Moderateman Moderateman

Say No AGAIN to Gay Marriage, California

▼

Say No AGAIN to Gay Marriage, California

San Francisco does not run the State!!!

from JoeUser Forums

Proposition 8 will be on the California Ballot November 4Th, 2008. It was qualified by the 1,122,000 folks that signed the petitions.

The battle over same sex marriage has once again heated up after 4 outrageous activist judges from San Francisco overturned the will of the people {once again} and cast aside an overwhelming vote to "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE" defining marriage as "one man to one woman"

We Californians have the chance to overturn this act of judicial tyranny perpetrated by four judges that felt they are wiser than the MILLIONS of people that voted NO TO GAY MARRIAGE!

This time we will make the law into a State Constitutional Amendment making it bullet proof from judges that chose to create law from the bench instead of upholding it!

So many times in America one judge has overturned the will of the people, it has now become a lesson in futility to vote on issues knowing one LIBERAL judge can with a swipe of his pen {donated by move-on.org} decide he does not like the law and make it vanish like a Liberal at a meeting of the N.R.A.!

This new amendment will pass and then no longer will teachers be allowed to teach our children that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a heterosexual one.

The opposition has sent teams of homos state wide to harass petition handlers and to annoy anyone that wanted to sign the petition. In many cases they simply surrounded the petition circulator and would not allow folks to sign the petition.

Wealthy Hollywood donors and national homosexual organizations are pouring millions into defeating Prop. 8 because they know to well it would be a tremendous blow to their ultimate goal of re-defining marriage Nationwide!!!.

7,400 views 39 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

As opposed to minority/majority tyrrany?
End of quote

Minority Tyranny?  A stretch to say the least.  But let's put that idiocy aside for the moment.

majority Tyranny?  Like when the majority ELECTS Bush?  That is tyranny?  WHat is your perverted definition of tyranny?  Any action that any single person disagrees with?  Wow!  Let's all be hermits!

The simple fact is I guess a simpleton can see tyranny in any action.  Yet the sad fact that does escape you is that you do get to vote for or against Bush.  How many judges were elected to legislate?  I will give you a hint.  ZERO.  SO when they MAKE law, they are not only violating their oath of office (to interpret), but also are then ruling by dictatorial powers.  Tyranny in other words.

For the hard of reading.

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 26
I find the pagan Greek system of morality fascinating (and wrong, but my opinion is besides the point) and I would like to know why an American teacher should not teach the Zeus religion's stance on homosexuality rather than the Abrahamic religions' stance?  
End of Leauki's quote

Except even the bisexual Greek society marraige was for the opposite sex.  Homosexuality is just for fun and Zeus' trysts with men prove that point cause hestill went home to his wife.

 

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting SilentPoet, reply 24
This is what makes America so great you are allowed to think and vote the way you want to, so am I. I am sure you would not like to see something you and your like thinking voters passed into law, wiped out by ONE JUDGE who thinks he knows better than million of foll that voted just like you, would you?Do a million people know any better? Do half a billion people know any better? Again, take a gander at America during WW2 or Nazi Germany. It's like the saying, "If Jimmy told you to jump off of the bridge..." Well, if a million people told you to jump off a bridge, does that make it right? And yes, you are, but does that give you right to impose your standards, or your morals on them; to negate their will/choice in the matter of marriage. I'm sorry, but no. Just as you cannot legislate an official religion, you cannot legislate marriage rights.Just as you have rights, so should gays have them. I don't buy the cock-a-bull comment, "Sure they have the same rights...to marry someone of the opposite sex." It's completely ludicrous.I think the biggest problem is that it is a MORAL issue. That's when the line hit's the weeds, otherwise this issue would more than likely have been settled.As so far as my interpretation of the law, and the constitution, the case against gay marriage/rights falls flat. All men and women are supposed to be treated fairly under the law, and that just won't be so if P8 passes. 
End of SilentPoet's quote

Once again you assume you know what is best and make some kind of moral decision that in your tiny little mind carries much more weight than mine does, well here in my blog it does not you fucking idiot. welcome once again to my list of the silent.

Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 26
That is the problem, they are teaching "there is NO DIFFERENCE"!So what is the difference?And what business do teachers have teaching children about the morality of certain lifestyles? And which morality should they choose? And how do we reconcile the fact that we choose a certain system of morality to be taught with the constitutional requirement of keeping state and religion separate?I find the pagan Greek system of morality fascinating (and wrong, but my opinion is besides the point) and I would like to know why an American teacher should not teach the Zeus religion's stance on homosexuality rather than the Abrahamic religions' stance?  
End of Leauki's quote

The difference TO ME is obvious. two men or two women together make no sense except to the two men or two women involved. I am not shoving my lifestyle in their face I ask them to not force their life style on me.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 27
As opposed to minority/majority tyrrany? Minority Tyranny?  A stretch to say the least.  But let's put that idiocy aside for the moment.majority Tyranny?  Like when the majority ELECTS Bush?  That is tyranny?  WHat is your perverted definition of tyranny?  Any action that any single person disagrees with?  Wow!  Let's all be hermits!The simple fact is I guess a simpleton can see tyranny in any action.  Yet the sad fact that does escape you is that you do get to vote for or against Bush.  How many judges were elected to legislate?  I will give you a hint.  ZERO.  SO when they MAKE law, they are not only violating their oath of office (to interpret), but also are then ruling by dictatorial powers.  Tyranny in other words.For the hard of reading.
End of Dr's quote

Yes to all lefties it is tyranny! because they did not get their way therefore it is wrong!

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am not shoving my lifestyle in their face I ask them to not force their life style on me
End of quote

They are not forcing their lifestyle onto you in any way.  They aren't trying to turn you gay (well, maybe some are if they "want you"), and they are not trying to affect your personal life.  They are trying to enhance their own.  Please do not make the mistake of thinking that this issue is about "you".  Remember that I do see where you are coming from with your original post, I respect, and I agree with your opinion about the religious institution of "marriage" as it is has been passed down through tradition.  I get the feeling that you feel threatened personally from the personal choices of others' relationship decisions.  Perhaps I am wrong, but in any case, don't blame people for trying to pursue their own dream if it is of no harm or danger to others in society.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is a big difference between going to the polls, and signing a petition. A million signatures shows a great deal of interest in the issue and perhaps a majority (it can evaporate before the actual voting). Of those 36 million, 40% are either not eligible, or will never go to a poll, leaving an actual "potential" voting block of about 20 million. Of those 20 millions (since the petition requires that they be eligible to vote), 5% went out of their way to sign it. Thi is not having it put in their lap, but taking an active part in the process.
End of quote

To use your breakdown, 5% in no way can be considered a majority.  Sure it is significant.  But get a balanced view of this issue, a poll of opposing stances should also be held.  I, for one, would be interested to see what that yeilded.

I'm not trying to be persnickety (man, I love that word) but polls, for better or worse, aren't ever really an accurate gauge of the thoughts of a general population.  There are all sorts of things that can affect, inhibit or otherwise alter the outcomes.  Having said this, I do agree that no judge or judges should ever have the power these judges have used.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Except even the bisexual Greek society marraige was for the opposite sex.  Homosexuality is just for fun and Zeus' trysts with men prove that point cause hestill went home to his wife.

End of quote

I am aware of that and would fully support a law that makes American teachers teach children that marriage is between man and woman and homosexuality is just for fun.

 

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

The difference TO ME is obvious.

End of quote

The difference to me is obvious too, but what objective difference is there that doesn't rely on our religious beliefs and can be taught in school without teaching religion?

 

two men or two women together make no sense except to the two men or two women involved. I am not shoving my lifestyle in their face I ask them to not force their life style on me.

End of quote

You are not shoving your lifestyle in their face? I assume you are unmarried and against any form of marriage?

Or would you not have a problem shoving the heterosexual lifestyle in other people's face?

 

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not trying to be persnickety (man, I love that word) but polls, for better or worse, aren't ever really an accurate gauge of the thoughts of a general population.
End of quote

Persnickety?  PERSNICKETY? yea, I kind of like it too. ;)

I agree polls are not definitive.  I am saying that a petition with 5% of the voting populace shows a strong movement to address the issue.  It may fail!  After all, the 5% may all be Born Again Christians (that is the problem with petitions, we dont really know the demographics of the signatories).  But it is significant in the respect that the 5% who signed can be considered cast votes already (they went out of their way to sign it - they will be at the polls to vote on it).

IN an election, if you already have 5% of the vote in the bank, you would feel pretty good about your chances. 

Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top

Since this particular Issue already was voted on once before, {let us not forget this simple fact} and the voters of California voted by 69% to define marriage as "one man to one woman" I would say it seems fairly certain that it will pass again by a large margin. This is not some "personal issue about how I feel, it it an Issue about how four judges struck down a vote by the people of California because they did not "like the outcome" I was but one of those voters that chose to define marriage as one man to one woman, does that make me anti-gay? no it does not, but I am sure those of you narrow minded twits that must slot people might think so. Personally I could care less about what you think about what I think. I do not like judges willy nilly taking my vote and flushing it down the toilet. Maybe some of you are ok with this, but not me. Let gays have civil unions, let them draw contracts giving them all the rights and where fores of married couples, I just do not want them to use the word "marriage" if you don't like that tough shit!

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting little-whip, reply 36
I'm personally completely for GLBT rights/marriage. Sorry, just no way on earth, heaven or hell that my mind will change on it. Call me whatever you wish.Ok, you turd-burgling poofter.
End of little-whip's quote

Lucas will not be commenting anymore, once again his stupidity has annoyed me to the point of silencing him here. He can take his view elsewhere. Every time I take him off silence he comes in with his totally out of ass opinions and once again I get reminded what a fool I was for defending this miscreant.

Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting kurtin, reply 32
I am not shoving my lifestyle in their face I ask them to not force their life style on meThey are not forcing their lifestyle onto you in any way.  They aren't trying to turn you gay (well, maybe some are if they "want you"), and they are not trying to affect your personal life.  They are trying to enhance their own.  Please do not make the mistake of thinking that this issue is about "you".  Remember that I do see where you are coming from with your original post, I respect, and I agree with your opinion about the religious institution of "marriage" as it is has been passed down through tradition.  I get the feeling that you feel threatened personally from the personal choices of others' relationship decisions.  Perhaps I am wrong, but in any case, don't blame people for trying to pursue their own dream if it is of no harm or danger to others in society.
End of kurtin's quote

You assume much to much, I feel threatened? where in the fuck did that come from, could this be what is called "a Valid projection"?

Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting dynamaso, reply 33
There is a big difference between going to the polls, and signing a petition. A million signatures shows a great deal of interest in the issue and perhaps a majority (it can evaporate before the actual voting). Of those 36 million, 40% are either not eligible, or will never go to a poll, leaving an actual "potential" voting block of about 20 million. Of those 20 millions (since the petition requires that they be eligible to vote), 5% went out of their way to sign it. Thi is not having it put in their lap, but taking an active part in the process.To use your breakdown, 5% in no way can be considered a majority.  Sure it is significant.  But get a balanced view of this issue, a poll of opposing stances should also be held.  I, for one, would be interested to see what that yeilded.I'm not trying to be persnickety (man, I love that word) but polls, for better or worse, aren't ever really an accurate gauge of the thoughts of a general population.  There are all sorts of things that can affect, inhibit or otherwise alter the outcomes.  Having said this, I do agree that no judge or judges should ever have the power these judges have used.
End of dynamaso's quote

Look at my reply where I said this issue was overwhelmingly passed already in California {69%} of California voted that marriage is to be defined between One man to one woman.