Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: jtsunami on August 04, 2010, 01:53:19 PM
-
WHAHOAHOAHOAHAOA YESSS this is great news, we are going to win the battle. What a glorious day the federal judge makes a great decision about the stupid voter approved ban HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Gay marriage will win and will be the law all over USA eventually.
Celebrate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
this is what a couple should look like !!
(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2010/08/anderson-cooper-ben-maisani-taxi.jpg)
-
Epic separation of church and state.
Marriage is primarily a religious deal.
I dont know what right the Federal court has to overturn a VOTER decided ban. That is pretty ghetto.
Seems like the government is saying "fuck you voters, we do what we want." more and more.
-
Epic separation of church and state.
Marriage is primarily a religious deal.
I dont know what right the Federal court has to overturn a VOTER decided ban. That is pretty ghetto.
Seems like the government is saying "fuck you voters, we do what we want." more and more.
your incorrect.
-
this is great news
-
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.
The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
they cant reproduce ???
mankind is doomed. growth curve cant stay ahead of death curve.
(http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1224/401pxmiriam5ju6.jpg)/
i might be willing to make except with guy marrying miriam (no homo)
-
they cant reproduce ???
mankind is doomed. growth curve cant stay ahead of death curve.
(http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1224/401pxmiriam5ju6.jpg)/
i might be willing to make except with guy marrying miriam (no homo)
Gay people may be the only thing that can save this earth, it is over populated, what do you mean the death curve, this earth is getting more and more people by the day, we need less people. Gay people will save the world from disaster. People are living longer and not dying of disease, over crowding the earth, bad news.
-
your incorrect.
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
-
What a fucked up country. Millions of people vote against but get ruled against by a single judge. HAHAHA. How does this fucking retard country let this happen.
-
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
this isn't about religion, it is about equal rights. Marriage is a legally binding agreement. As far as the state is concerned a marriage is a marriage. The state should not tell the citizens who they can or cannot marry. Equal rights again.
Many non religious people get married shockwave, again forget the religous part, actually religion is on it's way out people have started to wake up and see it is just a tool used to control mass populations into a favorable behavior pattern to control them.
Let the meltdowns ensure of the crazy religous nuts :)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
check out the comments section :) :) religious ppl are funny ;D
-
I didn't vote on prop 8 I don't care much either wa, but still kind of fucked up that a judge can over rule the will of the people.
-
I live in CA and don't really care either way, but there just seems to be something wrong with overturning a law that was voted on and won by a majority of people. I mean why even have elections any more when one person can overturn a law voted on by millions? I would prefer they put the law up again to vote for the public to decide.
I love living in CA, but as a conservative (I'm not from ca) it's weird that everyone here is so liberal and believes they are in the majority and have this superiority complex (thus the name "progressives") that they are forward thinking people and everyone who doesn't share their beliefs are ignorant.
Then you go to somewhere like San Francisco where guys parade in the street wearing fishnets and thongs and everyone smokes weed freely on every corner. Yeah, that is the "progressive" thinking America I want to live in.
Bottom line is we placed this issue to a vote and the people have spoken. If they want to contest it, put it on a ballot again and vote. That is how things should be done in America.
-
your incorrect.
oh the irony
-
California really has it together.
Now, work on your finances, high taxes, traffic, and goofy liberals...and you'll be all set.
We get it. You nail your buddy's ass, and want a tax break...BRAVO! ::)
Imagine if they pulled this bullshit back in the 50's. You'd get a slap in the face and thrown in jail, then laughed at.
People need to quit this pussy mentality and start "keepin it real".
Only in America are people uptight about second hand smoke, but pushing for 2 men to be joined together legally.
Speaking of which, California banned smoking in even bars years back. What a bunch of fuck ups.
-
Any pro gay marriage law will get overturned in the near future when we have Muslim-majority populations in Western nations.
jtsunami - Native Western populations (primarily white Europeans and people of European descent in the US) are actually well below birth replacement rates. Japan and Israel are looking this in the face right now in regards to their populations. If you are so concerned for the world's population figures, then educate the Third World to stop having broods of children and sending them to be financial burdens on the industrialized nations.
Embracing homosexuality as a social norm, crushing tax rates, free trade, global economy, and liberalism in general have all greatly contributed to declining birth rates of people of contributing societies, all in the name of "progression" and "equal rights." Meanwhile, the unwashed, uneducated masses of the third world pour through its borders.
This has been seen before.
-
The reason Azn Muslce it was over turned is because it was deemed unconstitutional, by the 14th amendment. So the people voted to put an illegal law on the books, wrong! Nice try, but the people are not always right. Conservatives want the best of both worlds, but if you want to live by the constitution, equal rights is part of it, you can't pick and choose. Gay marriage all the way !!!!!!!!!! luv it :D
-
Any pro gay marriage law will get overturned in the near future when we have Muslim-majority populations in Western nations.
jtsunami - Native Western populations (primarily white Europeans and people of European descent in the US) are actually well below birth replacement rates. Japan and Israel are looking this in the face right now in regards to their populations. If you are so concerned for the world's population figures, then educate the Third World to stop having broods of children and sending them to be financial burdens on the industrialized nations.
Embracing homosexuality as a social norm, crushing tax rates, free trade, global economy, and liberalism in general have all greatly contributed to declining birth rates of people of contributing societies, all in the name of "progression" and "equal rights." Meanwhile, the unwashed, uneducated masses of the third world pour through its borders.
This has been seen before.
we can do without israel, glad to hear their birthrate is going down, soon superior Arab males will over take them in a glorious day of huge encounters. Cleansing this earth once and for all.
-
The reason Azn Muslce it was over turned is because it was deemed unconstitutional, by the 14th amendment. So the people voted to put an illegal law on the books, wrong! Nice try, but the people are not always right. Conservatives want the best of both worlds, but if you want to live by the constitution, equal rights is part of it, you can't pick and choose. Gay marriage all the way !!!!!!!!!! luv it :D
As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do. Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on. CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.
The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives. Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority? Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care? Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence? Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars? The list goes on.
I guess we can agree to disagree friend.
-
As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do. Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on. CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.
The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives. Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority? Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care? Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence? Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars? The list goes on.
I guess we can agree to disagree friend.
Agreed. I dont know why anyone bothers to argue with Jt, its clear either hes a gimmick, or he just gets off and saying the radical things he says to get a rise.
Bottom line is, the government has been taking rights away more and more, and its like someone else said, while the "civilised people" are trying to be civilised, the rest of the world is is laughing at their "civility" and breeding them out. We dont learn from past mistakes, and were damned to repeat them. Its only a matter of time. Hopefully Ill be dead.
BTW Jt, you should be upset by this, once the 3rd world countries outbreed us, all those "progressives" pushing for your gay rights will be dead and you guys wil start getting stoned and murdered again. lol.
-
Our founding father would never stand for Gay Marriage.The men who signed the declaration of Indepedence would have never allowed a man and a man, or a woman and a woman to get married.
I beleive people can do what they want, but if a gay person wants to get married, they should make there own form of marriage or union.Why do we have to except it.
If they want t be gay, and be with some one of the same sex, they can that is there right.But our founding fathers and most of the country, would not lik,e this.SO they should move to another country, or create there own form of matromoney.Why can they just make there vows to each other? Why do they need to bring in all this riff raff?The gays shouldnt fight, us, just come up with there own form of marriage, that they recognize.All that matters is that it is recognized by them, not by us right?
This way, they have there own martial bond and we can stay out of there lives
-
I dont understand why the government can change the definition of something that was primarily a religious union.
I dont believe they shouldnt have a form of Union, but marriage, I dont believe in.
More disturbing is the fact that the govenment has just decided, well, we dont like the way you voted, so we are gonna go ahead and change it.
Besides, if CALI of all places voted against gay marriage, 90% of the rest of the states will too. Cali is one of, if not the most liberal and progressive state in the country.
-
WHAHOAHOAHOAHAOA YESSS this is great news, we are going to win the battle. What a glorious day the federal judge makes a great decision about the stupid voter approved ban HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Gay marriage will win and will be the law all over USA eventually.
Celebrate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D
this is what a couple should look like !!
(http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2010/08/anderson-cooper-ben-maisani-taxi.jpg)
so tsunami, you can tie the knot now.
-
Very sad and disturbing.
This openly homosexual judge can step and stomp on what has already been voted for by the people of California.
-
The ruling was made by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country.
-
The ruling was made by U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country.
Seems like thats a conflict of interest, how can he be allowed to single handedly overrule something that the voters voted for? Something foul is afoot. ???
-
Vaughn
-
I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well.
-
I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well.
I see your point, but dont you see something wrong with someone who is openly gay in a position of power using that power to push his viewpoint against the will of the voters?
Just wondering.
-
I see your point, but dont you see something wrong with someone who is openly gay in a position of power using that power to push his viewpoint against the will of the voters?
Just wondering.
But..if an openly heterosexual ruled against it.. what is the difference there? Found an article from 2003 regarding similar cases which addresses the majority isn't always right issue..
« Voting in the Mainstream PressAn Epiphany: We Technologists Don’t Always Get It »The Majority is Not Always Right
Filed under: General — November 19, 2003 @ 2:23 pm
It’s easy to forget that, in a democratic process, most decisions are not made by the majority. The people choose representatives, and the representatives make decisions. Furthermore, the courts can overrule the simple majority of representatives if a decision conflicts with prior principle (say, the Constitution).
The majority simply can’t be trusted to make the right decisions all the time.
This week, Massachusetts judges struck down a ban on gay marriage. Conservative circles are screaming that the judges failed to respect the will of the people, because the majority of US citizens polled oppose gay marriage. The best response comes from Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign:
“If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.”
(taken from a CNN article)
There are more examples of this. The French government abolished the death penalty when 65% of the population still supported it. Today, more than 20 years later, less than 40% of French citizens support a return to the death penalty.
A government that follows the majority opinion at all times is a government that trails public trends. We elect government officials not so they can take the public’s temperature every hour and spit out a statistically correct average. We elect government officials who have a certain vision of the future and a reasonable way of getting there. We trust them to work hard at this vision, to tell us how they’re progressing, and, if they fail, we punish them by not reelecting them.
The majority makes decisions of high-level principle. Once those principles are in place, a complex system of checks and balances gears up to implement them while preventing the majority from screwing it up. It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but it’s a damn good system.
-
But..if an openly heterosexual ruled against it.. what is the difference there? Found an article from 2003 regarding similar cases which addresses the majority isn't always right issue..
« Voting in the Mainstream PressAn Epiphany: We Technologists Don’t Always Get It »The Majority is Not Always Right
Filed under: General — November 19, 2003 @ 2:23 pm
It’s easy to forget that, in a democratic process, most decisions are not made by the majority. The people choose representatives, and the representatives make decisions. Furthermore, the courts can overrule the simple majority of representatives if a decision conflicts with prior principle (say, the Constitution).
The majority simply can’t be trusted to make the right decisions all the time.
This week, Massachusetts judges struck down a ban on gay marriage. Conservative circles are screaming that the judges failed to respect the will of the people, because the majority of US citizens polled oppose gay marriage. The best response comes from Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign:
“If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote. The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.”
(taken from a CNN article)
There are more examples of this. The French government abolished the death penalty when 65% of the population still supported it. Today, more than 20 years later, less than 40% of French citizens support a return to the death penalty.
A government that follows the majority opinion at all times is a government that trails public trends. We elect government officials not so they can take the public’s temperature every hour and spit out a statistically correct average. We elect government officials who have a certain vision of the future and a reasonable way of getting there. We trust them to work hard at this vision, to tell us how they’re progressing, and, if they fail, we punish them by not reelecting them.
The majority makes decisions of high-level principle. Once those principles are in place, a complex system of checks and balances gears up to implement them while preventing the majority from screwing it up. It’s a bit counter-intuitive, but it’s a damn good system.
The fact is that both hetero and homosexuals voted. The judge used his position of power to push his agenda. And the bolded part tells me, that a governmental official is supposed to push his vision of the future regardless of what the population of the country they were elected to represent thinks. I dont know about you, but I dont elect officials to tell us what we want. Equal rights, its not like this is somehing that is going to hold them back from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they just want something that was traditionally a religious thing for themselves. Thats all it is. Theyre saying, those religious people have it and we want it.
-
The fact is that both hetero and homosexuals voted. The judge used his position of power to push his agenda. And the bolded part tells me, that a governmental official is supposed to push his vision of the future regardless of what the population of the country they were elected to represent thinks. I dont know about you, but I dont elect officials to tell us what we want. Equal rights, its not like this is somehing that is going to hold them back from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they just want something that was traditionally a religious thing for themselves. Thats all it is. Theyre saying, those religious people have it and we want it.
I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]
In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]
Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"
-
Open monogamy
What gays can teach straights about marriage, according to some people.
Of all the things that Tom and Tina Average might want for their marriage, one they have quite likely never thought of is innovation. It is the kind of word they might look for in the home improvement pages of the weekend paper or on their favourite consumer website, but not in a marriage guidance brochure.
Yet California author Joe Quirk, for one, believes that “traditional American marriage is in crisis” and a new look is what it needs. What does he have in mind? For a start, “insights” from married gay and lesbian couples. Interviewed by the New York Times, Quirk argues that, “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”
If you are you wondering what kind of brave new marriage that would be, two recent studies give us an inkling of what to expect.
The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.
Proponents of “marriage equality” sing their refrain over and over: “Our relationships are just the same as yours.”
Not even close. While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships.
(Note that we are talking about male homosexual relationships here. Research on lesbian couples is sparse but one study finds that 20 per cent of lesbians pursue open relationships.)
But what of the roughly 45 per cent of gay relationships that, according to the study, do claim monogamy? Their relationships should yield insights applicable to traditional opposite-sex marriages, right?
Not likely. Any apparent similarity between gay relationships and heterosexual couples disappears once it becomes clear what “monogamy” means in the gay paradigm. A 2010 study from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship.
How’s that, again?
The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples.
“All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating.” Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as “cheating” as long as it was “compartmentaliz[ed], which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants’ ability to manage sex outside the relationship.”
Where does that leave us? Using the conservative figures from the Gay Couples Study, at least half of gay relationships don’t accept monogamy. But those that do, probably mean gay-style monogamy, which allows outside sex as long as it is “open” and any emotional attachment is to the committed partner. The gay relationship model, then, allows each partner to pursue as much sex with as many people as desired, as long as the outside relationships are “safe,” emotionally detached, and transparent.
Think of the gay narrative, expressed in news stories, TV interviews, and court documents, that movingly tell of gay couples who have been “together” for 10, 15, 20 years and want to be married, just like straight couples. The heterosexual frame of reference assumes that, for gay couples, committed and long-term relationships embrace sexual exclusivity, the norm for opposite-sex couples. And surveys that show growing popular support for same-sex marriage rely on that same public misperception.
The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and “open” sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever.
"It's a redefinition of marriage” says Blake Spears, a researcher and partner in one such relationship, to mean “emotional commitment, the closeness.” As one gay man, Daemon from Phoenix, explains, “I am in an open relationship right now and it works fine… I personally do not associate sex with marriage; to me they are completely different acts. I would also love to get married from a legal perspective, regardless of who I have sex with.”
Will the gay norm of sexual “freedom” herald a more relaxed approach to heterosexual marriage, deemphasizing fidelity but encouraging couples to stay together longer? For Dr Hoff, the Gay Couples Study does just that, suggesting that open but non-monogamous relationships build trust and keep couples together, even when sexual interests wander.
Unfortunately, it is not hard to find relationship experts who agree with Dr. Hoff, inviting heterosexual couples to experience the pleasures of non-monogamy. A Psychology Today piece, for example, counsels that, “gay couples can teach other couples about sexual monogamy,” which means to “engage in sexual encounters based on sexual attraction only and not emotions or affection. It is about sex and nothing more…any sexual inclusion is simply behavioral in nature, not relational.” Untangling the doublespeak, gay-style “monogamy” allows unrestricted sex outside the relationship, as long as it’s meaningless sex.
So what is the impact of this push to sell “open” marriage to straight couples -- destroying fidelity and gutting sex of any deeper meaning -- on the basis that it works for gays? I don’t expect we will see a throng of married couples rush out and change their day to-day sexual habits to emulate their gay friends. Unlike Daemon from Phoenix, most heterosexual couples expect marriage to include sexual commitment. They intuitively know that permitting extra-marital sex won’t build trust, but destroy it.
But marriage is in trouble, nonetheless. It is worrisome when ordinary married folks begin to hum the non-monogamy theme song, just like the secular psychologists, and clap along to the cultural beat of tolerance.
Consider this: CafeMom, one of the largest online communities for moms (reaching nearly 7 million moms a month), recently hosted a controversial discussion asking, “Is Polygamy Really Damaging to Society?” The conversation offered a snapshot (focus-group style) of the views of average American moms. Some women responded with good, ol' common sense, arguing that society should not sanction polygamy or other non-monogamous relationships because they are “terrible for children” and would “rip families apart” because “jealousy is human nature”.
A surprising number, however, took the “personally opposed” point of view: they prefer sexual fidelity in their own marriages, but believe marriage laws and social mores should broaden to allow “consenting adults” the freedom to define their own sexual parameters within marriage. One mom pointed out, “I don’t think [polygamy] hurts society any more than homosexuals do,” because it’s private and “has no effect on anyone but those in that family.”
The social consensus that marriage is a life-long, sexually faithful union between a man and a woman is fast unraveling. Advocates for same-sex marriage have smoothly and successfully appropriated the language of traditional marriage in order to win the public’s sympathy and support. The confused public facilitates its own deception, however, by its unwillingness to embrace a sexual ethic---for gays and straights alike—that is grounded in the authentic dignity of human beings.
And the longer we avoid the “icky” discussions about just what gays do, with whom, and with how many, the more likely we are to see “marriage” in our lifetime that bears no resemblance to the real thing.
One CafeMom mother of two concluded that, “a large number of Americans could care less who you marry and how many you marry.”
The big question is: Is she right?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
-
Let the fairies and dikes do whatever makes them happy....Who gives a damn if they want to be "married"
-
I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]
In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]
Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"
Exactly. I think that since by default a gay relationship is not the same as a hetero one, they should have there own union. Why do they want ours? Theyre constantly trying to make everyone accept it. My theory is this. I dont care what you do, but dont try and make me accept it. Thats all. Im not going to bash gays, and Im not going to be a dick to them, but I dont want them trying to push their lifestyle as something that is supposed to be taught in schools, shown on TV, etc. My .02
-
Let the fairies and dikes do whatever makes them happy....Who gives a damn if they want to be "married"
Personally I could care less about their behavior. When its all said and done they are the ones who will have to answer for it.
What I do have a problem with is when they use these bully tactics as a means to changing the definition of marriage. I have no problem with them having equal rights under the law. Give civil unions the same exact benefits as married couples.
-
Exactly. I think that since by default a gay relationship is not the same as a hetero one, they should have there own union. Why do they want ours? Theyre constantly trying to make everyone accept it. My theory is this. I dont care what you do, but dont try and make me accept it. Thats all. Im not going to bash gays, and Im not going to be a dick to them, but I dont want them trying to push their lifestyle as something that is supposed to be taught in schools, shown on TV, etc. My .02
I am not a christian by any means, but I have read and understand the bible and why would gays want to be united in a union by a religion that doesn't recognize them and demonizes their relationship????
-
Personally I could care less about their behavior. When its all said and done they are the ones who will have to answer for it.
What I do have a problem with is when they use these bully tactics as a means to changing the definition of marriage. I have no problem with them having equal rights under the law. Give civil unions the same exact benefits as married couples.
Exactly. Theyre after more than equal rights, they want it to be a socially acceptable alternative lifestyle. ::)
I dont care what they do, but I dont want my kids growing up seeing this shit as normal, and regardless of what those people say, a kid growing up seeing gays all over the place may think, well ive seen it all the time, maybe I like guys...
-
I am not sold that marriage is a religious thing. If it were, then atheists and agnostics would not be able to marry. The origin of marriage is vague at best..
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[14]
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[15] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[16] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[17]
In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]
Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock in 1949, only the Caingang of Brazil had any group marriages at all.[20]"
You are 100% correct.
Marriage is not part of the religious institution, although it is included as a religious ceremony in most, if not all religions.
Marriage is a part of the human institution of family. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman across all nations, races, creeds and religions.
Eskimos, Vikings, Bulgarians, Christians, Muslims, Jews, communists, nomads, indians, or whatever, have all defined marriage as existing between a man and a woman for many thousands of years.
The baby-boomers wish to undo this most basic of human institutions. Nobody has any idea what kind of society or culture we'll end up with.
I believe this is being done, in large part, to collect spousal and survivorship benefits (Social Security & other pensions) as the baby boomers are now reaching retirement age.
-
Big Deal...... ::)
This is getting more hoopla than needed. The only thing the judge struck down was the Proposition itself because it violated the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection. It didn't really have a chance in court because the law enshrined that same sex couples were superior to gay couples. Even Arnold Schwartznegger knew it and that's why he didn't throw any support behind the court case.
The judge also DIDN'T OVERTURN THE BAN because the judgement is subject to appeal from the 9th Circuit so no one is going to run out and get married.
Personally I'm glad they overturned this shitty law because unbeknowest to some people, Prop 8 also took away the rights of common law relationships as well (unmarried couples that live together).
-
Big Deal...... ::)
This is getting more hoopla than needed. The only thing the judge struck down was the Proposition itself because it violated the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection. It didn't really have a chance in court because the law enshrined that same sex couples were superior to gay couples. Even Arnold Schwartznegger knew it and that's why he didn't throw any support behind the court case.
The judge also DIDN'T OVERTURN THE BAN because the judgement is subject to appeal from the 9th Circuit so no one is going to run out and get married.
Personally I'm glad they overturned this shitty law because unbeknowest to some people, Prop 8 also took away the rights of common law relationships as well (unmarried couples that live together).
right, hysteria
-
As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do. Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on. CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.
The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives. Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority? Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care? Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence? Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars? The list goes on.
I guess we can agree to disagree friend.
Azn, this isn't about the popular vote here. It doesn't matter if most of the people in the state want it. Our Constitution deems it illegal to give rights to one group of people and not to others, it's inequality. That is why this popular but unconstitutional bill was shot down.
If people in a state voted for poeple NOT to have the right to bear arms, that would be over turned as well...
You just can't have a popular vote and turn over the constitution like that. You have to amend it through congress and shit.
-
i say good. i don't feel that they should be able to medical care ect. from there partner THATS a major reason they are pushing for the right to be married
-
Seriously, why even vote if a bunch of fags are going to bitch and whine and have some otehr fag in a black dress overturn a decision made by the majority of the people?
So much for power to the people, I'll never vote again.
-
I didn't vote on prop 8 I don't care much either wa, but still kind of fucked up that a judge can over rule the will of the people.
I don't think its messed up at all. When an erroneous law gets passed like this, denying people their rights, I think judges should have the right to overturn laws. Humans are irrational and emotion driven people. They do not always make the right or best decision. Why should a group of people suffer because some irrational people want to impose their view on others? Sometimes you need a rational outlook on a situation. Heck, million of people wanted slavery. Does that mean that slavery should be allowed? ::) Nope. The will of the people is not always whats best.
-
Azn, this isn't about the popular vote here. It doesn't matter if most of the people in the state want it. Our Constitution deems it illegal to give rights to one group of people and not to others, it's inequality. That is why this popular but unconstitutional bill was shot down.
If people in a state voted for poeple NOT to have the right to bear arms, that would be over turned as well...
You just can't have a popular vote and turn over the constitution like that. You have to amend it through congress and shit.
I think they should have the same right to a Union, I just dont believe that it should be marriage. Marriage is one of the most basic human traditions between a MAN and a WOMAN. What they are doing, is trying to force their lifestyle into our traditions. Give them their own form of marriage, just call it something else. Dont bastardize our tradition with something thats not even in the same vicinity. Besides, its been shown that gays dont have manogomous relationships like men and women do, its just emotional fidelity. Its a totally warped version of marriage with completely different values.
Its just a case of them wanting to force their lifestyle on the rest of us and have us accept it. Fuck, do what you want, but dont ask me to accep it or think its ok.
-
I don't think its messed up at all. When an erroneous law gets passed like this, denying people their rights, I think judges should have the right to overturn laws. Humans are irrational and emotion driven people. They do not always make the right or best decision. Why should a group of people suffer because some irrational people want to impose their view on others? Sometimes you need a rational outlook on a situation. Heck, million of people wanted slavery. Does that mean that slavery should be allowed? ::) Nope. The will of the people is not always whats best.
Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.
-
Epic still stuck in the <1900's. Culture changes.
-
What rights were they denied?
The right to get married. Unless I missed something.
-
The right to get married. Unless I missed something.
Last I checked, Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. So I dont know what youre talking about.
They werent denied a union were they?
-
Last I checked, Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. So I dont know what youre talking about.
They werent denied a union were they?
I didn't know there was a universal definition we all had to agree on ::)
-
gays, with this ridicuolous push to get homosexual marriage (a religious scarament) accepted is like a baby, who hasnt picked up a certain toy for months
...........but throws a tantrum the second some other kid picks it up and starts playing with it
they constantly celebrate "alternative lifestyles" and how different they are, the whole gay culture is based on eschewing traditional social and societal traditions and morays..........anything that is traditional is seen as "conservative" or "stodgy", or "boring"
but now, the want to be able to marry............just cause they arent allowed to
marriage is an antiquated, old institution stemming from religion...............s omething homosexuals tend to hate
but just like the baby throwing a tantrum over the toy the he never plays with, they are throwing a tantrum just cause they are bein gtold they cannot get married
some things are simply not meant for everyone..........men cannot have babies, ect ............i dont have a problem with homosexuality, gays should be allowed to do WHATEVER they want,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but they shoudl not be allowed to co-opt and soil the institution of marriage (further) its not for them
-
I didn't know there was a universal definition we all had to agree on ::)
Epic changing your post...........to answer your previous question, Anthropologists. :)
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[7] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law".[8]
-
And who defined marriage as being between a man and a woman?
Nearly every culture throughout history. Not to mention the gays try and use bully tactics because theyre not happy having unions. They want it to be called Marriage. Not to mention theyre values and beliefs when it comes to relationships are totally different, its not even close to the same as what a marriage entails.. Like someone else in this thread said, they want to undue the most basic institution in human history. And for what? Why? Just because they want to. They cant be happy with a "Union", it has to be marriage. When theyre version of Marriage is a total perverse meaning. Just read the article someone posted above on how Gay men nearly all say that a monogous relationship to them doesnt mean being faithful sexually. They can fuck whoever they want. That isnt marriage as nearly everyone today takes the vows..
Like I said I dont give a fuck if theyre joined in a union, dont care what gays do, but dont try and push your lifestyle into ours like its normal. 2 totally different things lifestyles, they should have a totally different union. Dont bastadize mine. I dont want my children growing up thinking its Normal or cool to be gay. And I guarantee you, some will if its like the gays are pushing for.
In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[18] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".[19]
-
Epic changing your post...........to answer your previous question, Anthropologists. :)
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[7] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law".[8]
Lol Dont worry, I got it.
And Un_sung, you beat me to it. They just want it because they cant have it. Their unions are no more "Marriages" than I am black. Nothing about their relationships are even CLOSE to what defines a marriage, they just want to be able to do it. Lol. Why, since theyre so concerned about being different and shit, they cant come up with their own fucking union I dont understand, but theyre bound and determined to bastardize the meaning of Marriage as every man and woman today believes in it.
Like you said, they cant have it, and it pisses them off, cause they should get everything a straight couple has. Its not about that, theyre not being denied to be together, theyre not being denied a union. Theyre so concerned with making homosexuality normal and cool that they push theyre agenda on everyone under that guise of equal rights. Gimme a break.
-
Nearly every culture throughout history. Not to mention the gays try and use bully tactics because theyre not happy having unions. They want it to be called Marriage. Not to mention theyre values and beliefs when it comes to relationships are totally different, its not even close to the same as what a marriage entails.. Like someone else in this thread said, they want to undue the most basic institution in human history. And for what? Why? Just because they want to. They cant be happy with a "Union", it has to be marriage. When theyre version of Marriage is a total perverse meaning. Just read the article someone posted above on how Gay men nearly all say that a monogous relationship to them doesnt mean being faithful sexually. They can fuck whoever they want. That isnt marriage as nearly everyone today takes the vows..
Like I said I dont give a fuck if theyre joined in a union, dont care what gays do, but dont try and push your lifestyle into ours like its normal. 2 totally different things lifestyles, they should have a totally different union. Dont bastadize mine. I dont want my children growing up thinking its Normal or cool to be gay. And I guarantee you, some will if its like the gays are pushing for.
I guess I feel the same way about religion, and how they try to push their morality onto others. I don't want my kids growing up believing in an imaginary being :(
-
Appearently CNN forgot to mention that the judge that overturned this law (that I would NEVER recognize) was an openly gay judge. This will be automatically appealed on that basis alone. Since when can a liberal and gay one at that make a judgement on the constitution let alone interperate its meaning?
-
What consenting adults choose to do is their business...hard to believe this country was founded by people wanting to be free............ ::)
-
The last time I checked an anatomy chart the asshole was an exit only orifice!
-
The last time I checked an anatomy chart the asshole was an exit only orifice!
Seriously ::)
-
The reason Azn Muslce it was over turned is because it was deemed unconstitutional, by the 14th amendment. So the people voted to put an illegal law on the books, wrong! Nice try, but the people are not always right. Conservatives want the best of both worlds, but if you want to live by the constitution, equal rights is part of it, you can't pick and choose. Gay marriage all the way !!!!!!!!!! luv it :D
We are afforded equal rights, correct but we are afforded equal rights under the law…”under the law” being the key phrase.
This does not mean we are all afforded equality in every sense of the word, I am not afforded $1million if you have a million, you are not afforded to marry a man if I’m afforded to marry a woman. We are all afforded equal justice, meaning we are all afforded the benefit of the same starting point but we do not all end up at the same end.
As I said before I am not for/against gay marriage, I am just not a big fan of government telling me what I can and cannot do. Like anything else, I just think it should be voted on. CA had a chance to make gay marriage legal. The bill was given a fair shot, and it was up to the people to decide. Unfortunately for the gay community things didn't go as planned.
The bigger issue here though is not so much gay marriage etc, it is the governments role in our lives. Why does this judge have the right to rule against the will of a majority? Why am I penalized if I don't purchase health care? Why do I have to give my tax payer dollars to wall street bankers for their incompetence? Why do I have to bail out Detroit Auto Makers that make shitty cars? The list goes on.
I guess we can agree to disagree friend.
100% correct, any judge that does something like this, and I’m speaking of any issue, this judge should be dismissed permanently and immediately. You’re also right, the main issue of focus is governments role in our lives…it is and has gotten beyond out of hand.
I'm not legal beagle but I like the fact that the majority can't enact a law that violates peoples rights. Shockwave I'm not talking about this particular situation but in general. The majority ISN'T always right, that is why we have a system in place that protects the minority as well.
You are correct, the CA proposition ballets are actually in opposition to the way our system is supposed to work, however, states do have the right to perform and function in the manner in which they choose so as long as it doesn’t violate federal law. That said, the reason CA has begun in recent years to use propositions as a large means of passing law has been nothing more than to circumvent republic style governance and institute more progressive means of governing. It takes away the power of the republic and leads to more solidarity control.
Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.
QFT!
No one is violating their rights, they have the right to live as they choose but this doesn’t mean they should be granted special privileges. For example, since this is a bodybuilding board and an issue close to my heart, I’d love to see the steroid laws changed but this doesn’t mean I’d expect to see steroid users given the same tax credits other medications afford…that would be retarded.
What consenting adults choose to do is their business...hard to believe this country was founded by people wanting to be free............ ::)
Again, no one has ever said they can’t do what they want but you can’t redefine societal norms and the condition of the hearts of man because of few men disagree or desire that change based on feelings.
Further and this is the most important thing, we are granted rights, government however does not have the right to create more rights…this seems to be lost on the progressive movement. We are granted the rights of the constitution, we are all granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, meaning, we’re granted the right to live and exist, we’re granted the right to live freely as we best see fit, we are granted to live in a means and in a pursuit of those means that brings us the most happiness possible…homosexuals are not denied any of these rights but they are denied to create new rights just as every man is.
-
guys - or more correctly, gay rights/pride - are just another cog in the frankfurt school wheel of critical theory.
Just do the jews, and these 'anal gaping in public' deviants will follow.
easy peasy.
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs287.snc4/40699_1549665298675_1146373033_31578982_7619833_n.jpg)
Nice...haha
God is fictional, like Santa Claus. But if there were one, no...he wouldn't like gays.
True story. :D
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs287.snc4/40699_1549665298675_1146373033_31578982_7619833_n.jpg)
Nice...haha
God is fictional, like Santa Claus. But if there were one, no...he wouldn't like gays.
True story. :D
The "Fuck this guy" is wearing a Phobia shirt, which makes him cooler than anyone else in the photo. Pretty cool fag right there. Phobia rules.
-
Did you read what you wrote? So the majority of people should suffer because the minority want to impose their views on us? What the gays are asking is that the laws be changed to suit their desires....they already have the same rights, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, nobody is denying them that, but they are asking for special treatment and privileges that the people have already turned down. And now some pantywaist fag in a black dress denies the will of the people? Fuck that guy.
They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!
-
They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!
Have you read the thread? It is 100% about gender.
-
Still don't get why Gay people want to get married. Biggest scam in history. If I were gay I'd be stting on the sideline thinking "Thank God, that ordeal is for stupid heteros and we'll leave it at that!". Even with a kid and living with the same GF for a while now, I wouldn't marry her even with a gun pressed to my head.
-
do you know why homosexuals smell?
so blind people can hate them too (http://www.freejunknstuff.com/fork.gif)(http://www.freejunknstuff.com/laf.gif)
-
They want to be able to marry the person they love, just like heterosexual couples can. It's not about gender!
Marriage being a religeous ceremony are these same people attending church regularly? Oh wait, the church HATES HOMOSEXUALS. Tell me again why participating in marriage is so important?
-
The judge who overturns it called the ban "unconstitutional" , yet isn't it just as "unconstitutional" for a single man to try to overturn a vote by millions of people? Who the fuck does this judge think he is trying to overturn the majority vote? The fact that this country gives such power to a single person is amazing. The sad part is you can have 10 judges and each can give out 10 different verdicts , yet you are subjected to the luck of the draw, maybe the female judge is pms'ing and gives you a harsher sentence. This shit happens. Fucking sad, pathetic world we live in.
-
It is a sad state of affairs when one man holds the power to change the voice of millions.
-
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
Actually marriage originated as a formal contract between a brides father and the groom. If marriage is a religious sanctity (as many religious claim) then why do you need a marriage license to prove it? Why isn't being married in a church proof? Why do you need to go to court to divorce? This is where many religious make the mistake because their interpretation of marriage was from a fairy tale book. And as we know most fairy tale books usually end up in happy endings that aren't realistic.
-
It is a sad state of affairs when a million men hold the power to change the voice of one.
"Democracy is the tyranny of the mediocre" - Oscar Wilde (big fag)
sigh...I cant wait for technology to make it possible to get off this prison planet.
"There are also those among us who look up in hopes of finding someone more intelligent to talk to" - Timothy Leary
-
Heard a talk show on my way into work, the host was bashing the decision. A caller pointed out that it wasn't just about getting to play heterosexual games like the other people, it wasn't about "They have it so we want it" that as it stands, if two homosexuals fall in love, and cohabitate for years, if one dies, the other is without any rights normally granted to married couples. If one falls critically ill, the other can't make life or death decisions for the other as a married couple could, if they adopted, there are custody rights they aren't afforded in the event of the death of one of them etc etc. he also pointed out the "sanctity of marriage" among heterosexuals has really lost any weight when the divorce rate is 54% and many heterosexuals are married and remarried several times.
If there were a way to grant or afford legal protections to same sex couples that are similar to married heterosexuals, yet we didn't call it "marriage" would that be okay?
-
What does this admitted
"cock sucker" gay think about this decision. Bay as a fairly good looking gay (no homo I swear) would you pound the shit (literally) out of Goodrum if he came calling on you. I mean he has everything a man would want. he has success, fame, money, a great body, smart, numerous titles, many college degrees and he even cleans house.
-
The judge who overturns it called the ban "unconstitutional" , yet isn't it just as "unconstitutional" for a single man to try to overturn a vote by millions of people? Who the fuck does this judge think he is trying to overturn the majority vote?
judges aren't suppose to represent the people. they represent the Constitution. If it weren't for 'activist judges', we'd still have segregated schools, interracial marriages would be illegal in many places, and oral sex (even m-f) would be illegal.
-
judges aren't suppose to represent the people. they represent the Constitution. If it weren't for 'activist judges', we'd still have segregated schools, interracial marriages would be illegal in many places, and oral sex (even m-f) would be illegal.
I thought all those things were still illegal????
-
Heard a talk show on my way into work, the host was bashing the decision. A caller pointed out that it wasn't just about getting to play heterosexual games like the other people, it wasn't about "They have it so we want it" that as it stands, if two homosexuals fall in love, and cohabitate for years, if one dies, the other is without any rights normally granted to married couples. If one falls critically ill, the other can't make life or death decisions for the other as a married couple could, if they adopted, there are custody rights they aren't afforded in the event of the death of one of them etc etc. he also pointed out the "sanctity of marriage" among heterosexuals has really lost any weight when the divorce rate is 54% and many heterosexuals are married and remarried several times.
If there were a way to grant or afford legal protections to same sex couples that are similar to married heterosexuals, yet we didn't call it "marriage" would that be okay?
The "rights" they want is also called money. Spousal and survivorship pension benefits. They want to be put in the same position of a woman who has been married for 40 or 50 years and spent her working years raising children. Gays can go to work like everyone else has to.
-
this is great news
Divorce Lawyers
Child Guardians
Court Officers
Family Counselers
Judges
are all cheering as the moronic gays get to experience the joys of divorce court.
-
If same-sex marriage becomes law, it'll take about 5 minutes for people to realize they can get free spousal Social Security benefits by making a deal with a friend.
1) We get legally married.
2) A year later, I'll get a monthly check from SSI.
3) I'll give you 50% of the money back for your trouble.
Those kinds of deals are rare between sexes, but would be very common among normal, close friends.
-
I live in CA and don't really care either way, but there just seems to be something wrong with overturning a law that was voted on and won by a majority of people. I mean why even have elections any more when one person can overturn a law voted on by millions? I would prefer they put the law up again to vote for the public to decide.
I love living in CA, but as a conservative (I'm not from ca) it's weird that everyone here is so liberal and believes they are in the majority and have this superiority complex (thus the name "progressives") that they are forward thinking people and everyone who doesn't share their beliefs are ignorant.
Then you go to somewhere like San Francisco where guys parade in the street wearing fishnets and thongs and everyone smokes weed freely on every corner. Yeah, that is the "progressive" thinking America I want to live in.
Bottom line is we placed this issue to a vote and the people have spoken. If they want to contest it, put it on a ballot again and vote. That is how things should be done in America.
The reason is because the Constitution was supersedes what is popular to the people. In essence what is popular can also be unconstitutional and therefore is not legal.
-
Divorce Lawyers
Child Guardians
Court Officers
Family Counselers
Judges
are all cheering as the moronic gays get to experience the joys of divorce court.
I wonder in a gay marriage if they were to get a divorce if the court would give the more feminine guy the better outcome like they do for women in the court system now??
-
Seriously, why even vote if a bunch of fags are going to bitch and whine and have some otehr fag in a black dress overturn a decision made by the majority of the people?
So much for power to the people, I'll never vote again.
Popular vote is trumped by constitution
-
court decisions are not just yes/no things. when judges make their ruling they give detailed reasons. this ruling has 80 "findings of fact". it will be hard to overturn.
http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/08/the-prop-8-decision-the-findings-of-fact-everything-we-should-learn-from-this-trial/
btw, all of this will ultimately come down to one man: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
-
court decisions are not just yes/no things. when judges make their ruling they give detailed reasons. this ruling has 80 "findings of fact". it will be hard to overturn.
http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/08/the-prop-8-decision-the-findings-of-fact-everything-we-should-learn-from-this-trial/
btw, all of this will ultimately come down to one man: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
When obamacare gets knocked down you libs will all be screaming.
-
court decisions are not just yes/no things. when judges make their ruling they give detailed reasons. this ruling has 80 "findings of fact". it will be hard to overturn.
http://zackfordblogs.com/2010/08/the-prop-8-decision-the-findings-of-fact-everything-we-should-learn-from-this-trial/
btw, all of this will ultimately come down to one man: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Not necessarily. Don't be surprised if Sotomayor sides with the conservatives on this one. This could go 6-3. Or it could go 5-4, with Kennedy going liberal and Sotomayor going conservative.
That's of course, assuming that the 9th doesn't reverse Walker.
-
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to start getting married knowing this is getting immediatly appealed!
-
Why cant these hairy ass slammers and carpet eaters just call it HOMAGE and call it a day?? why use a term meant for man and woman? You already call yourselfs GAY come up with your own term for partnership and while your at it have your own island too ;D
-
judges aren't suppose to represent the people. they represent the Constitution. If it weren't for 'activist judges', we'd still have segregated schools, interracial marriages would be illegal in many places, and oral sex (even m-f) would be illegal.
The things you listed were not measures that were voted for by the population, they were in place by laws made by other judges.
-
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
Marriage predates the invention of religion.
Try again.
-
Epic separation of church and state.
Marriage is primarily a religious deal.
I dont know what right the Federal court has to overturn a VOTER decided ban. That is pretty ghetto.
Seems like the government is saying "fuck you voters, we do what we want." more and more.
Ya , I go with mob rule myself. Ya know if 50 people all get drunk and agree to lynch some guy , well, majority rules...NOT!
I am pretty sure Mississippi didn't vote for civil rights in the 1960's 'eh?
The prop 8 deal didn't pass muster on the 14th ammendment. The appeal proved it.
Plus, the judge never got an answer for the following:
What harm does it do to any married couple if a gay couple gets married.
-
Lol. Prove me wrong. Marriage, is something that stemmed and came from religion. It was around before this government. So how, pray tell, can I be incorrect? In this case, the government is interferring with religious law. Which it shouldnt have anything to do with.
You can be for gay marriage all you want, but dont try and twist the facts to make it suit your purpose.
Geesh! It against the establishment claus to argue in favor of a law based on religious reasons.
Of course that is what they do in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Theocratic nations rock don't they...NOT :'(
How come the religious arguments are only popular when it is the religion they believe in?
-
The reason is because the Constitution was supersedes what is popular to the people. In essence what is popular can also be unconstitutional and therefore is not legal.
BINGO!
-
The last time I checked an anatomy chart the asshole was an exit only orifice!
C'mon , and you claim to be a fan of bodybuilding saying THAT
-
The fact is that both hetero and homosexuals voted. The judge used his position of power to push his agenda. And the bolded part tells me, that a governmental official is supposed to push his vision of the future regardless of what the population of the country they were elected to represent thinks. I dont know about you, but I dont elect officials to tell us what we want. Equal rights, its not like this is somehing that is going to hold them back from life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they just want something that was traditionally a religious thing for themselves. Thats all it is. Theyre saying, those religious people have it and we want it.
Question: How does it harm my marriage with my wife, your marriage or any straight couples marriage if two queers or two lezbos marry?
Look, I admit if I had to see two cowboys swap spit like in Brokeback Mt, I would get sick and walk out of the movie.
BUT, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is harmful or wrong.
-
I am not a christian by any means, but I have read and understand the bible and why would gays want to be united in a union by a religion that doesn't recognize them and demonizes their relationship????
LOL, yeah and no catholic priest was ever gay ? hehe