Rock the Vote - Prop 8, YES/NO?(Threads merged)

You mean like prop 241. It was passed unanimously in California but the Federal government still tells us what we cannot do with that "40 sack we paid for"?Also consider Housing communities, they tell you what we can and cannot have within the housing community.You can own a car but if it is not registered, even if it is personal property, can they give you a ticket for expired registration?

 

Mountain Bike Forum

MTB Forum. 'Nuff said.

 

Off Topic - The Pub Put your legs up, grab you favorite brew, and just hang out. Off topic.

 

Unfortunately...it seems like in this state, at least, no matter how we vote there will be a judge that overturns the vote either way.

Seems to happen every election...

 

Yes unfortunately that is all to true...no matter the what the issue

 

agreed...Burner should be allowed to do what he wants

 

I usually stay out of these conversations and I am not saying I always agree with the judiciary...but

The judiciary is part of the checks and balances so that a Majority can not unjustly impose their will on a Minority otherwise we might still have segregated schools and buses.

On the topic,
As far as I am concerned:
1) Logical Side: Same Sex Marriage is an "Equal Protection Under the Law Issue" Marriage is a civil contract and provides certain right and benefits, thus all should be allowed to participate.

2) Common Sense Side: I have never seen one couples marriage adversely effect any one else's marriage, an individual or the society as a whole. Stop pushing your morals on me or any one else, you have no right!

Hmm guess that touched a nerve.

 

That's not unfortunate at all, if the judge is smarter than the people regarding the issue at hand. Quite the contrary, actually.

Anyone who thinks the people should always be right needs to look at what happens once a "mob mentality" forms. Remember burning innocent people because they were "witches" just a few hundred years ago? Remember the Crusades - slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people because they weren't Christians (oh, but it was in the name of God...just like the terrorists that slammed jumbo jets into the Trade Center...so it was OK!).

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

 

( Geogrege Bush and crew) Never under estimate stupid people in charge of people who were not fools.

 

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

 

Well like one post said they fled from "higher" religious morals. But separation of church and state happened a long time ago because they realized that is not the right thing for the people.

It's not the government’s job to enforce "moral" you should be running for your lives if that's the case, think saudi, taliban.......I'm sure you'd love living under that. No immorality there!

On top of that the founding fathers were not perfect, for example they were ALL slave owners.


But there are things we definitely should learn from them. They were all common people and not paid, they all donated their time to the country. I know our country is a lot bigger now by taken over other people's land but come on. Every year they get to vote themselves a big fat raise. Shouldn't the people decide how much they get paid? Are they suppose to serve us?:?:

 

Interracial marriage wasn't totally legal until about 40 years ago. This is the same thing. Silly people being afraid of other people. This time around it's gay people rather than black, asian, whatever..... Give it time and it will be an accepted part of society.

Get off your high horses, we're all the same and deserve the same rights.

 

Our democracy is not as liberal as some think. The conservative movement in the past 10-20 years has tried outlawing so many fundamental human rights (i.e. abortion, same sex marriages, etc.). One thing I've learned in my years of living is to respect and be respected. So long as no one is being hurt in the process and moral codes (incest, minors, bestiality) are not being violated, I'm fine with it.

Who the hell am I or who the hell does our government think they are trying to tell people who they can and cannot marry? If Bob wants to marry Ben or Susie wants to marry Liz , that's their right and none of us have the right to impose our own values on their lives. Especially when such values are derived from conservative Christian convictions. That's simply unacceptable and no one (straight or gay) should tolerate it.

Saying that, we've come a long ways in the past 40 years and that's great. If we can make that much change in the past 40 years, we can make as much if not more change in the next 40. Never settle or be content.

Tolerance and unconditional acceptance with no prejudice is the idea here.

 

I think that Gay MARRIAGE may be controversial just because marriage is first a religious institution. To my knowledge there is no religion which santions Gay marriages. I'm sure if they called it something else there wouldn't be such a hub bub. I think everyone has the right to choose who they would like as their life partner and be entitled to the same perks (tax discounts, etc.) as M/F spouses. If several insurance companies are now progressive enough that they allow coverage to be extended to "significant others" regardless of marital status or gender, I think gay couples should also be recognized legally.

 

Marriage may have its roots in religion, but for most people, I don't think it's primarily religious. It's a piece of paper given to a couple by the state, signifying their union. The true SPIRIT of marriage can be separated 100% from religion...it's just a commitment to another human being, to be their partner. I don't see how religion has to be a part of that...it can stand on its own "two feet" without religion.

If it were held to religious standards, I don't think the divorce rate in America would be 56% (more than half of America is going to BURN IN HELL!!! SINNERS!!! OH NOOOOO!).

Then again...that may just be a comment on other issues with the current concept of marriage in a modern society. So who knows? :?:

 

"Civil Union" is a lot less controversial than marriage. What you do is make everything a civil union, and if someone wants to get married, they may do so at the religious institution of their choice. For the rest of us, there's




festivus...

 

I am sure that post didn't mean "nazi Germany". that being said, I agree. A dis-allowance is in fact a violation not only of the rights to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness but of life itself.

The fact is this subject is up for a vote. My opinion is that it's a travesty that it is. I have no right whatsoever to tell anyone whether or not their love is right or wrong or whether they should be able to enjoy the same matrimonial benefits I do.

 

That's so sig-worthy I can hardly resist. :lol:

 

W00T I <3 festivus!:bang::drunk:


oh and
grow the eff up people.

if 2 people love each other and want to start hucking, then they should go right ahead and huck. just remember that hucking a bike under 6 inches is no fun!:?::wave:


wait... what were we talking about again?

oh yeah... bikes!

 

That was another post. I think it was called:

"IH/Homer love. How wrong can it be?"