. It does not matter what kind of wedding you are having or what religion you subscribe to or if you are religious at all. If you want to get married you go to the county clerks office and get a marriage license and then you get married.

That is what people forget and seem to want to ignore because it blows all of their religious arguments out the window. Marriage is not a religious institution anymore in the eyes of the government it is a legally recognized term.

[Maguspk]

Yes you can, and yes we must if we are to uphold our separation of church and state. Just because so many religions have defined marriage over the years as such does not mean our society must follow suit. In our pursuit of a more just world we cannot be bound by the prejudices of old. What argument is there against gay marriage that does not stand on religious tenet or a need to uphold traditional definitions? Maintaining the status quo is not an excuse for discrimination.

Redefining a strictly Christian concept within this nation at least, is the very opposite of the seperation of church and state. You have to acknowledge that marriage needs to be redefined before you go and change how it behaves (for like the 5th time).

[Julian]

To all the people opposing gay marriage:

If you were gay, how would you feel if you were denied the right to get married?

[Charismatic]

I'd feel pretty 'butthurt'

[Maguspk]

This is not true in the legal sense. It does not matter what kind of wedding you are having or what religion you subscribe to or if you are religious at all. If you want to get married you go to the county clerks office and get a marriage license and then you get married.

That is what people forget and seem to want to ignore because it blows all of their religious arguments out the window. Marriage is not a religious institution anymore in the eyes of the government it is a legally recognized term.

Except those licenses are for both the state and the church. You conveniently only detailed the state side but you have to understand also that redefining the definition of what these licenses are for would, as a result, redefine what marriage by the state and the church is. The latter being what is in question for the argument, not the former, although arguing the former would make one's side seem so much more correct.

To all the people opposing gay marriage:

If you were gay, how would you feel if you were denied the right to get married?

Why would I want to be married under a concept so strongly tied in our nation to a Christian ceremony, a part of a religion which on the whole, very clearly states my way of life is a sin?

[Penthesilea]

To all the people opposing gay marriage:

If you were gay, how would you feel if you were denied the right to get married?

I wouldn't be gay, har har.

[Tristam]

And like I said, America's marriage isn't defined by those other cultures it's defined by the Christian version of marriage. Arguing our form of marriage should behave differently is pointless before you acknowledge that we first need to redefine marriage itself to encompass a broader spectrum, but even then you run into the problem of redefining something that's been a particular way for so long that it becomes burdensome, simply to accommodate a legal language.

My problem with that line of reasoning is it assumes we live in a partial theocracy, which I really hope we don't. And I don't think less than 300 years is really enough time to state that a certain definition of a union is not subject to revision due to tradition(religion) when certain native american tribes practiced group marriages for much longer. We're also assuming an historically static definition of marriage when it's anything but. In Europe common-law marriage predated the religious ceremony.

What's happening in california is that people are taking a scriptural dogma and trying to make it a law. I really don't understand how people can think that's ok?

[Aella]

Yes, though there are not alternative motives to ban interracial marriage outside of ignorance/racism.

A groom and a bride, a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. This sacrament has been defined for thousands of years as that, why attempt to redefine something that was created by the lineage of people who are trying to preserve it as is. This is an invasion of religious tenets. You can't claim marriage for yourself and then redefine it as something that it isn't.

And there are not alternative motives to ban gay marriage outside of ignorance/discrimination.

Marriage has already been given a different definition in CA. To call marriage as anything other than the legal joining of 2 people, disregarding their gender, is unconstitutional.

What exactly are you opposing here other than the word "marriage" being redefined?
Do you not want kids to be taught about gay marriage in schools?
I don't understand why people want their children to be ignorant about it. Are they afraid that being gay is contagious? In my eyes, teaching about two men being married, or two women being married, is not saying to children "hey go out and do this!"
It is merely teaching tolerance, which is something that is apparently incredibly lacking now. Sexual preference is not something you can choose. You can choose to act on it or not, but seriously, tell me... Why would anyone choose to deny themselves of what they really want in this day and age?
In before the "being gay is a decision" load of bullshit.

Are you afraid that if this had failed, gay marriages will be allowed in your church, and other churches?
Churches have the right to deny any person for any reason. A failed prop 8 would not have changed that.

The ONLY interesting, and different, point that anybody has ever made with me concerning the failing of prop 8 is this:
Should prop 8 have failed, gay marriages/civil unions would be receiving better benefits than a man-woman marriage would. The person I was talking to voted Yes on it because he was for them becoming equal, not better. I still don't see how it justifies a "yes" vote, considering that the "no" vote entails discrimination (which should be worse than them receiving better benefits) and I have yet to look up his point to see if he's correct, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

So, really, what exactly are you afraid of? The redefinition of the word? Is that really what you're making a fit over?