Prop 8 & others

[scottmcneal]

I really hope you're joking...

Thats no JOKE sir.. They do eace:

 

[Boatwrench]

Yeah, Prop 2, what a piece of crap legislation that is.

 

[scottmcneal]

Yeah, Prop 2, what a piece of crap legislation that is.

See, i'm right..

 

[ehall]

what it means is the laws governing the people should not be based on religious beliefs

No it doesn't, it means that the federal government cannot establish a national church or enforce adherance to any specific religion(s). It does not prohibit people from following a religion of their choosing. In fact, the first amendment prohibits any such thing

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The constitution restricts the government, not the people. Those who would deny the people freedom of thought and the right to a voice in the society that they live under--especially on the grounds that they are not right-thinking people--are bare tyrants.

Anyway, prop 8 was an amendment to the California constitution and not a "law" that was passed by the state government.

 

[5-90]

Comments on the others?
· Arkansas
· Adoption: Initiative 1 would mandate that only married couples can adopt a child or be a foster parent of a minor.

Makes some small sense - cf. my comments on "marriage" in general. But, it sounds discriminatory also (one need not be married to have children naturally. And, would fosters/adopters lose the kids in the event of a divorce?)

· California
· Abortion: Proposition 4 would require a waiting period of 48 hours after parental notification before allowing a minor to terminate a pregnancy.

They're minors. Parents are responsible for them until they turn eighteen - there's no reason that they should be allowed to do anything like that until they're of age or emancipated by legal action. Full stop.

Colorado
· Affirmative Action: Amendment 46 would prohibit discrimination by the state or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Affirmative Action should have been thrown on the scrap heap of history twenty years ago. We've even better incentive to do so now (AA, "racial hiring quotae", and all of that stuff has amounted to "reverse discrimination" anyhow.)

· Rights For the Unborn: Amendment 48 would define the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

Seems to me this is still a question for philosophers. I tend to agree with the school of thought that it isn't an independent entity until it can live on its own with limited to no medical intervention - until then, it is (biologically speaking) a "parasite". Oh, that's going to get me sent right to Hell, if I didn't already have my reservation!:skull1:

Massachusetts
· Decriminalize Marijuana: Passage of Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

Remove penalties and decriminalise weed to begin with. Control in a similar manner to booze, and use the tax base to fund rehab programmes and the like. Penalties for DUI and related "influenced" problems, similar to booze. Revocation of "advanced" licenses for practise under the influence. No other civil or criminal penalty.

Michigan
· Medical Marijuana: A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions.

Which conditions? Would this include the amelioration of chronic pain? I know there are times I'd like to fire up a fattie - it's why I tend to drink so much (because I hurt. Lots of old fractures, lots of deep scars.) I know about the use medical cannabis for chemo patients and glaucoma, but what other conditions would apply?

· Stem Cell Research: Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to allow an expansion of the use of stem cells from human embryos for any research permitted under federal law (subject to certain provisions).

No opinion. More information needed.

Washington
· Allow Medical Suicide: Measure 1000 would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.


While the Hippocratic Oath starts with "Above all else, do no harm," I don't see how keeping someone alive for a miserable end would "do no harm" vice allowing them a more dignified, less painful, more controlled (or whatever) way out. Given a choice between inoperable cancer or an overdose of morphine, I think I'd take the morphine. This would be considerably less messy than checking out with a gun, a cliff, or a building - and more dignified as well.

(Comments in bold within quotation. Discuss.)

 

[n1ywb]

Which conditions? Would this include the amelioration of chronic pain? I know there are times I'd like to fire up a fattie - it's why I tend to drink so much (because I hurt. Lots of old fractures, lots of deep scars.) I know about the use medical cannabis for chemo patients and glaucoma, but what other conditions would apply?

In Cali all you need is a doctors recommendation for it. As you can probably imagine it's pretty easy to get a recommendation for just about anything you can dream up, and some docs set up shop across the street from the dispensary and pretty much charge a flat fee.

 

[GrimmJeeper]

Anyway, prop 8 was an amendment to the California constitution and not a "law" that was passed by the state government.

touche.

Those who would deny the people freedom of thought and the right to a voice in the society that they live under--especially on the grounds that they are not right-thinking people--are bare tyrants.

your logic is flawed, because this is a religious isuue, being voted on as part of the state constitution. it is not the states responsibility to enforce religious policy, which is why i brought up seperation in the first place. this issue belongs in the church, not on the CA ballot. this prop 8 is asking the CA govornment to enforce an idea that the church should be enforcing itself, if it is such a strong issue.

at the same time, i dont think its right that someone can attempt to sue the church for not being willing to grant marriage to someone outside thier belief system. we as a society have become far to concerned with other peoples buisness. what ever happened to "keep to yourself" ?? i know my parents, and thier parents, seemed alot happier not knowing WTF was going on with every facet of everyones lives around them. im sick of people trying to force thier opinions on others. our country was founded on the idea that everyone was equal, and able to lead thier own lives as they saw fit, without the government telling them how to do it. whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? that doesnt seem to matter too much anymore.

game over. we all lose.

all of this is a moot point, the measure has passed, there is no changing it. all this arguing is accomplishing is dissent among friends. im done with it. you are all entitled to your opinions, and i applaud you for expressing them, while you still can.

atriot:

 

[swbooking]

touche.

your logic is flawed, because this is a religious isuue, being voted on as part of the state constitution. it is not the states responsibility to enforce religious policy, which is why i brought up seperation in the first place. this issue belongs in the church, not on the CA ballot. this prop 8 is asking the CA govornment to enforce an idea that the church should be enforcing itself, if it is such a strong issue.

at the same time, i dont think its right that someone can attempt to sue the church for not being willing to grant marriage to someone outside thier belief system. we as a society have become far to concerned with other peoples buisness. what ever happened to "keep to yourself" ?? i know my parents, and thier parents, seemed alot happier not knowing WTF was going on with every facet of everyones lives around them. im sick of people trying to force thier opinions on others. our country was founded on the idea that everyone was equal, and able to lead thier own lives as they saw fit, without the government telling them how to do it. whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? that doesnt seem to matter too much anymore.

game over. we all lose.

all of this is a moot point, the measure has passed, there is no changing it. all this arguing is accomplishing is dissent among friends. im done with it. you are all entitled to your opinions, and i applaud you for expressing them, while you still can.

atriot:

I like your avatar, its funnay.

Johnsons says you look like Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

 

[WB9YZU]

if your opinion is afffecting the way of life of other people based on thier age/sex/religion/ethnicity/orientation then yes, i call that discrimination.

when did people start ignoring this: :dunno:

No one has. The intent of that law was to make sure that all people had access to medical care, housing, employment, and the basics of life without prejudice. It was never intended to be used as a crowbar to make Society accept what it considers a deviant behavior.

what about seperation of church and state? enacting a law, based on religious beliefs, goes against that very idea. the whole system is, for lack of a better word, fucked. law should have nothing to do with religion and religion should have nothing to do with law. passing a law that those of a certain sexual orientation cannot marry, is wrong. what blows me away is the fact that people that are for this proposition seem to ignore the similarity to the civil rights movement of the 60s. "you cant drink from this water fountain because you're not like me" sure sounds alot like "you can get married because you're not like me"

:dunno:

Religion has Everything to do with the law. Why? Because laws reflect what people believe is right and wrong and that goes to the heart of Religion.

The Separation of Church and State clause in the Bill of Rights has to do with the fact that the head of State in many European countries was the head of the Church, thus the State was under direct control of the Church, and visa versa. Separating the two allows people to govern themselves. That, however, does not divest laws of religion as most people believe in some form of religion and thus have a well defined sense of right and wrong, what is moral and what is not.

The fault in your logic concerning the sign is that the people affected are just like everyone else, and treated as such right up to the point where they make Society swallow their sexual proclivity. For some reason they believe that they are above Societal Taboos and insist that everyone accept them "Just the way they are". Well we have, but Society does not believe that should extend to a legal definition of "Marriage" to other than what was originally intended. The voters have spoken...twice.

 

[DrMoab]

As of yesterday I was all about this country being free of discrimination.

Now...I wonder if its really such a bad thing

(half ways tongue in cheek)

 

[IslanderOffRoad]

Medical Marijuana is bullshit. My brother got a card for a tummy ache.

Have you guys seen the marches tonight in West Hollywood and the Bay area?

 

[tharlanjr]

I voted Yes on 8
and Yes on 4

FWIW, a child is not a parasite, and if it is viewed that way, is a teenager not a parisite?

Are they not leeching off their parents till they are moved out and supporting themself?

Marriage is between a man, a woman and God.

 

[5-90]

I voted Yes on 8
and Yes on 4

FWIW, a child is not a parasite, and if it is viewed that way, is a teenager not a parisite?

Are they not leeching off their parents till they are moved out and supporting themself?

Marriage is between a man, a woman and God.

That's why I said biologically speaking...

A "parasite" is an organism that derives much or all of its resources to maintain its life from a host organism without providing any tangible biological benefit to its host organism.

A "symbiote" is an organism that derives much or all of its resources to maintain its life from a host organism while helping that host's survival - intestinal flora are a good example of this (they aid in our digestion while deriving nutrition from the food passing through our digestive tract. Ever wonder why your guts go all stupid when you're on antibiotics? The broad-spectrum antibiotics in typical use also kill intestinal flora - maintain a daily dose of acidophilus while on antibiotics for for 1-2 weeks after to minimise or eliminate this. Yoghurt can also help.)

Is a teenager a "parasite" or a "symbiote", biologically speaking? Depends on the teenager, I'd say - if they help out around the house and free up other household members for tasks, then they are (biologically speaking) symbiotic. If they do not, but we feed, clothe, house, and treat them anyhow - they're parasitic.

Why did I call a foetus "parasitic?" They derive their entire nutritive and growth support from the mother without providing a benefit to the mother in return. At least, not for several years. The mother ("host organism") goes through GI distress, low back and leg pain, mild to moderate blood loss during birth, calcium for bones and teeth is leached from the mother into the developing foetus (which is why many women end up with dental trouble after having had a kid or two, unless they're lucky or take calcium supplements,) and the like - but the foetus provides nothing for the mother in return. By definition, "parasitic."

Recall that I am speaking literally and scientifically, so let's not get emotion involved here. Wrong context.

"A big argument to-day is the viability of a foetus, and the point at which abortion goes from being a 'medical procedure' to 'murder'. Many points of view exist, but none so long-minded as the Jews; as they do not believe a foetus is viable until it has graduated from medical school." I don't recall the comic (although I believe he is/was a Jew,) but it kinda shows the differing philosophies that we have to contend with on this point if we're ever to get anywhere - and does so with some truth and some humour (but more humour than truth, I'd say.)

 

[Bent]

it cracks me up when people tell me prop 8 is not discrimination. last time i checked, telling someone they cant do something because they are different than you was discrimination.

So a drug addict should be able to buy dope because he's different than the majority of people. A life style choice is a lifestyle choice and there is no way around that. Genetic pre-disposition? Yup, the addict has one.

 

[IslanderOffRoad]

I voted Yes on 8
and Yes on 4

FWIW, a child is not a parasite, and if it is viewed that way, is a teenager not a parisite?

Are they not leeching off their parents till they are moved out and supporting themself?

Marriage is between a man, a woman and God.

I know lots of teenagers and even adults who are parasites!

 

[0313]

This thread is pretty damn gay. I say we vote to have it taken off the forums.

I am so sick of this equal rights crap. I say we just take away the privileges gained from being married. If it is a union between a man and a woman and GOD why are their tax, insurance, health and many more benefits gained from it? Not that I am for gay unions in any way, I say we take away the benefits from being married and then see where the gays stand. Either way, I am glad to see the gays have to spend more money to fight a silly battle.

And Knowing California, their gov will just turn it over again, making the people vote not count, again.

 

[0313]

I did a repost of my own comment. Gay I know, but it happens.

And another thing, I am sick of all this gay pride, your little parades and stickers.
Who said you could have the rainbow anyways?
What does light refracting off water droplets have to do with being gay?
Or gods promise to never flood the earth again?


I think being gay is evil, if everyone were to be gay it would be self defeating. We would wipe ourselves out.
Oh but that bring up the we can artificially make babies, moot point, if that didn't exist it would destroy us.
Anything that has a negative impact if everyone were to do it is evil.

Take murder, if everyone were to murder we would wipe ourselves out. Making murder evil.

Now I am not comparing being gay to murder, but the end results are the same.

Thanks, Flame on.
(kind of a pun going on there too)

 

[IslanderOffRoad]

This thread is pretty damn gay. I say we vote to have it taken off the forums.

I am so sick of this equal rights crap. I say we just take away the privileges gained from being married. If it is a union between a man and a woman and GOD why are their tax, insurance, health and many more benefits gained from it? Not that I am for gay unions in any way, I say we take away the benefits from being married and then see where the gays stand. Either way, I am glad to see the gays have to spend more money to fight a silly battle.

And Knowing California, their gov will just turn it over again, making the peoples vote not count, again.

not as gay as your double post!

 

[GSequoia]

I think being gay is evil...

You had a bad experience in a truck stop bathroom, didn't you Cody?

 

[Darky]

what it means is the laws governing the people should not be based on religious beliefs, but equal representation for everyone. this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in europe, in case you forgot that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution establishes that there shall be no law establishing a state religion, not that you can't make a law based on a religious belief.