Quote:
Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."

Quote:

Or how about stealing or murder (except for fetuses of course,

Quote:
This is such nonsense.  You currently live under a judicial system that is steeped in religious belief.

What for instance is the basis of laws against prostitution?  To promote better health?

Or laws against bigamy, or marrying minors.

Or how about stealing or murder (except for fetuses of course, that's perfectly OK, and protected by  a fantasy right to privacy entirely manufactured by the courts).

The entire judicial system in this country (and practically all others) has it's root in religious dogma.

Quote:
Unicus,

You are entitled to your opinion as to what the US constitution requires but so far the courts in most states do not agree. The notion that there was a right to gay marriage in the California consitution all along and it was just discovered now is ridiculous. Extending your arguments to their logical conclusion would mean that all laws that treat people differently are illegal. We discriminate in our society all the time

Quote:
-- the basic reality is that marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and those that seek to legalize gay marriage are seeking to change that definition.

Quote:
Just like it is impossible for a man to "marry" another man. In order to make it possible you have to redefine the term - men and women (gay or straight) all have equal rights to marry right now -- what redefining marriage is about is granting greater rights than are currently available (the right to marry a same sex partner).

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I'm voting a resounding YES because of MY religious beliefs and NOT because of any "party Line".  If anyone can't accept THAT then there's nothing more to be said.

But isn't that imposing your religious beliefs onto others?

Absolutely. The Lord said to love and forgive the sinner, not the sin. I'm just trying to help those that won't help themselves .

I can't see the sinner? Are you someone who thinks that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation - rather than it just being what they are born with?

If it's not a choice then how could they 'help themselves'? If it was a choice then why do we find animals that are homosexual in the wild - are they making a choice as well?

Quote:
The body of evidence that homosexuality is not a "choice" is now significant so there is no real argument against it IMO.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I would vote NO were I living in California. if the gays want to be MARRIED let them go to Belgium.

Skip

FYI

Prop 8:

Voting NO means you are for Gay Marriage in California.
Voting YES changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

Homosexuality is not against the law however, in case you weren't aware, homosexual activity is still against the law in many states.

What's against the law is irrelevant anyway.  There are lots of things that are immoral which are not illegal!

Actually Hal, Lawrence vs. Texas put an end to those laws.  They contrevene the US constitution and are therefore null and void.

Quote:
The notion that there is something improper with a legal system based on religous belief than with one based on secular beliefs is absurd. All laws are about imposing a system of beliefs on someone else. The reason we vote is so that the laws imposed reflect the will of the majority.

Whether a law outlawing bestiality is based on religious "dogma" or cruelty to animals is irrelevant to those who wish to practice bestiality. In either case the views of the majority are being imposed on the minority. This is the case with all laws. In some cases someone with a religious basis for a law might very well agree with someone who is an atheist -- one example one presumes would be murder.

Does the fact that the laws against murder are religiously based for some people make it a less legitimate law than if the only reason was secular? Does lmoelleb's presumed suppport for laws against murder mean he is imposing religious beliefs of mine on others? Do non-religious people have a right to require that any law pass muster with them as before being applied?

The issue is whether the proposed law itself is something you agree with or disagree with. Whether people are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons or secular reasons (I have a friend who is very atheistic and politically liberal but opposes gay marriage) is not the issue. The demonizing of those with religious convictions and who actually act on the convictions (gasp!) is a red herring pushed by those with anti-religious bigotry in their hearts. It is designed to delfect from the real debate about whether gay marriage should be legal or not.

If you can't convince people on the merits then just belittle them and claim they cannot "impose their views" on others. The misdirection of such an argument is obvious -- every law invariably imposes the views of those who support on those that don't.

Imposing explicitily religious beliefs is forbidden by the constitution -- whether some religious people would support it or not -- people cannot be forced to pray to Jesus. That is "imposing" a religious belief. Basing your support for a law that is not neccessarily religious in nature -- outlawing prostitution for example is not imposing religious belief but it is imposing your view of morality which everyone does when they vote for or support a particular law.

By the way in my personal opinion my religious dogma prevents me from imposing my beliefs on others. The Bible makes it clear that God granted people free will - in other words the right to not believe in him or follow his word -- God does not want people to be forced to worship him but he does expect me to support the moral code he has given me. I will not force people to pray or follow Jesus but I do have the right to support laws that agree with my morality whatever its source. Just as everyone does.

Brian