I think we all have spoke for that matter! ha ha

word!  the twinkie has spoken.

Yet the Virgin Mary remains sinless perfection right Twinkie?

 Focus on the family / PG and E has their right to  dip in to the funds for their causes. (well PG and E was not a private  company which was underhanded) As for me? I could careless what they do. I don't pay attention to them. I am even having my gas and electric being changed from PG and E to a cheaper better alternative company http://www.notopge.com  :)

Secular reason? hmmm because some strange people hate gay people,..there's your secular reason. and sadly i bet there is a lot out there.

You do know that some people think Bill  ahem William  helped write some of the bible,.I don't believe it but thought I'd throw it out there.

reply from daydreamer:

In this Prop 8 debate, I've read many different point of views on the subject. I've heard both sides arguement and the one that seems to stick out most from the side that support the passing of Prop 8 is that the word "marriage" shouldn't be changed to include homosexuals because from the very beginning the word marriage was about a man and a woman.


Let's have a look at this:

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs.


Thus the start of "marriage." If you research different cultures, every culture has a different tradition to how marriage was handled but the majority was based on the concept of securing "rules" around property rights, protection of bloodlines, etc. Thus marriage was a contract.


The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).


So, then the term "marriage" was said to have religious ties.


We go from marriage being a contract to becoming a sacrament.


So, in this day and age when we live in a country where there is supossed to be a seperation of church and state, we define the word marriage as only a religious term? Well, if that's the case, I think only those who go to church on a regular basis, were married in a church, who obey every single word of the bible and live their life according to the words of the bible, have the right to use the word marriage.

Scott and I were married outdoors in a secular ceremony, does this mean that I can not say I am married to him but that I am in a civil union with him? That Scott is not my husband but my domestic partner? Since neither of us are Christians and do not go to church, does this mean I shouldn't have the same marital rights as those who do go to church?

I mean, if you really start digging into the word marriage and all of the traditions that marriage comes with across the world, there is no way for any one set group of people to define it and claim rights to it.


One reason I think we need to change the way we define marriage is that in the days of old, homosexuality was not something people understood. It was something that you hid. People considered homosexuals sinners, sodomites, perverts, psychopaths. We didn't have the enlightenment, the science to understand it, the open-mindeness that we have today. Say back then, we knew all that we know now about homosexuality. That homosexuals are just like us. They are normal people who have lives just like we do except they love people of the same sex rather than the oppisite sex.

That being homosexual does not make you any more likely to be a child molester, a pervert, a sinner, a psychopath, or a bad person than a hetrosexual. That although two woman and two men can not produce offspring together, in todays world with science and fertility advancements, with adoption and the like, a gay couple can have children as well. So, pretend all of what we know now, we knew way back then when soceity was starting to secure an environment for the concept of marriage; do you think that the term marriage wouldn't have been used to include homosexual couples? (This is of course not making any room for people who still believe it is a moral issue). But just based on the facts of what the concept of marriage is, why wouldn't that be inclusive to homosexuals? I think it would have been. But the fact is, in the old days, they didn't know what we know now and so the concept of marriage was just assumed to be between a man and a woman. And this assumption does nothing, in my opinion, to secure the right to the use of the word marriage to define one man and one woman.


 

from a myspace buddy.. interesting perspective:

Call it something else perhaps? (prop8)

....that which we call a rose
      By any other name would smell as sweet;-Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet,

I know this is a quite controversial matter. But here goes. "Marriage" in a union between one man and one woman, ordained by God, and where chidren may be concieved. The bible does not state that "Gay people should not be married", however it does state be pure from sexual immorality ie: adultry, prostitution, homosexuality, fornication. This is not the point I'm making, so lets move on.

Changing the definition of a word in the name of rights is absurd. I don't believe those who voted yes on 8 are homophobic (scared of gay people) or hate homosexuals. I do not hate gay people, I don't dislike them. I voted yes on 8 (delete me now if you wish). I have friends/family who are gay. Elimination of anyones rights is wrong, including the "right" for two consenting adults to have a legal civil union recognized by the government in which they can receive certain benefits. I voted against the word "marriage" to be used to define a union between two same sex people. To demand a change to the definition of something that has existed since the beginning of time, in almost every country, culture and religion is wrong and I think it's discriminating against heterosexual couples to force this to be done. If the propositon had been to have a legal gay civil union in which homosexual couples could have a legal "wedding" ceremony to join in such a union to recieve the same rights/benefits and a "married" heterosexual couple (wich I do belive we already have) then I probably would have have voted for that.

Bashing of heterosexuals, Mormons, Christians, Catholics, even recently African American's for not submitting to the blatant force by homosexuals to change and therefore modify beliefs of marriage, is most definately HATE and DESCRIMINATION. To force a group of people to change what they believe is taking away freedom from those people. The requirements for marriage is one man and one woman. The requirements for a Civil Union can be any two consenting adults.

I was raised a Christian, I am still a Christian. I don't think I'm better than anyone else nor should I receive "rights" because of this. God created us all equal and all in his image. He loves us all. I don't believe he would condone anyone being hateful toward his creations. Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself. I say people forget this. But, in the religion I have chosen and that I believe in, says the union of "marriage" is between one man and one woman. I feel attacked that I should be forced to change that which I have always believed to be true.

A homosexual couple is "different" than a heterosexual couple in that one is the same sex and the other is opposite sex. It should be okay for their union to be named different.

Why can't we just do this?

going back to blogography for a second... another reason I love that blog is because everytime you go in there or click on "refresh" a new animated dave pops up. My favorite is the "Ugly Betty in the Guadalajara Poncho" Dave. Cracks me up. That guy has some talent! tee hee!!!

Right now he's got a great blog about Fox News and their "fair and balanced" news ... tee hee. My favorite part is his "Daveguard Internet Protection System" which you can check out by clicking HERE 

 I totally agree, Twink. Gay marriage doesn't compromise those who are married, will be married, or even the concept of marriage.

From a Christian's standpoint, I see what you're saying and I guess it sorta does make sense. But from a mom of four kids with bills to pay standpoint... WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THI NKING? LOL 

James Dobson and FOF will always take on anything they see as a threat to marriage and the family, as described in the Bible.  That is what they do, promote Christianity and family...being one man, one woman and their kids.  As long as there is a threat to what he believes in, no matter what state it is in, he will be there to fight it.

Personally, since I hold many of the same beliefs that he does, I applaud his dedication to protecting what he believes in.  He's willing to do whatever it takes to fight for his beliefs, regardless of the odds of success. 

As for the layoffs, as I am not personally involved and have no knowledge of it, I am just guessing that it was discussed among the employees and they knew it would be coming if they just dumped all their assets to fight for Prop 8, when he gets money back, I'm sure from donations across the country, he'll hire them back.  I'm not saying this positively, just that I think that is what is happening.

That is my opinion.... and you know what they say about opinions... :)

in other news... (again on the Focus on the Family group who by the way is an OUT OF STATE group that majorly helped fund the YES on 8 campaign.)

http://coloradoindependent....

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.



Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.
”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.


Ok, so why I am soooo obsessed over this group now? Well, because like I've tried to say here and other blogs, there is absolutely NO secular reason to have voted YES on 8. "Religious"? "Spiritual"? "Moral"? YES. "Secular"? NO!
 

hahah Tanner... I take it you clicked on the link? LOL   http://www.blogography.com/

I think that the Hard Rock is a GREAT excuse to travel throughout the world, don't you? Personally I'd base my traveling on strip clubs or  a band or something. But the Hard Rock has strippers (not working there, hanging out there) and live bands so hey.. that might kill two birds with one stone.

Seriously though. When Mr. and Mrs. Twinkie retire, we're planning on travelling the world to go watch a baseball game in EVERY SINGLE STADIUM in America. We'll also probably golf in those cities while we're at it.

Wait...there really are people that are into The Hard Rock Cafe?

No, Twink, we do not see eye to eye on some things, but at least we can disagree respectfully and not call each other names and tell each other that we're stupid.

I've disagreed with many things on the site, seen some outright lies being spoken for truths and people lying and being very deceiving to keep up some "image" they think they have... when someone knows the truth about who you ARE.. kind of lets the steam out of their arguments...

Showing people respect, even when they disagree with you, doesn't take anything away from your own point of view, it just means you can be respectful that someone else has a different one.  I wish more people would do that....

Thank you for at least agreeing with my main point, devilwoman. I know that you and I don't agree on this subject but at least you're able to see the point I was trying to make without taking away from your own personal belief!