Happy Atheist Forum

it passed with a shameful 51% yesterday, banning gay marriage in california, and taking away rights of people whom already have gay marriage. It's a stinging loss to compare with our victory with Obama. I'm too stunned for words.

Quote from: "Stoicheion"it passed with a shameful 51% yesterday, banning gay marriage in california, and taking away rights of people whom already have gay marriage. It's a stinging loss to compare with our victory with Obama. I'm too stunned for words.

I’m relieved, I thought they were trying to ban straight marriage. I feel much better about it now.  

Yup... all of the gay marriage ban proposals passed in each state that had them.  I'm embarrassed to be an American.  It is indeed a sting compared with Obama being elected.

How can they justify their outright intolerance and bigotry in the name of their god?  It's astounding.

We feel like it's time to call a spade and spade, speak out, call them ignorant and be forthright about it.  They have no problem telling us how wrong we are... why must we stand for this?  I'm sick of always turning the other cheek and allowing them to stomp and trample our rights until we have none.

The hubby will not go to my mom's house for Christmas and wants to keep the Kid from going as well... because she voted yes on Prop 8.  I feel sad, but I support his decision.  She needs to know that her stance is morally wrong and if it means depriving her of her grandchild for the holiday, so be it.  (Yes, even as I type that, it seems wrong, but I know it's the right thing to do... life is short and depriving someone of their right to marry is just as wrong.  We must fight fire with fire.)

perhaps there will be another bill in reaction to it sometime in the near future. People in California, Massachusetts, and (that other state) already had the right to marry the same sex, so its taking a right away which they already had. I could perhaps understand a little better if they banned it from states that DON'T have it legal yet but what they've done is ridiculous. I really want to do something about this. The GBLT community is (hopefully) going to fight back against this to overturn it.

I'm pansexual, and marriage is unappealing to me, but as an clearminded individual, this is wrong. Something has to be done, letters have to be written, phone calls to be made, etc. I won't stand for this.

I'm tired of the religious right poking their noses into other people's business.  I was under the impression that California was composed mostly of liberals who valued civil liberties...I guess I was wrong.

Maybe it's time for a compromise where we call state marriages "Civil Marriages" or "Civil Unions" and let churches claim the word marriage and decide if they want to marry homosexuals or not.  Those of us who are more mature know that it's just a word and that the commitment is what should be valued.  Of course, I hate to compromise with the unreasonable.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I'm tired of the religious right poking their noses into other people's business.  I was under the impression that California was composed mostly of liberals who valued civil liberties...I guess I was wrong.

Yup, me too... I was so sure it would pass.  I'm not even IN the state!  Joe wants to cancel our trip to visit my mom for Christmas because she voted in favor of Prop 8.  He's fighting intolerance with intolerance.  I'm standing by, waiting to see if his mad will subside.  I told him if we don't go to mom's for the holiday, HE will call her to tell her.  She'll be devastated, and so will the kid.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Maybe it's time for a compromise where we call state marriages "Civil Marriages" or "Civil Unions" and let churches claim the word marriage and decide if they want to marry homosexuals or not.  Those of us who are more mature know that it's just a word and that the commitment is what should be valued.  

I've been saying that for years.  Let the religious nutjobs have their word, if that's their (latest) big hangup.    Call it cocoapuffs... I don't care.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Of course, I hate to compromise with the unreasonable.

Yup... that's where we are.  They want to be unreasonable... so will I.  Fight fire with fire.

What I really don't understand is how, exactly, they believe gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage. I don't care if you marry a horse. It has no effect on the legitimacy or legality of my marriage. I have gay friends who have been married forever. They are no threat to anyone but those religious morons who fear everything they cannot wrap their tiny, tiny brains around.

I'm pissed!

 I just don't get it.  How can people vote against a beautiful expression of love and call themselves morally superior?  *Love* for ****'s sake!

Some of California is extremely liberal; Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, North LA... but some of California is deeply conservative. Riverside makes Texas look like France. Sam with Modoc. There are some very deeply backward people here, and many of them resent California being portrayed as liberal so they move even farther right.

Mormons have moved from a mostly benign group of assholes to my active problem list. They donated millions upon millions of dollars to Yes on 8, even though there aren't even 700,000 Mormons in California (out of 35m Californians). It's unacceptable. I plan on donating to every liberal measure that comes up in Utah for the next 50 years.

If marriage is a sacred institution granted by god... when will they be coming after atheists for getting married?  Yes, we're one man and one woman, but if I don't believe in god, won't that threaten the sanctity of their marriage as well?

Gotta ponder that one...

Quote from: "rlrose328"If marriage is a sacred institution granted by god... when will they be coming after atheists for getting married?  Yes, we're one man and one woman, but if I don't believe in god, won't that threaten the sanctity of their marriage as well?

Gotta ponder that one...

No need to ponder it at all. That's exactly what they think and why they hate us! Well, partially why they hate us.  

Way to stereotype people who hate gays as religious only.

I believe in evolution, I believe in genetics.

Being gay is not ok, it is not normal. Born with it? So what. Retarded people are born retarded also.
We must preserve the species. Being gay goes against everything, and no we are not overpopulated(speaking for the white race, which makes 7% of the world population).

Being gay is a disease, and we should kill all gays at childhood.

Seriously, why are you letting sympathy get in the way of progression?

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Way to stereotype people who hate gays as religious only.

I believe in evolution, I believe in genetics.

Being gay is not ok, it is not normal. Born with it? So what. Retarded people are born retarded also.
We must preserve the species. Being gay goes against everything, and no we are not overpopulated(speaking for the white race, which makes 7% of the world population).

Being gay is a disease, and we should kill all gays at childhood.

Seriously, why are you letting sympathy get in the way of progression?

Can someone ban this fucking idiot please?

Quote from: "karadan"Can someone ban this fucking idiot please?

Again agreed, he's not (by my definition at least) a troll but he is a serious a**wipe!

Kyu

Hey Curio, where's your Permabanned clip?

Quote from: "Stoicheion"Hey Curio, where's your Permabanned clip?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages35.fotki.com%2Fv1198%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fbanned_permabanned-vi.gif&hash=31b279d58f3d20480697adf766d563888d23d067)

I'm here to please.

LOLz what movie is that from?

Quote from: "Stoicheion"LOLz what movie is that from?

Probably 21 Jump Street, though I have no idea what episode. Aren't the internets fun?  

I'll raise my glass in disappointment as well, Act 1 passed in Arkansas.  It is a ban against unwed or/or cohabitating people from adopting or fostering a child.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I'll raise my glass in disappointment as well, Act 1 passed in Arkansas.  It is a ban against unwed or/or cohabitating people from adopting or fostering a child.

That's rediculous.  

Yup, they knew they couldn't get away with banning gays from adopting, so they went with unmarried couples.  Because we know that having a married mom and dad guarantees all children will be straight and problem-free, right?   :rant:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftoppun.com%2FGay-Lesbian-Pride%2FI-Love-Straight-People-Ones-Having-Gay-Babies.gif&hash=eb3c406a0688955e55991032628a4a0c56796e55)

What the hell?  :mad:

Thank God that a persecuted minority has finally had its rights taken away. If they are allowed to get married, they'll think they're equal to the straight folks! *sarcasm*

This past election, it was almost like the religious right expected that the Republicans would not win the presidency with the low approval of the Bush administration.  They poured their energy and money into social issues on the ballots around the country, much of the money coming through churches that should have their tax exempt status seriously questioned.   It is fine if a church does not want to perform gay marriages within their walls, but it a much different matter when they directly affect the state constitution.  I know someone in Salt Lake City who is working with a group trying to challenge the tax exempt status of the Mormon church, although I think it is mostly symbolic since the Mormons have huge financial resources to fight back.

These same religious groups would gladly ban atheist marriage and atheist adoption if they could get away with it, but gays are an easier target because they can use the "it's a lifestyle choice", "cannot procreate", and "threat to children" angles.  It amazes me that so much money is spent by churches to take away other Americans' rights and to take adopted children away from gay parents and foster homes.  It just seems insane, but I'm "preaching to the choir" here.  I have not been much of an activist in the past, but crap like this makes me want to become more active fighting churches that cross the church-state boundary.  Unfortunately atheists and like minded people aren't as coordinated and don't have the resources that the religious organizations have.

Oh, and that "permabanned" animated GIF is hilarious.  

The bizarre thing about this is, my mum is as staunchly atheist as i am. We share the same beliefs and principals and i agree with almost everything she says...

But...

She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

It is a strange contradiction.

I, of course, think that people should be allowed to do what the hell they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If they want to get married, good for them!

However, Is there something to debate on a same sex couple bringing up a child? Is there possible psychological ramifications down the line, or not? Is there a biological imperative inbuilt within humans to respond accordingly to nurturement from a man and woman and not two men or two women? Or are humans far more mutable and able to deal with situations like this more effectively than we give ourselves credit?

The only reason i ask is that we've evolved over millions of years and throughout that time, traditionally, kids have been brought up by a male and female. Is our ability to mature correctly based purely on our senses and the input we receive through them or is there something within our genes which recognises the mother and father as the support we need.

I'm just throwing this out there. it doesn't necessarily represent how i actually feel.

Quote from: "karadan"However, Is there something to debate on a same sex couple bringing up a child? Is there possible psychological ramifications down the line, or not? Is there a biological imperative inbuilt within humans to respond accordingly to nurturement from a man and woman and not two men or two women? Or are humans far more mutable and able to deal with situations like this more effectively than we give ourselves credit?

The only reason i ask is that we've evolved over millions of years and throughout that time, traditionally, kids have been brought up by a male and female. Is our ability to mature correctly based purely on our senses and the input we receive through them or is there something within our genes which recognises the mother and father as the support we need.

As far as I know, the whole 'one man one woman' raising a child thing is comparatively recent (we're talking thousands of years here maximum, not millions).  In more primitive hunter-gatherer times the great bulk of child rearing would have fallen on the mother alone for the breast feeding stage, and then quite possibly older members of the tribe (with closer relatives being the most likely) sharing the burden after that.  Every able bodied adult of child-bearing age  would have been required to be out all day either hunting or gathering (along with the kids as soon as they could manage it).  And I don't know that couples who had a child together would necessarily have stayed together either.  Only 7% of mammals are monogamous (as opposed to 90% of birds).  The relatively high incidence of extra-marital affairs in human society - despite social monogamy long being accepted as the 'norm' - would also indicate that monogamy may not have been the original human state, i.e. it's culture rather than evolution that is responsible.  

The evolution of monogamy is a fascinating subject in its own right.

Cool. I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying it for me.  

Quote from: "karadan"She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

I saw something on TV a year or two ago that there are some historical records of same sex marriage being performed by some Christian churches in Europe in the distant past, before the "traditional" version that we are familiar with today.  A quick search on Google finds this link (http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html).  So "tradition" is dependent on how wide or narrow, culturally and historically, one considers traditional to be.

Here's an excellent editorial from Keith Olbermann about Prop 8 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/).

Quote from: "crocofish"

Quote from: "karadan"She doesn't believe gay people should be allowed to get legally married. This isn't from a religious standpoint but from a traditional one. Traditionally, gay people haven't got married therefore they shouldn't be allowed. She isn't homophobic so i can't really understand her stance. I try to ask her why she feels this way and she just shrugs and says "it is just wrong. Marriage should be for a man and a woman."

I saw something on TV a year or two ago that there are some historical records of same sex marriage being performed by some Christian churches in Europe in the distant past, before the "traditional" version that we are familiar with today.  A quick search on Google finds this link (http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html).  So "tradition" is dependent on how wide or narrow, culturally and historically, one considers traditional to be.

Here's an excellent editorial from Keith Olbermann about Prop 8 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/).

Cool! I can now tell my mum she is being silly and back up my statements with fact.

But guyyyyyyyyys, we haven't heard what good ol' Chrisy has to say about proposition 8.

[youtube:23zvyr5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NRn4TWyUm0[/youtube:23zvyr5c]

It ain't over 'till the transgendered lady sings.

Some good points in that video, but the style makes it all look and sound rather silly.

Well, I'm not gay, so prop 8 doesn't affect me, but damn, those poor, poor, gay people. We're going to have to go through that same persecution eventually.

Ahh, don't worry. I'm pretty sure they can bring sharia law, and you won't have to worry about Prop 8.