CA Prop 8

[BackInTex]

If someone thinks something is morally wrong I'm certainly not going to insist he do it.

How kind of you. But why would you ask him to vote to legalize/legitimize it?

[Bob Juch]

If someone thinks something is morally wrong I'm certainly not going to insist he do it.

How kind of you. But why would you ask him to vote to legalize/legitimize it?

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

[sunflower]

This whole thing hurts my heart.

If you don't like what someone is doing, then don't do it, but don't try to keep them from doing it. I'm sure there are things that we all do that others think are morally wrong, because everyone has different values. Is it right that the "moral majority" always "wins"?

I like part of what BiT said...you can tell someone that you think something is wrong, but that should be the end of your involvement. (And I don't mean harass them or commit hate crimes or anything extreme...say "I don't believe in what you believe in" but at the end of the day don't get in their way. They don't believe in what you believe in...you don't believe what they believe in. End of story.) Let the proper "authorities" deal with it. If you think this particular issue is morally wrong and against all religious teachings, then I guess God will get the offenders in the end, right? So let him do his job and don't try to do it for him.

(And before this is picked apart, I use "God" to mean whatever higher power you believe in, whether it is male or female or goes by another name. I'm just saying, who are we to judge the person next to us and to hold people to our own beliefs.)

[TheCalvinator24]

If someone thinks something is morally wrong I'm certainly not going to insist he do it.

How kind of you. But why would you ask him to vote to legalize/legitimize it?

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

[madamemeisha]

How kind of you. But why would you ask him to vote to legalize/legitimize it?

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

No one is forcing anyone to have a gay marriage if they don't want to. That would be imposing "areligious" views on others.

Also, Albus Dumbledore was gay. Just saying.

[TheCalvinator24]

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

No one is forcing anyone to have a gay marriage if they don't want to. That would be imposing "areligious" views on others.

Also, Albus Dumbledore was gay. Just saying.

Trying to mandate the State to recognize Gay Marriage (which is usually done by Judges) is every bit as much an imposition based on a moral belief as trying to mandate that marriage is between a man and woman.

So what if Dumbledore was gay? Your snide aside makes the same false assumption that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily opposed to homosexuals.

[madamemeisha]

Not necessarily, but when people here compare gays and lesbians to people who engage in bestiality and necrophilia, then unfortunately it's easy to make the connection.

[TheCalvinator24]

Not necessarily, but when people here compare gays and lesbians to people who engage in bestiality and necrophilia, then unfortunately it's easy to make the connection.

He (and please note that it was not I) was not comparing homosexuals to necrophiliacs and bestials. He was saying that the laws that prohibit that conduct is just as based on morality as is any law that seeks to restrict or prohibit homosexual conduct.

[Snaxx]

I'm surprised amending the state constitution does not require a supermajority, as with some county ballot propositions I read about in another forum. If it takes a 2/3 majority to raise the county sales tax 1/4 to 1/2 pct for a transit project in the Bay area, then it ought to take a 2/3 majority to amend the state constitution.

[BackInTex]

Is it right that the "moral majority" always "wins"?

I believe the majority won, moral or not. I'm sure in 3-10 years the majority will win again, but the morality of that majority may have changed.

Let the proper "authorities" deal with it.

So who, besides the voters of California, do you think are the proper "authorities"? I curious. More than curious.

[franktangredi]

How kind of you. But why would you ask him to vote to legalize/legitimize it?

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

I'm willing to respond to you because I think you are a fairly reasonable person, and we've had a good relationship. So I think you will listen to what I say respectfully even if you disagree with it.

I question your assumption that those who feel other than you do are (a)religious. I certainly don't think of myself that way. And some of us resent it very deeply when people try to claim that they have a monopoly on knowing what God wants.

My belief is that no one's purely religious views should dictate public policy. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God. And, while there are differing views as to how firmly the Constitution supports the idea of "separation of church and state," there is evidence that at least a few of the Founding Fathers believed in it.

Do you really think all the strictures of the Bible should be taken as public policy statements?

"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." If you interpret this very literally as a statement of public policy, rather than a statement about private salvation, you would have a sharing of the wealth like you wouldn't believe.

Or do you think that turning the other cheek means we shouldn't go after the 9/11 terrorists? [Quakers and other religious pacifists have always cited the Bible as a source of their beliefs.]

And there was a time when respected Biblical scholars believed that God struck Onan dead because he masturbated. What kind of public policy do you think that might have engendered?

I'm not saying I believe all or any of that. I'm saying that all of these passages could be made to bear the interpretations I have suggested. In fact, they have been.

So when someone cites the Bible as the sole reason for adopting a public policy, I believe that opens a real can of worms. Whose interpretation of the Bible? And who gets to decide that, for example, Biblical statements about homosexuality should be the basis for public policy but Biblical statements about taking care of the poor should not?

I don't expect this to change anybody's point of view. I just hope it will help you understand mine.

And if certain people conclude from this that I am not really a Christian or "not pleasing to God," I can't do anything about that. (And they can't do anything about my opinion of them.)

[By the way: On my other board, I spend a great deal of my time arguing with extreme atheists.]

[BackInTex]

Not necessarily, but when people here compare gays and lesbians to people who engage in bestiality and necrophilia, then unfortunately it's easy to make the connection.

I made no such comparison. Why do you think I did?

Bob J asked why, if something doesn't harm someone, I should care if they do it. I simply provided some activities that harm no one, but I assume would bother him, and wanted to see if he thought they were O.K. or not. He didn't reply, so either those activities don't bother him or he is O.K. with them if they do.

[TheCalvinator24]

Because he has no right to impose his religious views on anyone else.

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

I'm willing to respond to you because I think you are a fairly reasonable person, and we've had a good relationship. So I think you will listen to what I say respectfully even if you disagree with it.

I question your assumption that those who feel other than you do are (a)religious. I certainly don't think of myself that way. And some of us resent it very deeply when people try to claim that they have a monopoly on knowing what God wants.

My belief is that no one's purely religious views should dictate public policy. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God. And, while there are differing views as to how firmly the Constitution supports the idea of "separation of church and state," there is evidence that at least a few of the Founding Fathers believed in it.

Do you really think all the strictures of the Bible should be taken as public policy statements?

"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." If you interpret this very literally as a statement of public policy, rather than a statement about private salvation, you would have a sharing of the wealth like you wouldn't believe.

Or do you think that turning the other cheek means we shouldn't go after the 9/11 terrorists? [Quakers and other religious pacifists have always cited the Bible as a source of their beliefs.]

And there was a time when respected Biblical scholars believed that God struck Onan dead because he masturbated. What kind of public policy do you think that might have engendered?

I'm not saying I believe all or any of that. I'm saying that all of these passages could be made to bear the interpretations I have suggested. In fact, they have been.

So when someone cites the Bible as the sole reason for adopting a public policy, I believe that opens a real can of worms. Whose interpretation of the Bible? And who gets to decide that, for example, Biblical statements about homosexuality should be the basis for public policy but Biblical statements about taking care of the poor should not?

I don't expect this to change anybody's point of view. I just hope it will help you understand mine.

And if certain people conclude from this that I am not really a Christian or "not pleasing to God," I can't do anything about that. (And they can't do anything about my opinion of them.)

[By the way: On my other board, I spend a great deal of my time arguing with extreme atheists.]

I wrote (a)religious purposefully. That would encompass those whose positions are based on religious interpretation and those who base their positions on non-religious grounds (if I was being a jerk or thought I had a monopoly on truth, I would have said "irreligious"). This issue is still all about morality (as almost all public policy is).

My position is grounded in my understanding of the Bible, but that is not the sole basis. I believe that certain societal norms need to be maintained and upheld for the stability and order of our society. I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but that support of basic privacy rights does not lead me to conclude that the government must sanction behavior that I believe is detrimental to our country.

Does it not give pause that most efforts to expand gay rights come from Courts that are creating laws/rights and that most ballot measures opposing such expansions routinely prevail? Some will argue that the majority in the South would have maintained slavery forever (which is most likely not true), but the important distinction there is that there is a difference between race, which is an unquestionably immutable characteristic and sexual orientation, which is not unquestionably immutable. Even if it were, that would not be a one-to-one comparison because racial laws were based on who the person is. Laws restricting homosexual behavior are based on what a person does.

The Bible is not a civics handbook. The Bible is the unfolding story of the redeeming Grace of God made manifest in the man, Jesus Christ, who came to save a fallen world from its sins.

However, the principles in the Bible are good ones, and I think we could do far worse than following them. All are appropriate for governance. The question is "What level of governance?" Some are appropriate for self-government ("love one another") and some are appropriate for civil government (Murder is a crime). Many make the mistake of assuming that all sins are crimes. Other make the mistake that sins are never crimes.

Like I have said repeatedly, all our laws are based on somebody's sense of morality. It's only when people don't get the result they want that they start condemning "legislating morality."

[Bob Juch]

Not necessarily, but when people here compare gays and lesbians to people who engage in bestiality and necrophilia, then unfortunately it's easy to make the connection.

I made no such comparison. Why do you think I did?

Bob J asked why, if something doesn't harm someone, I should care if they do it. I simply provided some activities that harm no one, but I assume would bother him, and wanted to see if he thought they were O.K. or not. He didn't reply, so either those activities don't bother him or he is O.K. with them if they do.

No, that wasn't me so that's why I didn't answer.

[franktangredi]

My position is grounded in my understanding of the Bible, but that is not the sole basis. I believe that certain societal norms need to be maintained and upheld for the stability and order of our society. I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but that support of basic privacy rights does not lead me to conclude that the government must sanction behavior that I believe is detrimental to our country.

Fair enough. But in the middle of that statement is still the phrase "I believe." So explain to me exactly why you believe allowing a gay couple to marry would be detrimental to the country.

For the record, you don't have to convince me that marriage and the family are important to society. I just don't buy the argument that allowing gay couples to marry somehow threatens that.

And, again, how would you explain that to a gay couple who were very much in love, and very faithful to one another, and were hurting because of the marriage ban, and who were dear friends or family of yours?

I like that we are having a civilized, non-glib discussion of this.

[Bob Juch]

But, you are attempting to impose your (a)religious views on others.

I'm willing to respond to you because I think you are a fairly reasonable person, and we've had a good relationship. So I think you will listen to what I say respectfully even if you disagree with it.

I question your assumption that those who feel other than you do are (a)religious. I certainly don't think of myself that way. And some of us resent it very deeply when people try to claim that they have a monopoly on knowing what God wants.

My belief is that no one's purely religious views should dictate public policy. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God. And, while there are differing views as to how firmly the Constitution supports the idea of "separation of church and state," there is evidence that at least a few of the Founding Fathers believed in it.

Do you really think all the strictures of the Bible should be taken as public policy statements?

"If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." If you interpret this very literally as a statement of public policy, rather than a statement about private salvation, you would have a sharing of the wealth like you wouldn't believe.

Or do you think that turning the other cheek means we shouldn't go after the 9/11 terrorists? [Quakers and other religious pacifists have always cited the Bible as a source of their beliefs.]

And there was a time when respected Biblical scholars believed that God struck Onan dead because he masturbated. What kind of public policy do you think that might have engendered?

I'm not saying I believe all or any of that. I'm saying that all of these passages could be made to bear the interpretations I have suggested. In fact, they have been.

So when someone cites the Bible as the sole reason for adopting a public policy, I believe that opens a real can of worms. Whose interpretation of the Bible? And who gets to decide that, for example, Biblical statements about homosexuality should be the basis for public policy but Biblical statements about taking care of the poor should not?

I don't expect this to change anybody's point of view. I just hope it will help you understand mine.

And if certain people conclude from this that I am not really a Christian or "not pleasing to God," I can't do anything about that. (And they can't do anything about my opinion of them.)

[By the way: On my other board, I spend a great deal of my time arguing with extreme atheists.]

I wrote (a)religious purposefully. That would encompass those whose positions are based on religious interpretation and those who base their positions on non-religious grounds (if I was being a jerk or thought I had a monopoly on truth, I would have said "irreligious"). This issue is still all about morality (as almost all public policy is).

My position is grounded in my understanding of the Bible, but that is not the sole basis. I believe that certain societal norms need to be maintained and upheld for the stability and order of our society. I don't want the Government dictating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but that support of basic privacy rights does not lead me to conclude that the government must sanction behavior that I believe is detrimental to our country.

Does it not give pause that most efforts to expand gay rights come from Courts that are creating laws/rights and that most ballot measures opposing such expansions routinely prevail? Some will argue that the majority in the South would have maintained slavery forever (which is most likely not true), but the important distinction there is that there is a difference between race, which is an unquestionably immutable characteristic and sexual orientation, which is not unquestionably immutable. Even if it were, that would not be a one-to-one comparison because racial laws were based on who the person is. Laws restricting homosexual behavior are based on what a person does.

The Bible is not a civics handbook. The Bible is the unfolding story of the redeeming Grace of God made manifest in the man, Jesus Christ, who came to save a fallen world from its sins.

However, the principles in the Bible are good ones, and I think we could do far worse than following them. All are appropriate for governance. The question is "What level of governance?" Some are appropriate for self-government ("love one another") and some are appropriate for civil government (Murder is a crime). Many make the mistake of assuming that all sins are crimes. Other make the mistake that sins are never crimes.

Like I have said repeatedly, all our laws are based on somebody's sense of morality. It's only when people don't get the result they want that they start condemning "legislating morality."

It's not about expeanding gay rights. It's about not denying them the same rights everyone else has.

[BackInTex]

Frank, you can read this, or not. Whatever.
I wrote a lot more than what is here, but given your past reactions to my opinions, I'll just leave the one comment.

My belief is that no one's purely religious views should dictate public policy. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God. And, while there are differing views as to how firmly the Constitution supports the idea of "separation of church and state," there is evidence that at least a few of the Founding Fathers believed in it.

In this country, we the people are Caesar. Are we not? I do render to Caesar what is his. But in the event Caesar asks my opinion (as in an election), I give him my opinion.

[franktangredi]

Frank, you can read this, or not. Whatever.
I wrote a lot more than what is here, but given your past reactions to my opinions, I'll just leave the one comment.

My belief is that no one's purely religious views should dictate public policy. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God. And, while there are differing views as to how firmly the Constitution supports the idea of "separation of church and state," there is evidence that at least a few of the Founding Fathers believed in it.

In this country, we the people are Caesar. Are we not? I do render to Caesar what is his. But in the event Caesar asks my opinion (as in an election), I give him my opinion.

I read it.

[BackInTex]

No, that wasn't me so that's why I didn't answer.

Dang, wrong twice in the same day. I knew if Obama were elected bad things would happen.

It was Frank who asked. Now I know why he didn't respond. (I'm on his foe list, I'm sure)

[Bob78164]

LA Times has declared the Prop 8 has passed.

Shit.

I have friends and colleagues who will or may be personally and detrimentally affected by this. I know of no one who would have been personally or detrimentally affected if it had failed.

I think I'll look into some pro bono time for the inevitable legal attacks. --Bob

[WheresFanny]

To me, the main issue always gets kind of shuffled off to the side while people carry on about morals and the Bible and deviance and whatnot.

The main issue is that one group of people are willfully denied the legal, financial and social benefits that another group of people enjoy based on nothing other than their biological sex.

And that has nothing to do with love, sex, religion or livestock (dead or otherwise).

[WheresFanny]

I think I'll look into some pro bono time for the inevitable legal attacks. --Bob

Good for you! Hopefully this will go the way of Amendment 2 (Colorado's hate law in 1992). Whether looking into that case or ruling would help you in a California jurisdiction, I don't know.

[BackInTex]

It's not about expeanding gay rights. It's about not denying them the same rights everyone else has.

What?

I don't have the right to marry another man.

My wife doesn't have the right to marry another woman, or another man unless she divorces me first. Or I die.

What rights do gays not have that others do?

They actually have more protections than I have.

[franktangredi]

No, that wasn't me so that's why I didn't answer.

Dang, wrong twice in the same day. I knew if Obama were elected bad things would happen.

It was Frank who asked. Now I know why he didn't respond. (I'm on his foe list, I'm sure)

I don't have a foe list.

[BackInTex]

The main issue is that one group of people are willfully denied the legal, financial and social benefits that another group of people enjoy based on nothing other than their biological sex.

If a gay man marries a gay woman they get the same public benefit as a married couple as my wife and I do.

So how is their biological sex the cause of them being denied anything?