|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 20, 2008 15:04:37 GMT -5
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Californians are likely to uphold the right to gay marriage in the state by voting against a ballot measure that seeks to override a court ruling allowing same-sex unions, poll results showed on Friday. The Field Poll survey firm found 51 percent of voters oppose the measure, which proposes an amendment to the state's constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and woman, while 42 percent were in favor. Californians will vote on the initiative, which requires a simple majority to become law, while casting ballots in November's U.S. presidential and congressional elections. www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1747320720080718Although I am not eager to go vote for this measure, I agree with Saunterelle regarding gay marriage as a money maker for the state. Already, there are reservations, orders in line for the "happy day" in November........sigh |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 20, 2008 15:32:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jul 20, 2008 16:53:24 GMT -5
Remember to avoid any religious references.
It tends to indicate that there is someone or something greater than yourself.
A concept diametrically opposed to 21st century liberalism.
After all, what could be superior to humans?
Who could be smarter, or more enlightened?
Plus, it may threaten the One True Religion of Darwinism.
After all, didn't all of this happen merely by "fortunate" chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by jbfrenchhorn on Jul 20, 2008 19:10:07 GMT -5
If there is nothing greater or smarter than me, we don't have much hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 20, 2008 20:14:07 GMT -5
Gambling, prostitution, and drugs have been linked to increased levels of violent crime so it is not fair to lump gay marriage in with those more dangerous activities. the only reason for that is they are illeagal so they are often gang controled, and even if not, result in turf wars. Make them legal, pu the State in control, with reasonable prices set by the state, and not only are they huge sources of income, but we free up law enforcement. Crime would go down, there would be no turf wars, addicts could get clean and safe drugs. A win, win, win all the way around. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 20, 2008 21:47:02 GMT -5
[quote author=crossride board=statepolitics thread=161 post=2712 time=1216402728 /quote] JMO, A good many of those benefits have been in place for a long time. When a "spouse" was likely to be a wife who stayed home taking care of home and family. Many of these benefits aren't really necessary if both spouses work fuill time making decent money. Access to military stores, insurance breaks and other financial matters can easily be assigned to "dependents", so that if a spouse or legally identified partner is also a dependent they can have the benefit. Some of the others, like burial decisions, medical decisions, child custody etc... can be assigned by written agreement between two people. Maybe all of the benefits of "marriage" can be eliminated or adjusted since the times have changed, instead, we seem to keep adding people to the list of those eligible to receive free benefits which let's face it, costs us all in the long run. When more and more non-employees qualify to receive the benefits offered by my company, do you think they eat the cost? Nope, all their customers pay for it. I don't much care who wants to refer to themselves as a couple, or life partners, domestic partners... whatever, what I care about it who reaps the benefits handed out, and are they really deserving of those benefits??? [/quote] crossride, I agree that many benefits can be established legally, but not all. What about employers benefits, insurance etc? I think if we we allow homosexuals to marry they should reap all that goes with it, benefits and detriments. To me it seems prejudice to parcel the benefits of marriage, it's almost as if some think they only deserve a portion of what the almighty "normal" person receives. Oh, and by the way there's always the romantic love aspect, right? I mean how many of us would want to get married by contract only, and forget the fluff, well...  |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 20, 2008 22:03:18 GMT -5
wow, whrere to begin.....this may take a while: TNG, geez yourself! Like that wasn't a predictable response. well, you should know me by now. now that i've stopped laughing uncontrollably.....that would really shock the piss out of me but i really don't believe people just "wake up gay." i wouldn't think i had a mental illness but i would think i was different, not normal. gays are far from shunned in today's society. they are almost exalted. everywhere you go you find services catering to gays. discounts for gay travel, gay only parties, gay only clubs, gay only this and that. hollywood places gays high on a pedestal. come on, gays are not shunned. the only way they are having children is thru adoption or turkey baster. as for your comments about the social benefits of marriage, crossride did a great job of responding to those for me. that's very nice of you. so do i. i put myself in the shoes of people who don't have a costco membership card and i think since i'm not a member i should NOT get those benefits that members do. know whut ah mean??? marriage, as sanction by gov't is designed to further the natural union of man and woman and to promote the FAMILY. steve and steve, no matter how much they love each other, cannot make a baby. [/color] [/quote] funny you should mention God. can you tell us his opinion on gay marriage? WWJS--what would Jesus say???[/quote] Yes TNG generally I have an idea of how you might respond. Oh, and I'm glad you got a chuckle from my post, I try.  We may feel like gays have it just as good us "normal" people, but that's only because we are in CA and even then it's really not so easy. I would bet in most of the US gays are mistreated daily (see my next post)I don't care how people form a family children need to be protected. It doesn't seem to matter what sort of family children come from they need a stable source of monetary support. I happen to know a few weasel wealthy men who are doing everything they can to hide monies overseas so that when they are ready to part from the family they don't have to pay high child support costs, and can show loss of income, savings, investments etc. It's really appalling to me. As for the Costco thing, real cute! I don't really see the parallel thank you. I'm not going to touch the Jesus thing... |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 20, 2008 22:10:34 GMT -5
This is a sad story: www.newsweek.com/id/147790>1=43002Oh, and I forgot to address the mental illness comment I'd made. Many in society assume because one is a homosexual they are somehow sick with a mental illness. I won't disagree that some cases might be related to sexual abuse when young, but I believe most are born to be different. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 20, 2008 22:17:15 GMT -5
Which brings me to wondering how you can be "not religious" but claim the "sanctity" of your marriage. Were you religious when you got married? I was going to bring this up, glad you did. Many people get married that aren't particularly religious. It's kind of like Christmas, millions of people celebrate it, but look forward to presents, and family celebration as the focus, not unlike a wedding. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 20, 2008 22:57:24 GMT -5
Californians will vote on the initiative, which requires a simple majority to become law, while casting ballots in November's U.S. presidential and congressional elections. of course! and if the vote should go against gay marriage then it will only be a matter of time before the libs whine to the courts AGAIN. the liberal way is to whine and whine until they eventually get the outcome they want. when you can't get the will of the people to go your way, just call in the judiciary, right? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 20, 2008 23:06:36 GMT -5
Saunterelle, how are you coming on that CNG Honda?
|
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Jul 20, 2008 23:43:10 GMT -5
Thank you Saunterelle for the link. I had not thought about the indirect money aspect, but it's still just speculation and I'm sure the numbers are far different coming from both sides of the issue. I just don't think I'm ever going to see my world improve because of it so I tend to ignore the potential "windfall" for the state. I've heard of a few California counties that have stopped performing any civil ceremonies due to the budget, and it clearly wasn't projected to improve due to marrying gay couples. Maybe in San Francisco and a few other spots it might make a difference. Most of that money seems to be heading to the sales tax coffers of those few places. None of it will find my pocket, but I'm sure I'll be paying for the marriage licenses to be re-printed with the changes :-)
I guess my biggest gripe, I'm just tired of special interests being catered to all the time.
|
|
