Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Tre on May 26, 2009, 10:34:05 AM
-
BUT, the 18,000 couples who got married here while it was legal will remain married under the laws of the state.
While I do believe there's a role for the courts in affecting social change, I want this particular battle won at the ballot box (and it will be), the message being that people - regardless of their beliefs - really ought to mind their own fucking business.
.....................
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.
Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."
The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.
That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.
"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.
-
BUT, the 18,000 couples who got married here while it was legal will remain married under the laws of the state.
While I do believe there's a role for the courts in affecting social change, I want this particular battle won at the ballot box (and it will be), the message being that people - regardless of their beliefs - really ought to mind their own fucking business.
.....................
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.
Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."
The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.
That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.
"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.
End all marriage welfare, both gay and straight.
-
the people have voted and the queers just need to shut the fck up and live with the decision
i didn't vote for barry but i'm living with the voter's decision
-
End all marriage welfare, both gay and straight.
Good point.
I haven't decided whether to break out my swords or my velvet mitts for this next round, though. I was pretty hardcore the first time around, but maybe I could be more gentle...and that would make the haters feel even more stupid, my ultimate goal. ;D
-
the people have voted and the queers just need to shut the fck up and live with the decision
i didn't vote for barry but i'm living with the voter's decision
They are 'living with the decision'. There's no evidence that same-gender couples have been granted any marriage licenses in California since the ban took effect.
That does, however, beg the question....'what is gender?'
The people can and will vote again.
-
That does, however, beg the question....'what is gender?'
You should have figured this out by the time you were five years old, Tre. ::)
-
gay marriage is heresy, heretics end burn
-
At least your marriage is safe, Tre. :)
-
You should have figured this out by the time you were five years old, Tre. ::)
I can make the argument that genotype determines gender, but someone else could make the argument that an individual's gender identity is self-determined.
The fact that it's legal to 'transition' from male-to-female or female-to-male means that the definitions really aren't as clear-cut as some people might like them to be.
At least your marriage is safe, Tre. :)
Don't I wish!
Funny story - was talking to my friend this morning about the situation and he said 'you really need to divorce her'. Why is that funny?
We've been divorced since 2004 and she's still all up in my shit. lol
-
The people have spoken, Tre.
Stop joining every cause opposed by the Mormons and get back to schmoing. :)
-
Why the hell are you distributing news for homosexuals? What kind of "man" are you, Tre?
-
Why the hell are you distributing news for homosexuals? What kind of "man" are you, Tre?
Oh, this is easy!
A real 'man' stands for justice. Most males in America are pussies, which is why they won't stand for equality. (most Americans are opposed to 'gay marriage' for one reason or another)
All tax-paying Americans should enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law.
-
same rights under the law? when this country was founded a marriage was between a man and a woman. not fags and dikes
-
The people have spoken, Tre.
Stop joining every cause opposed by the Mormons and get back to schmoing. :)
I'm just getting started. Weak people were placed on this earth for my amusement.
Schmoin' is a habit...get like me!
-
same rights under the law? when this country was founded a marriage was between a man and a woman. not fags and dikes
Then set up a separate tax bracket for them.
Or eliminate 'marriage welfare' altogether.
-
I can make the argument that genotype determines gender, but someone else could make the argument that an individual's gender identity is self-determined.
The fact that it's legal to 'transition' from male-to-female or female-to-male means that the definitions really aren't as clear-cut as some people might like them to be.
and then you have to wonder about males who were dht deficient during development, and females who were androgen sensitive during development.... ect etc etc..
-
Hell, next thing you know people will want to marry
their dogs!
-
Hell, next thing you know people will want to marry
their dogs!
and its our job to tell them no...yeah i know i have nothing to do with it...but still no...because i personally dont like it... ::)
-
Hell, next thing you know people will want to marry their dogs!
when the dog is able to give an informed consent, then we can talk about it.
-
when the dog is able to give an informed consent, then we can talk about it.
I hope im dead by the time a dog can talk
-
I hope im dead by the time a dog can talk
sheep is what you need to be worried about
-
sheep is what you need to be worried about
sheep cant talk.....can they
-
You should have figured this out by the time you were five years old, Tre. ::)
Gender is a socio-cultural construct and is different from sexe.
-
Hell, next thing you know people will want to marry
their dogs!
You fail at analogies, and at humour.
-
Gender is a socio-cultural construct and is different from sexe.
And all societies have a pre-existing socio-cultural construct. Are you suggesting the term "gender" is indefinable?
-
when the dog is able to give an informed consent, then we can talk about it.
A brother and sister can give informed consent...why can't they marry?
-
A brother and sister can give informed consent...why can't they marry?
If they agree to submit to sterilization, then I won't care if they marry. They can adopt or become foster parents, if they wish to be parents at all.
They should not be allowed to procreate, inside or outside the confines of marriage.
-
The fact that tax dollars are even spent debating on this issue, is simply laughable. ;D
People from the 50s are rolling in their graves on this one.
I can just picture this country in another 50 years. ::)
Germaphobes, strapped to portable communication devices, 30" rims on their SUV, botox, face lifts, tits jobs.
This will be the norm. Disgusting. ;)
-
The fact that tax dollars are even spent debating on this issue, is simply laughable. ;D
People from the 50s are rolling in their graves on this one.
I can just picture this country in another 50 years. ::)
Germaphobes, strapped to portable communication devices, 30" rims on their SUV, botox, face lifts, tits jobs.
This will be the norm. Disgusting. ;)
Aren't you going to scream you are natural?
-
I beleive homosexulas, can do what ever they please, its there life.But I dont agree with gay marriage.Our founding fathers were christian god fearing men who would have never excepted gay marriages.Since our founding fathers started our country, and They are the reason we are the country we are today, we should respect there wishes.
I bleieve gays, can get, live together, and I have nothing against them.I just beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman.God man man, and god created woman so they could repdoce and multiply, by having children.A gay couples cant create children together, so they should be able to legally marry.
I think the gay community, should create there own form of marriage.They should have a ceremony, and make there own kind of contract that they can recognize as there form of marriage.This way, they arent forcing there lifestyle on us and we arent forcing are lifestyle on them.
I have nothing against gays, because I beleive in live and let live.If they want to love a person of the same sex,it doesnt bother me.As long as it doesnt effect my life, god bless them.
-
If they agree to submit to sterilization, then I won't care if they marry. They can adopt or become foster parents, if they wish to be parents at all.
They should not be allowed to procreate, inside or outside the confines of marriage.
But, the gay "marriage" argument is that marriage isn't about procreation. By that logic, it shouldn't matter whether opposite-sex siblings can procreate or not (or even if their offspring has some genetic defects).
-
But, the gay "marriage" argument is that marriage isn't about procreation. By that logic, it shouldn't matter whether opposite-sex siblings can procreate or not (or even if their offspring has some genetic defects).
Precisely.
Tre is applying a double standard. Why can't a brother and sister marry and procreate? You are denying them their civil right to have children. The "wife" should be allowed to give birth like any other American, right?
-
End marriage welfare and no gays will want to get married anymore but then straight people will start bitching because they will lose their privileges. Everyone likes welfare as long as they are getting it, just not for other people.
-
I beleive homosexulas, can do what ever they please, its there life.But I dont agree with gay marriage.Our founding fathers were christian god fearing men who would have never excepted gay marriages.Since our founding fathers started our country, and They are the reason we are the country we are today, we should respect there wishes.
I bleieve gays, can get, live together, and I have nothing against them.I just beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman.God man man, and god created woman so they could repdoce and multiply, by having children.A gay couples cant create children together, so they should be able to legally marry.
I think the gay community, should create there own form of marriage.They should have a ceremony, and make there own kind of contract that they can recognize as there form of marriage.This way, they arent forcing there lifestyle on us and we arent forcing are lifestyle on them.
I have nothing against gays, because I beleive in live and let live.If they want to love a person of the same sex,it doesnt bother me.As long as it doesnt effect my life, god bless them.
Though this has been discussed to death, none of the most prominent Founders were Christian, they were deists' BIG difference.
-
But, the gay "marriage" argument is that marriage isn't about procreation. By that logic, it shouldn't matter whether opposite-sex siblings can procreate or not (or even if their offspring has some genetic defects).
You are right. It shouldn't. In France, siblings can marry and procreate. Who cares? It has nothing to do with the rest of us.
-
But, the gay "marriage" argument is that marriage isn't about procreation. By that logic, it shouldn't matter whether opposite-sex siblings can procreate or not (or even if their offspring has some genetic defects).
I don't care if two siblings love one another in a way that many people might disapprove of. Out of the billions of people who've ever lived, odds are that there would be siblings and first cousins who'd fall in love.
If four men wish to be in a relationship with one woman - and with one another - I'm fine with them getting 'married', too. It's just not that big a deal. They're in love, and their relationship works for them. Sure, I love people who speak English in America, but doesn't being an American mean believing in the right for one to live outside the box?
-
I beleive homosexulas, can do what ever they please, its there life.But I dont agree with gay marriage.Our founding fathers were christian god fearing men who would have never excepted gay marriages.Since our founding fathers started our country, and They are the reason we are the country we are today, we should respect there wishes.
I bleieve gays, can get, live together, and I have nothing against them.I just beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman.God man man, and god created woman so they could repdoce and multiply, by having children.A gay couples cant create children together, so they should be able to legally marry.
I think the gay community, should create there own form of marriage.They should have a ceremony, and make there own kind of contract that they can recognize as there form of marriage.This way, they arent forcing there lifestyle on us and we arent forcing are lifestyle on them.
I have nothing against gays, because I beleive in live and let live.If they want to love a person of the same sex,it doesnt bother me.As long as it doesnt effect my life, god bless them.
Thats the problem mixing politics and religion. bible was written hundreds of years ago. this is 2009 a whole different world.
If they want to get married, let it happen. we should worry about of what is important.
BTW: f*ck religion.
-
I don't care if two siblings love one another in a way that many people might disapprove of. Out of the billions of people who've ever lived, odds are that there would be siblings and first cousins who'd fall in love.
If four men wish to be in a relationship with one woman - and with one another - I'm fine with them getting 'married', too. It's just not that big a deal. They're in love, and their relationship works for them. Sure, I love people who speak English in America, but doesn't being an American mean believing in the right for one to live outside the box?
MCWAY=ultimate fundamentalist Christian=believes world is 6,000 years old and Garden of Eden literally real=no point discussing this with him.
-
I beleive homosexulas, can do what ever they please, its there life.But I dont agree with gay marriage.Our founding fathers were christian god fearing men who would have never excepted gay marriages.Since our founding fathers started our country, and They are the reason we are the country we are today, we should respect there wishes.
You should probably study a little more American history in order to get a better idea of 'what the founders would've wanted'.
I bleieve gays, can get, live together, and I have nothing against them.I just beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman.God man man, and god created woman so they could repdoce and multiply, by having children.A gay couples cant create children together, so they shouldn't be able to legally marry.
So, infertile couples should not be allowed to marry? That's what you just said.
I think the gay community, should create there own form of marriage.They should have a ceremony, and make there own kind of contract that they can recognize as there form of marriage.This way, they arent forcing there lifestyle on us and we arent forcing are lifestyle on them.
I have nothing against gays, because I beleive in live and let live.If they want to love a person of the same sex,it doesnt bother me.As long as it doesnt effect my life, god bless them.
It's less about the 'title' and more about the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to those who 'marry' within the current parameters.
-
Thats the problem mixing politics and religion. bible was written hundreds of years ago. this is 2009 a whole different world.
If they want to get married, let it happen. we should worry about of what is important.
BTW: f*ck religion.
Exactly who decides what is or isn't "important"? Do we now scrap the laws about murder, theft, lying, parental obedience, etc (i.e. those based on six of the Ten Commandments)?
Mixing politics and religion almost always occurs, because what you believe is right or wrong shapes how you make policy. And, for most people, that morality is based on religious beliefs.
-
America sucks dick. Gay straight who cares, stupid Nazi US.
-
MCWAY=ultimate fundamentalist Christian=believes world is 6,000 years old and Garden of Eden literally real=no point discussing this with him.
Yet, you just did, by agreeing with an earlier post.
You don't hear me saying that there's no point discussing this with you, based on the extremely irrelevant fact that you keep repeatedly spewing the falsehood of the Founding Father being primarily deists (espeically when the signers of the Dec. of Independnence, the Constitution, etc. have their church memberships and denominations listed for all to see).
-
Exactly who decides what is or isn't "important"? Do we now scrap the laws about murder, theft, lying, parental obedience, etc (i.e. those based on six of the Ten Commandments)?
Mixing politics and religion almost always occurs, because what you believe is right or wrong shapes how you make policy. And, for most people, that morality is based on religious beliefs.
Thousands of cultures and others far older than your goatherders MCWAY had those proscriptions ingrained in their society wthout having read your book of fiction.
The golden rule decides what it is important; do what you want as long as you don't harm other people.
-
Yet, you just did, by agreeing with an earlier post.
You don't hear me saying that there's no point discussing this with you, based on the extremely irrelevant fact that you keep repeatedly spewing the falsehood of the Founding Father being primarily deists (espeically when the signers of the Dec. of Independnence, the Constitution, etc. have their church memberships and denominations listed for all to see).
What did I agree with?
All the prominent Founders and I am not talking about minor cosigners were deists, some of whom wrote horribly negative things about Christianity.
-
Thousands of cultures and others far older than your goatherders MCWAY had those proscriptions ingrained in their society wthout having read your book of fiction.
First of all, I don't have "book of fiction"; secondly, many of those other cultures ("far older" or not) had their laws based ALSO on religious belief, which sinks your entire premise.
Furthermore, the particular laws in the United States, per the words of the Founding Fathers, are based on certain Biblical laws (i.e. the Ten Commandments).
The golden rule decides what it is important; do what you want as long as you don't harm other people.
According to whom? If I decide to "harm other people" and I have the might to do it (if they don't concede to my wishes) who's going to stop me? Per your logic, there is no God. Therefore, it's simply man vs. man. And whoever can impose his will first rules.
-
What demographic voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage again?
-
What did I agree with?
All the prominent Founders and I am not talking about minor cosigners were deists, some of whom wrote horribly negative things about Christianity.
Now this is rich, cherry-picking who's "prominent" with who's "minor", because your repeated diatribes about the Founding Fathers ring hollow.
But, I was referring to this issue about gay "marriage" and the argument that gays give that procreation isn't a factor, when it comes to defining marriage (yet gays, for the most part, don't condone incest).
-
First of all, I don't have "book of fiction"; secondly, many of those other cultures ("far older" or not) had their laws based ALSO on religious belief, which sinks your entire premise.
Furthermore, the particular laws in the United States, per the words of the Founding Fathers, are based on certain Biblical laws (i.e. the Ten Commandments).
According to whom? If I decide to "harm other people" and I have the might to do it (if they don't concede to my wishes) who's going to stop me? Per your logic, there is no God. Therefore, it's simply man vs. man. And whoever can impose his will first rules.
]
Do unto other...as you wish...yes you get it. Not arbitary at all. I don't want to be mugged so I don't mug other people. Pretty simple.
-
Now this is rich, cherry-picking who's "prominent" with who's "minor", because your repeated diatribes about the Founding Fathers ring hollow.
But, I was referring to this issue about gay "marriage" and the argument that gays give that procreation isn't a factor, when it comes to defining marriage (yet gays, for the most part, don't condone incest).
Anything between consenting adults is fine, sibling or not. If there are gay people who don't agree with this, then their argumentation is flawed.
-
What demographic voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage again?
Uneducated middle-class (and wannabe middle-class) whites.
-
What demographic voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage again?
Blacks.
-
What demographic voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage again?
blacks were splot 51%-49%
-
]
Do unto other...as you wish...yes you get it. Not arbitary at all. I don't want to be mugged so I don't mug other people. Pretty simple.
So what!! You can mug somebody without wanting to be mugged yourself. And, you can steal without wanting someone to steal from you.
Again, if it's just man vs. man, whoever has the might to impose his will onto another FIRST and longest rules.
-
I don't have the slightest idea of what rights gays will be given if gay marriages ever became legal in the state of California.
Can someone elaborate by listing the "rights" that they are not privy too under the current statutes?
Thanks......
Dumb thought here but ...... wouldn't it be more acceptable to California voters if a gay "union" was called something other than a "marriage", but allow that gay "union" all the rights that a married couple receive?
Would that tend to solve the present "problem"?
-
Anything between consenting adults is fine, sibling or not. If there are gay people who don't agree with this, then their argumentation is flawed.
Again, according to WHOM? Who's making the rules as to what is or isn't "fine"?
If it's just your view; then your view hold no more weight than mine does. It simply becomes a numbers (how many people agree with you vs. how many people agree with me) OR a political/military/financial leverage game.
-
Yippie! Thanks for the great news. I will call my favourite muscle bear right now. :-*
-
Yippie! Thanks for the great news. I will call my favourite muscle bear right now. :-*
No matter where people may fall on the gay marriage debate, I'm sure everyone can agree that this pic is just plain wrong.
-
Dumb thought here but ...... wouldn't it be more acceptable to California voters if a gay "union" was called something other than a "marriage", but allow that gay "union" all the rights that a married couple receive?
Would that tend to solve the present "problem"?
If all the rights, privileges, and protections were the same, there would be no movement at all.
-
No matter where people may fall on the gay marriage debate, I'm sure everyone can agree that this pic is just plain wrong.
Yeah, I know, I know.
I thought about getting a larger bed myself...
-
Again, according to WHOM? Who's making the rules as to what is or isn't "fine"?
If it's just your view; then your view hold no more weight than mine does. It simply becomes a numbers (how many people agree with you vs. how many people agree with me) OR a political/military/financial leverage game.
It doesn't harm you, don't you get that thick skull? Physical harm. Get it?
Are you harmed by the possibility that your neighbor fucks his wife in the ass? No. Who cares, move on.
-
What a catholic society.
I am glad that Spain is not that much.
-
So what!! You can mug somebody without wanting to be mugged yourself. And, you can steal without wanting someone to steal from you.
Again, if it's just man vs. man, whoever has the might to impose his will onto another FIRST and longest rules.
That's why we have laws. Break the law, get punished. You don't need a divine entity to fear in order to follow the law.
-
You post that again and I am personally requesting for you to be put in timeout.
Keep your gay disgusting fantasy in your pants.
-
Oh, this is easy!
A real 'man' stands for justice. Most males in America are pussies, which is why they won't stand for equality. (most Americans are opposed to 'gay marriage' for one reason or another)
All tax-paying Americans should enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections under the law.
Well said!
-
I see your bet and I raise you.. :P
Best tasting cake I have ever had, my girlfriend makes it :o :P
(http://www.virtuousgeek.org/recipes/perfect_chocolate_cake.jpg)
I am sure it tastes good, but good it does NOT look. :-\
-
Can someone elaborate by listing the "rights" that they are not privy too under the current statutes?
googling:
In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
Dumb thought here but ...... wouldn't it be more acceptable to California voters if a gay "union" was called something other than a "marriage", but allow that gay "union" all the rights that a married couple receive?
how did that separate but equal thing work out back in the 1950s and 1960s?
-
You post that again and I am personally requesting for you to be put in timeout.
Keep your gay disgusting fantasy in your pants.
gotta be kidding ??
:D 6-1 vote to uphold such a muscle bear picture ban.
-
It would be great if we could vote on various propositions on the federal level as well. The will of the people is the way to run a democracy.
-
googling:
In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
how did that separate but equal thing work out back in the 1950s and 1960s?
End entitlements and marriage welfare, all problems solved.
-
Maybe a more honest discussion sans bullshit and rhetoric will show the public it may not be so terrible of an idea.
-
Thats the problem mixing politics and religion. bible was written hundreds of years ago. this is 2009 a whole different world.
If they want to get married, let it happen. we should worry about of what is important.
BTW: f*ck religion.
this has got to be one of the stupidist comments of the year, God foresees everything that will happen in earth's creation and has written his sacred texts to encompass all issues. He created us, and he can destroy us at any time, Allah is God by the way. The bible is a good book of knowledge, the Koran is the only true holy book written through Muhammad inspired by God(Allah).
jt
-
Boo Hoo
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
this has got to be one of the stupidist comments of the year, God foresees everything that will happen in earth's creation and has written his sacred texts to encompass all issues. He created us, and he can destroy us at any time, Allah is God by the way. The bible is a good book of knowledge, the Koran is the only true holy book written through Muhammad inspired by God(Allah).
jt
Let there be light. ::) :-*
Fast foward to 2:17
-
Don't gay civil unions enjoy all the same protections under the law as marriages with the exception of the term "marriage"?
-
What demographic voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage again?
The Coach demographic... aka the self-hating demographic of poor men who think they are rich and straight but want sticky studs so bad their bodies ache.
-
The Coach demographic... aka the self-hating demographic of poor men who think they are rich and straight but want sticky studs so bad their bodies ache.
QFT amen :)
-
The Coach demographic... aka the self-hating demographic of poor men who think they are rich and straight but want sticky studs so bad their bodies ache.
Minorities, especially blacks, voted against gay marriage.
-
they should ban sodomy and oral sex ;D
-
Minorities, especially blacks, voted against gay marriage.
yea, mexicans = Catholic.
and the others you state are more intolerant than any other race. Hell they will discriminate you if you don't have the latest Air Jordans.
-
yea, mexicans = Catholic.
and the others you state are more intolerant than any other race. Hell they will discriminate you if you don't have the latest Air Jordans.
Yeah true but you don't see the gays marching against these groups, just the Mormons. Kinda hypocritical and sheepish IMO. If gays are afforded the same rights as married straight couples then why the need to change the institution of marriage? That's what I don't get. It seems that the MO of the general gay community is to throw their opinions and lifestyle in the face of everyone else and if you disagree then you are labeled a bigot. People are all raised with different beliefs. Disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays and that's what people don't understand.
-
Yeah true but you don't see the gays marching against these groups, just the Mormons. Kinda hypocritical and sheepish IMO. If gays are afforded the same rights as married straight couples then why the need to change the institution of marriage? That's what I don't get. It seems that the MO of the general gay community is to throw their opinions and lifestyle in the face of everyone else and if you disagree then you are labeled a bigot. People are all raised with different beliefs. Disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays and that's what people don't understand.
I agree. I disagree with gay and straight marriage, but that doesn't mean that i care if anyone does it.
-
I agree. I disagree with gay and straight marriage, but that doesn't mean that i care if anyone does it.
I agree about marriage in general. Stupid idea.
-
Minorities, especially blacks, voted against gay marriage.
Well, they are just as fucking stupid too. Look at them. I mean coach and minorities dress the same after all. A strong reflection on intelligence indeed.
(http://www.joelocalpt.com/mc2/m2a.jpg)
(http://www.joelocalpt.com/onelegsquat2.jpg)
Poor frustrated little midget. He is spinning his wheels.
-
Well, they are just as fucking stupid too. Look at them. I mean coach and minorities dress the same after all. A strong reflection on intelligence indeed.
Poor frustrated little midget. He is spinning his wheels.
Coach is a good guy and everyone is entitled to their opinion dude. Intolerance of beliefs happens on both political sides, but because someone disagrees with something doesn't make a person bigoted.
-
Coach is a good guy and everyone is entitled to their opinion dude. Intolerance of beliefs happens on both political sides, but because someone disagrees with something doesn't make a person bigoted.
Yeah... real good guy. He just supports torture which goes against all American values.
-
Yeah... real good guy. He just supports torture which goes against all American values.
The Roach is a bigger chicken than sean hannity.
-
It would be great if we could vote on various propositions on the federal level as well. The will of the people is the way to run a democracy.
Unless the will of the people is contrary to the founding principals of democracy, such as equality under the law. Being committed to democratic government means establishing its principals as paramount and immutable.
That does, however, beg the question....'what is gender?'
Dude. Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina, X & Y chromosomes, etc, and don't talk to me about one in a million hermaphrofreaks or psycho-sexual alignment as gender definition. You are building your case on an unstable foundation. The issue is much simpler than that. Who you like to fuck (consensual rational adults etc) does not define your role as a citizen and therefore has no bearing on your rights.
I agree with you though. Ffs just let 'em get married. They have the same rights as people who like to fuck the opposite sex. This puritanical obsession about what other people do with their naughty bits when behind closed doors is bizarre. I don't understand homophobia. At the same time, I wish gays would stop already with the parades and stuff. If you saw a bunch of men marching down the street celebrating the fact that they like to fuck women, it would strike you as odd and in poor taste. Same thing.
the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
Not if they're like most people who get married! :D
-
Don't gay civil unions enjoy all the same protections under the law as marriages with the exception of the term "marriage"?
Yes and no. They get a lot of the important stuff, but I admit that I don't know how a domestic partnership/civil union is treated by the IRS.
What I do know is that a married couple in California is still a married couple in Texas. But DPs are treated differently.
-
Uneducated middle-class (and wannabe middle-class) whites blacks.
Fixed.
-
The equality CA people say they aren't sure whether they want to bring it back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012.
They should go 2010, so that I'll still have money to contribute. :)
-
:-X
-
Tre,
Even if gay marriage becomes the law in all 50 states and Puerto Rico it still will not be normal. There's a difference between legal and legitimate. :)
-
Yeah true but you don't see the gays marching against these groups, just the Mormons. Kinda hypocritical and sheepish IMO. If gays are afforded the same rights as married straight couples then why the need to change the institution of marriage? That's what I don't get. It seems that the MO of the general gay community is to throw their opinions and lifestyle in the face of everyone else and if you disagree then you are labeled a bigot. People are all raised with different beliefs. Disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays and that's what people don't understand.
But saying to someone "You're not entitled to the same rights as I am, because you wish to 'live gay'" is what it means to act like a bigot.
I still go back to the taxation issue, though. And one real important issue - at least from a few perspectives - is that, with a simple majority at the ballot box, *anyone's* rights can be taken away in California. I have to argue that that's a fatal flaw in our system.
The 'yes on 8' people keep playing the 'why isn't it ok to disagree with you?' card and that's not the point.
Disagreeing with logic, common sense, and the love of Christ is everyone's right and that's fine by me. BUT, what's not fine is attempting to dictate how others must live. If YOU wish to live according to your beliefs, so be it. That's what America is here for.
But telling others they must live based on your beliefs? Completely un-American, by every definition.
-
Coach is a good guy and everyone is entitled to their opinion dude. Intolerance of beliefs happens on both political sides, but because someone disagrees with something doesn't make a person bigoted.
Acting on that 'belief' at the expense of another does make one a bigot, whether he's aware of it or not.
Bigotry doesn't have to been based on hate, but bigotry does sow the seeds of hate.
-
But saying to someone "You're not entitled to the same rights as I am, because you wish to 'live gay'" is what it means to act like a bigot.
I still go back to the taxation issue, though. And one real important issue - at least from a few perspectives - is that, with a simple majority at the ballot box, *anyone's* rights can be taken away in California. I have to argue that that's a fatal flaw in our system.
The 'yes on 8' people keep playing the 'why isn't it ok to disagree with you?' card and that's not the point.
Disagreeing with logic, common sense, and the love of Christ is everyone's right and that's fine by me. BUT, what's not fine is attempting to dictate how others must live. If YOU wish to live according to your beliefs, so be it. That's what America is here for.
But telling others they must live based on your beliefs? Completely un-American, by every definition.
You're just being silly now.
-
You're just being silly now.
All it takes is 50% +1 vote, Doc. That's the law, as written.
People don't believe in minding their own business, but doesn't the 'good book' address gossip at some point?
-
All it takes is 50% +1 vote, Doc. That's the law, as written.
People don't believe in minding their own business, but doesn't the 'good book' address gossip at some point?
The America you're talking about never existed.
-
We should have never let you have your independence. Now you unleashed the monstrous stupidity of people like the Coach, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George W Bush, the Prop 8 crowd, and Sarah Palin on the world. Oh what we wouldn't give to turn back the clock and have some competent king in place of George III.
-
The America you're talking about never existed.
We're now living in a society where 'looking like a bodybuilder' equates to probable cause for a search warrant to be served on you.
Is that really the level of government intrusion you want in your life?
I have to push for less government, otherwise the will of the government will dictate the will of the people as we're seeing with the current steroid witch hunt.
-
Uneducated middle-class (and wannabe middle-class) whites.
Obama brought out the black vote, Tre, and the blacks told the gays to get fucked.
You ain't honest.
-
Obama brought out the black vote, Tre, and the blacks told the gays to get fucked.
You ain't honest.
The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.
Truth.
Religious people never want to own their shit.
Institutions who sow the seeds of prejudice and hate carry a higher degree of liability than individuals who do.
But even though the battle was lost this time, I'm completely comfortable with the knowledge that a LARGE percentage of voters aged 30-and-under voted overwhelmingly against 8. It's estimated that that number is somewhere around 70%.
Eventually, all the dumb old people will be dead and we'll be left with fewer young ignorant people (at least with respect to this issue). :)
-
The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.
Religious people never want to own their shit.
Cuz blacks and browns are religiously unaffiliated, right?
Own your shit, Tre.
-
Tre,
Even if gay marriage becomes the law in all 50 states and Puerto Rico it still will not be normal. There's a difference between legal and legitimate. :)
Homosexuality is normal. It is observed in nature and was perfectly normal until Christianity came about and soiled it along with sex in general. In ancient Rome there was no difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex. Sex was sex.
-
I don't understand homophobia.
At the same time, I wish gays would stop already with the parades and stuff.
Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.
-
We should have never let you have your independence. Now you unleashed the monstrous stupidity of people like the Coach, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George W Bush, the Prop 8 crowd, and Sarah Palin on the world. Oh what we wouldn't give to turn back the clock and have some competent king in place of George III.
It was Parliment that dropped the ball, starting with the Stamp Act although the tea tax is better remembered. All they had to do was knock off a few patriots and set up a puppet but instead they favoured one legislative confrontation after another until war was inevitable. They completely screwed the pooch.
-
Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.
Well... not if they read my whole post! I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either. Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay.
As a political tool, their march may have been useful in the past, but there's no further message to be conveyed. There's a lot of gay people - fine, we get it. Go get married if you want to. Just quit embarrassing yourself and alienating the voting public with a lot of in-your-face attention whoring.
-
Some would argue this is homophobic. By some I mean gays.
It is homophobia. I don't understand why he would fear a bunch of arvilla's prancing around in the street?
-
Well... not if they read my whole post! I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either. Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay.
As a political tool, their march may have been useful in the past, but there's no further message to be conveyed. There's a lot of gay people - fine, we get it. Go get married if you want to. Just quit embarrassing yourself and alienating the voting public with a lot of in-your-face attention whoring.
Absolutely.
I think they just like parading.
-
Absolutely.
I think they just like parading.
There are probably plenty of non-flamboyant gays that believe it does more to harm their political cause these days than to help it. Not that there are any on Getbig.
It is homophobia. I don't understand why he would fear a bunch of arvilla's prancing around in the street?
:o THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
-
We're now living in a society where 'looking like a bodybuilder' equates to probable cause for a search warrant to be served on you.
Is that really the level of government intrusion you want in your life?
I have to push for less government, otherwise the will of the government will dictate the will of the people as we're seeing with the current steroid witch hunt.
You can't argue for less government intrusion and demand it legitimize alternate lifestyles in the same thread, Tre. :)
-
To be clear, the CA Court didn’t “uphold” Prop. 8. Let’s not forget the nature of this suit. The claim by the plaintiffs was that Prop. 8 was so wide-sweeping in its alleged eliminating of the right to same-sex “marriage” that it was actually a constitutional REVISION, instead of a mere amendment, thus it required approval by a 67% supermajority of the state Legislature (which, of course, is for gay “marriage”).
In other words, gay activists wanted to make California like Iowa and the NE states, where the people can't get an amendment on the ballot, without going through a left-leaning Legislature.
All the CA court said was that Prop. 8 was simply what its proponents intended it to be: a constitutional AMENDMENT. Therefore, the electorate DOES NOT have to get Legislative approval to place it on the ballot. Once there, all it takes is a simple majority, as Drkaje stated, to pass it.
If folks in CA are grieving about the constitution being too easy to amend, then they need to make the appropriate adjustments. Florida had a similar issue; and in 2006, the voters passed a law (against which I voted) which requires all future amendments to be passed by a 60% supermajority of the electorate.
Of course, Florida's marriage amendment (Amendment 2) still passed 62-38, a squeaker by the new standard.
-
To be clear, the CA Court didn’t “uphold” Prop. 8. Let’s not forget the nature of this suit. The claim by the plaintiffs was that Prop. 8 was so wide-sweeping in its alleged eliminating of the right to same-sex “marriage” that it was actually a constitutional REVISION, instead of a mere amendment, thus it required approval by a 67% supermajority of the state Legislature (which, of course, is for gay “marriage”).
In other words, gay activists wanted to make California like Iowa and the NE states, where the people can't get an amendment on the ballot, without going through a left-leaning Legislature.
All the CA court said was that Prop. 8 was simply what its proponents intended it to be: a constitutional AMENDMENT. Therefore, the electorate DOES NOT have to get Legislative approval to place it on the ballot. Once there, all it takes is a simple majority, as Drkaje stated, to pass it.
If folks in CA are grieving about the constitution being too easy to amend, then they need to make the appropriate adjustments. Florida had a similar issue; and in 2006, the voters passed a law (against which I voted) which requires all future amendments to be passed by a 60% supermajority of the electorate.
Of course, Florida's marriage amendment (Amendment 2) still passed 62-38, a squeaker by the new standard.
I thought these lawsuits were a waste of time and money. I'm not saying that my plan is the only way to do things, but the campaign for equality should focus its energy on voter education, which will mean spending a lot of time on TV.
Because the measure was so close to being defeated last year, I think it's worthwhile to bring it back in 2010. Naturally, we'll need to work much harder the next time around, but there's no use letting the emotions wane until 2012.
Regarding the process itself, yes, I do agree that it shouldn't be so easy for the majority to legislate discrimination, BUT, those are the rules that we were playing under at the time and the 'yes on 8' people used those rules to their advantage. It's now the job of the No campaign to do the same.
-
You can't argue for less government intrusion and demand it legitimize alternate lifestyles in the same thread, Tre. :)
One of my constant points has been that the state should be out of the marriage business, BUT since it is in that business (because the majority wishes it to be so), all consenting adults should be treated the same under the laws they are paying for.
Following this argument to a logical possible conclusion, what happens when a genotypic and phenotypic male walks into the county recorder's office and says that he or she is a female and requests a marriage license to marry his (her??) partner who is also a genotypic and phenotypic male?
If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"?
Keep in mind that gender transitions ARE legal in California.
-
I don't want to see straight people marching for straight pride either. Fuck whomever you want, but making a public spectacle about it seems really tasteless to me, straight or gay.
well, don't go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, or Daytona Beach for Spring Break. Or the east side of Manhattan on March 17.
-
If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"?
No WE don't, Bill says.
-
One of my constant points has been that the state should be out of the marriage business, BUT since it is in that business (because the majority wishes it to be so), all consenting adults should be treated the same under the laws they are paying for.
Following this argument to a logical possible conclusion, what happens when a genotypic and phenotypic male walks into the county recorder's office and says that he or she is a female and requests a marriage license to marry his (her??) partner who is also a genotypic and phenotypic male?
If a person self-identifies as a gender WE (the majority) don't feel they are, do we then have the right to say "You're not a female, even though you consider yourself to be"?
Keep in mind than gender transitions ARE legal in California.
Taking the state out of the marriage business means the churches will decide.
Besides, you're deliberately mixing up unrelated concepts to advance the position. Genotype, phenotype, schmenotype it doesn't matter and this wasn't an "equal protection under the law" issue until they allowed the 18,000 or so marriages to remain valid.
People should have been more honest about this from the beginning and left race out of the debate. Now you'll never get a majority of minorities to support it (redefining marriage) idea because gays (and supporters) played the race card.
-
well, don't go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, or Daytona Beach for Spring Break. Or the east side of Manhattan on March 17.
Told ya, Tapeworm. Black and white to some.
-
Taking the state out of the marriage business means the churches will decide.
Which is fine. Churches who wish to welcome gay couples will exist and those who wish not to welcome them will exist. People will have the ability to choose. Over time, it will become less and less popular to be perceived as being anti-gay, so in order to remain competitive, many churches will begin to change their positions.
Besides, you're deliberately mixing up unrelated concepts to advance the position. Genotype, phenotype, schmenotype it doesn't matter and this wasn't an "equal protection under the law" issue until they allowed the 18,000 or so marriages to remain valid.
People should have been more honest about this from the beginning and left race out of the debate. Now you'll never get a majority of minorities to support it (redefining marriage) idea because gays (and supporters) played the race card.
You know my argument has always been about equal rights, privileges, and protections based on the way the tax code is set up. Sure, I might *feel* it's important that we move away from being a nation of bigots, but that's not really a way to win the debate, given that so few people in this country really know what it means to be an American, especially since even fewer actually believe in what our country stands for.
The church-affiliated Whites played the race card after the election, essentially trying to say that Blacks and Latinos were to blame. "Don't boycott our businesses", they said, "it was the Blacks and Latinos who put the measure over the top! All we did was campaign for our beliefs and that shouldn't be held against us."
Discussions of the history of race ARE important to the conversation, because they provide a reference point. No one is saying that being black is the same thing as being gay, but we are saying that the same language used as justification to discriminate against Blacks is much the same as is being used to justify the prejudice against gays. That doesn't mean the issues are the same or equal, but it does mean that, as Americans, we need to know our history and heeds its lessons.
-
Which is fine. Churches who wish to welcome gay couples will exist and those who wish not to welcome them will exist. People will have the ability to choose. Over time, it will become less and less popular to be perceived as being anti-gay, so in order to remain competitive, many churches will begin to change their positions.
You know my argument has always been about equal rights, privileges, and protections based on the way the tax code is set up. Sure, I might *feel* it's important that we move away from being a nation of bigots, but that's not really a way to win the debate, given that so few people in this country really know what it means to be an American, especially since even fewer actually believe in what our country stands for.
The church-affiliated Whites played the race card after the election, essentially trying to say that Blacks and Latinos were to blame. "Don't boycott our businesses", they said, "it was the Blacks and Latinos who put the measure over the top! All we did was campaign for our beliefs and that shouldn't be held against us."
Discussions of the history of race ARE important to the conversation, because they provide a reference point. No one is saying that being black is the same thing as being gay, but we are saying that the same language used as justification to discriminate against Blacks is much the same as is being used to justify the prejudice against gays. That doesn't mean the issues are the same or equal, but it does mean that, as Americans, we need to know our history and heeds its lessons.
Then "we" are either silly or pretending to not know what the language is really saying.
-
The Mormons and Catholics started the rumor that the Blacks and Latinos were the ones to 'blame' for the measure passing in California.
sorry, but more than 80% of black voters went for prop 8
-
sorry, but more than 80% of black voters went for prop 8
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
yes on 8 by race:
white - 49%
black - 70%
latino - 53%
asian - 49%
other - 51%
-
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
yes on 8 by race:
white - 49%
black - 70%
latino - 53%
asian - 49%
other - 51%
all the exit polls were showing 80 - 85%+ in real time, some as high as 9 out of 10, so perhaps the lower numbers are the result of some misgivings. but we'll never really know i suppose.
-
all the exit polls were showing 80 - 85%+ in real time, some as high as 9 out of 10, so perhaps the lower numbers are the result of some misgivings. but we'll never really know i suppose.
70%, but that's neither here nor there, as Blacks make up barely 10% of California's electorate. Even if the 'black vote' had fallen along the 50% line with the Whites, the measure still had more than enough votes to pass.
Nice try with your spin, but you'll need to try again.
-
70%, but that's neither here nor there, as Blacks make up barely 10% of California's electorate. Even if the 'black vote' had fallen along the 50% line with the Whites, the measure still had more than enough votes to pass.
Nice try with your spin, but you'll need to try again.
not saying that blacks were responsible for its passing; only that blacks overwhelmingly supported it
-
Poor bay.
-
not saying that blacks were responsible for its passing; only that blacks overwhelmingly supported it
Support of gay rights is highly correlated with knowing gay people. Time for all the guys on the down-low to come out.
-
not saying that blacks were responsible for its passing; only that blacks overwhelmingly supported it
Ok, you're right.
But even if I work to get that 70% number down to 35%, though, I'm still WAY short on the 'no' side.
-
Support of gay rights is highly correlated with knowing gay people. Time for all the guys on the down-low to come out.
x2
No one wants to be outed, but if I have to position my minions outside every Mormon church in California, I will. ;D
-
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
yes on 8 by race:
white - 49%
black - 70%
latino - 53%
asian - 49%
other - 51%
I am very pleased every time I see these numbers. :)
-
not saying that blacks were responsible for its passing; only that blacks overwhelmingly supported it
It's one of those issues like abortion where blacks tend to be fairly conservative. Dudes on the 'down-low' are there for a reason, LOL! It's really not culturally endorsed.
-
Dudes on the 'down-low' are there for a reason, LOL! It's really not culturally endorsed.
it wasn't exactly in my culture either in 1982, but I still came out, and survived.
-
It's one of those issues like abortion where blacks tend to be fairly conservative. Dudes on the 'down-low' are there for a reason, LOL! It's really not culturally endorsed.
perhaps monogamy and a reasonable level of birth control would be a better place for such conservatism. that's a serious comment, by the way
-
it wasn't exactly in my culture either in 1982, but I still came out, and survived.
I'm 'out' as a vocal supporter and business has never been better. Not a single one of my gay friends has ever tried to 'turn me gay'.
The gayest thing about me is that I own an iPhone. :-[
-
It's one of those issues like abortion where blacks tend to be fairly conservative. Dudes on the 'down-low' are there for a reason, LOL! It's really not culturally endorsed.
Yet there are *many* black 'men' (??) who wear earrings.
"Hey, girlfriend!"
-
it wasn't exactly in my culture either in 1982, but I still came out, and survived.
Sorry... I tried really hard to not do this. :)
perhaps monogamy and a reasonable level of birth control would be a better place for such conservatism
Didn't say the bias made sense.
-
Didn't say the bias made sense.
yes, i know.
it really makes me wonder about "cultural karma", though
-
Most irrelevant thing going on in US 'politics'.
Take away marriage entitlements and the entire 'problem' is solved.
-
Sorry... I tried really hard to not do this. :)
Good stuff!
Love the one print: "Dip me in honey and throw me to the lesbians".
I'm ALL over that one! ;D
-
yes, i know.
it really makes me wonder about "cultural karma", though
Blacks do tend to be insanely protective of gay relatives but don't generally endorse homosexuality. All the stuff about people being on the low is stupid, IMO. Married, engaged or whatever people shouldn't be sneaking around on their partners and using cultural norms as an excuse for bad behavior.
-
Most irrelevant thing going on in US 'politics'.
Take away marriage entitlements and the entire 'problem' is solved.
Marriage entitlements being taken away wouldn't end the argument. This is about having homosexuality considered 'normal' in American society.
Maybe we should outlaw all marriage, LOL!
-
Blacks do tend to be insanely protective of gay relatives but don't generally endorse homosexuality.
I remember it being a very big deal when ____ decided to bring his 'friend' to a family gathering...but it was one of those things no one wanted to talk about.
Once there, though, the friend was welcomed with open arms and everyone had a good time. Afterwards, of course, some of the elders said things like "well, he was a nice young man, but I just don't agree with it", but all was good in the 'hood.
-
Marriage entitlements being taken away wouldn't end the argument. This is about having homosexuality considered 'normal' in American society.
Maybe we should outlaw all marriage, LOL!
Not a bad idea.
Take away marriage and more guys might be able to start having sex again.
-
Marriage entitlements being taken away wouldn't end the argument. This is about having homosexuality considered 'normal' in American society.
Maybe we should outlaw all marriage, LOL!
Americans are too 'conservative' to ever consider homosexuality 'normal'. Lost cause in the US.
-
I'm 'out' as a vocal supporter and business has never been better. Not a single one of my gay friends has ever tried to 'turn me gay'.
The gayest thing about me is that I own an iPhone. :-[
hun and your second gayest thing is that you're a Getbig.com member
-
I remember it being a very big deal when ____ decided to bring his 'friend' to a family gathering...but it was one of those things no one wanted to talk about.
Once there, though, the friend was welcomed with open arms and everyone had a good time. Afterwards, of course, some of the elders said things like "well, he was a nice young man, but I just don't agree with it", but all was good in the 'hood.
You're a nice guy. It's no surprise they liked you. :)
-
What exactly is the issue with Americans and gay men? I mean, do they spend all their time envisioning them engaging in anal sex? What is the issue? ???
-
the entire argument surrounding 'gay rights' is centered around whether homosexuality is a born physical difference (in the brain, obviously) versus a chosen behavior. naturally, if it's a physical difference, individuals may rightfully require protection from discrimination.
funny thing is, as long as i've been around, i have become convinced that it's neither a physical difference nor a choice - but rather a childhood environmental process that causes, say, a male to be almost hypnotically drawn into the psyche of his very influential mother. it's just the nature of the developing mind to do this and it explains so much, including sometimes wildly feminine mannerisms, etc.
-
the entire argument surrounding 'gay rights' is centered around whether homosexuality is a born physical difference (in the brain, obviously) versus a chosen behavior. naturally, if it's a physical difference, individuals may rightfully require protection from discrimination.
funny thing is, as long as i've been around, i have become convinced that it's neither a physical difference nor a choice - but rather a childhood environmental process that causes, say, a male to be almost hypnotically drawn into the psyche of his very influential mother. it's just the nature of the developing mind to do this and it explains so much, including sometimes wildly feminine mannerisms, etc.
so are you telling us you were born last night? ::)
-
You're a nice guy. It's no surprise they liked you. :)
LOL!!!! ;D
-
so are you telling us you were born last night? ::)
did i hit a nerve
-
Take away marriage and more guys might be able to start having sex again.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
"gay marriage will lead to female child prostitution"
-
so are you telling us you were born last night? ::)
no, he's from the 1950s, fell asleep and woke up in 2009
-
no, he's from the 1950s, fell asleep and woke up in 2009
lol. wrong on both counts
funny how this theory causes gays to become so upset. your flustered, very terse jab tells it all
fact is, it's no more of a choice than it is a physical difference and vice versa. it's neither good nor bad. it simply 'is'
-
lol. wrong on both counts
funny how this theory causes gays to become so upset. your flustered, very terse jab tells it all
fact is, it's no more of a choice than it is a physical difference and vice versa. it's neither good nor bad. it simply 'is'
domineering mother, absent father, etc, was the prevailing point of view in the 1960s. hundreds of peer reviewed studies showed it to be false.
-
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
"gay marriage will lead to female child prostitution"
Good article.
-
domineering mother, absent father, etc, was the prevailing point of view in the 1960s. hundreds of peer reviewed studies showed it to be false.
plenty of gay men, particularly white and asian, have had a father in the house, no doubt about it
in the case of gay men, its much less about the father than it is the mother
-
plenty of gay men, particularly white and asian, have had a father in the house, no doubt about it
in the case of gay men, its much less about the father than it is the mother
Women often turn their sons - and daughters - into sissies, but not every sissy is gay and not every gay is a sissy.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp
"gay marriage will lead to female child prostitution"
Unbelievable.
-
plenty of gay men, particularly white and asian, have had a father in the house, no doubt about it
in the case of gay men, its much less about the father than it is the mother
u sure know alot about gay men ;)
-
Women often turn their sons - and daughters - into sissies, but not every sissy is gay and not every gay is a sissy.
agreed. the effects of the mother stay with a person for a lifetime, too
by the way, the theories from the 60s would suggest that somehow homosexuality IS a choice and can possibly be 'cured' through psychiatry. this is what makes them wrong and outdated
-
u sure know alot about gay men ;)
but i thought you disagreed with me :)
-
but i thought you disagreed with me :)
i'm not agreeing or disagreeing ...just observing you know alot about homosexuality :)
-
This thread is gay.
-
i'm not agreeing or disagreeing ...just observing you know alot about homosexuality :)
come on, man. which is it :)
-
come on, man. which is it :)
i agree that u know too much about homosexuality. :)
-
i agree that u know too much about homosexuality. :)
sounds like you're now a convert to the truth about it. congrats :)
-
sounds like you're now a convert to the truth about it. congrats :)
hun i said no such thing :)
-
hun i said no such thing :)
:-*
-
I honestly don't get why people get so hyped up against this. Let them get married, who are they harming honestly.
-
:-*
were you really born in the 40's?
-
I honestly don't get why people get so hyped up against this. Let them get married, who are they harming honestly.
exactly. they're envisioning gay male couples on every block in america, luring children in with lollipops and gay porn. fact is, not a damned thing would change. no one would even notice
-
were you really born in the 40's?
no, i wasn't. my thoughts aren't related to the outdated stuff timfogarty was talking about. i don't believe that gays can be or should feel the need to be 'cured', and i don't think they're guilty of 'deviant' behavior (no more than heterosexuals, anyway :)), etc.
i'm simply going by other kids i recall from childhood, what i've gathered about their families during our time as children, and how they've grown up and come to identify themselves as adults.
don't mean to piss anyone off, but don't much care if i do.
-
well, don't go to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, or Daytona Beach for Spring Break. Or the east side of Manhattan on March 17.
Easy there Tim, I'm on your side. Gay marriage should be legal. I never heard of Manhattan March 17, but you're really stretching it to hold up Mardi Gras and Daytona Beach as examples of a straight pride parade. There's no political agenda associated with either event.
I'm not saying you can't get together and have a party. Do your thing. That would be akin to Mardi Gras or Daytona. Wouldn't you agree, however, that politically motivated gatherings (marches & parades) are doing more harm than good for the present day cause of gay equality?
Told ya, Tapeworm. Black and white to some.
Yes, not so savvy. You split hairs after you get unjust laws sorted out. Insist on a bunch of opinion clones and you're shooting yourself in the foot by making any sort of unity or congress damn near impossible. What's needed is a good dose of, dare I say it, tolerance.
-
I never heard of Manhattan March 17
Irish Pride Day
I'm not saying you can't get together and have a party. Do your thing. That would be akin to Mardi Gras or Daytona. Wouldn't you agree, however, that politically motivated gatherings (marches & parades) are doing more harm than good for the present day cause of gay equality?
No, gay pride is still important. its the only time the "gay community" gets together. its the only time the gays really get together with the lesbians, the only time the suburban families get together with the urban club kids, etc.
Gay pride is 90% G rated, 9% PG, .9% R, and .09% NC-17. Of course the tv news crews will find the R rated stuff, and the fundies will find the NC-17. but we've survived 40 years of that.
June 28 is the 40th aniversary of the Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots), the first gay pride march was June 28 1970 in Los Angeles.
-
Irish Pride Day
No, gay pride is still important. its the only time the "gay community" gets together. its the only time the gays really get together with the lesbians, the only time the suburban families get together with the urban club kids, etc.
Gay pride is 90% G rated, 9% PG, .9% R, and .09% NC-17. Of course the tv news crews will find the R rated stuff, and the fundies will find the NC-17. but we've survived 40 years of that.
June 28 is the 40th aniversary of the Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots), the first gay pride march was June 28 1970 in Los Angeles.
The gay community sounds kind of factionalized despite facing a common problem.
The world has changed a lot since 1970. You're facing a different set of problems so you need different solutions. While a pride march might bring your community together it isn't going to gain any further public support for your cause, which is what you need. Clearly, the old methods simply aren't getting the job done for you. Seems to me you should find a way to use that pride march as a springboard for more varied action, stand together the remaining 364 days of the year to create a strong lobby, and explore some ways of influencing the press and the minds of voters. Identify and work on some key people before the next vote and see if you can get some better percentages out of problem demographics. Maybe sue the state on the grounds that inequality under the law is unconstitutional? I don't have a solution for you but I wish you luck.
-
The gay community sounds kind of factionalized despite facing a common problem.
yeah, its because gays are a cross section of society. inner city club kids really don't have too much in common with soccer moms.
Clearly, the old methods simply aren't getting the job done for you.
are you kidding? gay marriage in 5 states! this close to a gay American Idol without any real controversy. How many gay Survivors, again without controversy?
While a pride march might bring your community together it isn't going to gain any further public support for your cause, which is what you need.
the only thing needed for more public support is for people to come out. lot harder to be anti-gay when you have a gay friend or family member
-
yeah, its because gays are a cross section of society. inner city club kids really don't have too much in common with soccer moms.
Of course they do. They're both being treated as second class citizens by unfair laws. What kind of gay activist are you?! ;D
j/k man
-
It's doubtful joe sixpack even cares about this.
Society has far more pressing issues.
-
domineering mother, absent father, etc, was the prevailing point of view in the 1960s. hundreds of peer reviewed studies showed it to be false.
From what I've seen, the father isn't necessarily absent. Many Christian groups that works with homosexuals have found that a lack of bonding with a father present in the home or physical/sexual abuse by a father (or other male relative) were common factors.
In an article I posted, a former lesbian cites her father abusing her mother combined with her being molested by a male cousin and her brother as factors in her becoming a lesbian.
Christine Sneeringer states the reasons for her homosexual behavior included “sexual abuse, gender confusion, a breakdown in the relationship with my same-sex parent, an abusive father and peer rejection.”
She also emphasizes lack of emotional bonds, when describing a lesbian relationship she had in college. While she was seeking safety from abusive men, her lover longer for emotional intimacy that she did not receive from her workaholic husband.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789)
http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/ (http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/)
-
From what I've seen, the father isn't necessarily absent. Many Christian groups that works with homosexuals have found that a lack of bonding with a father present in the home or physical/sexual abuse by a father (or other male relative) were common factors.
In an article I posted, a former lesbian cites her father abusing her mother combined with her being molested by a male cousin and her brother as factors in her becoming a lesbian.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789)
http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/ (http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/)
lol ::)
-
It's doubtful joe sixpack even cares about this.
Society has far more pressing issues.
Indeed!!
But, Joe Sixpack DOES care about this issue, when it infringes on his right to vote on public policy in his state, run his business as he sees fit, or have a say on his children's education.
-
But saying to someone "You're not entitled to the same rights as I am, because you wish to 'live gay'" is what it means to act like a bigot.
I still go back to the taxation issue, though. And one real important issue - at least from a few perspectives - is that, with a simple majority at the ballot box, *anyone's* rights can be taken away in California. I have to argue that that's a fatal flaw in our system.
The 'yes on 8' people keep playing the 'why isn't it ok to disagree with you?' card and that's not the point.
Disagreeing with logic, common sense, and the love of Christ is everyone's right and that's fine by me. BUT, what's not fine is attempting to dictate how others must live. If YOU wish to live according to your beliefs, so be it. That's what America is here for.
But telling others they must live based on your beliefs? Completely un-American, by every definition.
Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. All these people want is the term marriage attached to them, but why? What does it matter to them? If their love is all that matters, then why cry about this if their unions are legal and mean the same thing? What rights are really being violated?
I don't think Coach is a bigot for disagreeing with gay marriage makes him a bigot. The people have spoken as to what they think marriage, a misguided union between a man and woman, but one between a man and woman just the same. No rights were taken away with the vote.
-
why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?
-
why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?
I'll give you three guesses. ;)
One marriage thread here is 24 pages long... this one is already 8 pages long... ::)
-
why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?
There are a lot of opinions on the matter. A few even make sense. :)
Of course some retards will argue anyone against the idea is either gay, homophobic, bigoted, a closet gay, religious zealot or secretly afraid of being rejected by gays. :)
-
Damn, this topic is so insipid and boring. :-\
-
I'm sure the forums that cover NFL football, cars, scuba diving, kite surfing, soccer, baseball, and all other forms of sports and entertainment have threads 32 pages long on gay marriage. ::)
-
I'm sure the forums that cover NFL football, cars, scuba diving, kite surfing, soccer, baseball, and all other forms of sports and entertainment have threads 32 pages long on gay marriage. ::)
I don't get it either. The world economy is falling apart and this thread is amongst the longest around. :-\
-
I don't get it either. The world economy is falling apart and this thread is amongst the longest around. :-\
Getbiggers are a curious lot; they are very interested in certain, shall we say, "topics." I participate in several forums online related to cars, surfing, computers, higher education, etc. Some of these boards have an Off Topic or Politics forum and this is the only board that has even mentioned gay marriage much less has 32 pages of discussion about it. Very telling. :D To borrow a line from my friend Doom "Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha"
-
Getbiggers are a curious lot; they are very interested in certain, shall we say, "topics." I participate several forums online related to cars, surfing, computers, higher education, etc. Some of these boards have an Off Topic or Politics forum and this is the only board that has even mentioned gay marriage much less has 32 pages of discussion about it. Very telling. :D To borrow a line from my friend Doom "Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha"
Too many fundies here.
-
Too many fundies here.
Too many Ted Haggards here. ::)
-
Too many Ted Haggards here. ::)
QFT
-
We can't let gays get married. Next thing you know, they'll start thinking they're fully human or something. >:(
-
We can't let gays get married. Next thing you know, they'll start thinking they're fully human or something. >:(
My former spouse and her people think that gays have sex and this concerns them deeply.
-
QFT
X2
-
Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. All these people want is the term marriage attached to them, but why? What does it matter to them? If their love is all that matters, then why cry about this if their unions are legal and mean the same thing? What rights are really being violated?
I don't think Coach is a bigot for disagreeing with gay marriage makes him a bigot. The people have spoken as to what they think marriage, a misguided union between a man and woman, but one between a man and woman just the same. No rights were taken away with the vote.
If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.
Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".
All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.
The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).
-
If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.
Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".
All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.
The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).
-
I'll give you three guesses. ;)
One marriage thread here is 24 pages long... this one is already 8 pages long... ::)
Tf I'm not mistaken, the 24-page thread is YOURS. And you keep it going every time something happens, regarding gay "marriage" (at least, when it's to your liking).
Not that there's anything wrong with that!!! ;D
-
Damn, this topic is so insipid and boring. :-\
And yet, you keep popping up on threads, regarding this topic, to give your two cents (or the equivalent of such, whereever it is you are).
There are a lot of opinions on the matter. A few even make sense. :)
Of course some retards will argue anyone against the idea is either gay, homophobic, bigoted, a closet gay, religious zealot or secretly afraid of being rejected by gays. :)
So true!!!
And, as we’ve most recently seen, the canard that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else continues to be exposed for the lie that it is.
Funnier still, if gay “marriage” gets legalized in a certain state, those who support it claim that it’s time to move on to the “real” issues. Yet, when people vote to pass marriage amendments, that moving to the "real" issues suddenly takes a back seat.
-
Mariage is for people who believe in God. If you don't believe in god, why get married. If you do, then you know that having sexual acts with the same sex is a sin and marriage to the same sex is not prohibited in the bible. There are other ways of being committed to someone besides marraige.
-
And, as we’ve most recently seen, the canard that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else continues to be exposed for the lie that it is.
Hold on, that's the part I've missed. What are the highlights of your argument as far as this claim is concerned?
If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.
Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".
All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.
The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).
I'm still not convinced that mob rule is the way to go on issues like these, but do agree that we play with the rules we have.
A lot of intellectually dishonest individuals on the pro-8 side argued that 'this is only about the definition of the term marriage', but I don't think there's much precedent for determining definitions of terms by popular vote. Shouldn't they have taken the argument to Merriam-Webster instead??
Note: I wasn't able to have any conversations either during or after the campaign with secular supporters of the measure. Everyone I encountered on the pro side was coming from a religious perspective, so that's why many of my statements have appeared to 'target' them.
That being said, I don't know many religions that would be happy if non-religious or anti-religious people decided to vote on their right to worship as they please.
-
X2
Yes, it's being overrun. All threads lead to God. Not long 'til Getbiblestudy.
-
Mariage is for people who believe in God. If you don't believe in god, why get married. If you do, then you know that having sexual acts with the same sex is a sin and marriage to the same sex is not prohibited in the bible. There are other ways of being committed to someone besides marraige.
in the modern world, marriage is a contract between two people and the state. the two people agree to take care of each other, and in exchange the state gives them benefits.
-
Yes, it's being overrun. All threads lead to God. Not long 'til Getbiblestudy.
ah, but who's bible?
-
ah, but who's bible?
You missed the point.
-
Hold on, that's the part I've missed. What are the highlights of your argument as far as this claim is concerned?
For starters (and there have been whole threads done on this), you have the vile treatment of one Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for her simply answering a question about marriage with her belief that it should be between a man and a woman.
Then, there's a case in New Mexico (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal), where the owners of a wedding chapel were fined over $6,000, after a suit from a "human rights" firm, for their refusal to perform a "committment ceremony" for a lesbian couple.
I'm still not convinced that mob rule is the way to go on issues like these, but do agree that we play with the rules we have.
That's not "mob rule". Otherwise, the election that put Obama into office would be considered as such. We have a democracy and, barring any constitutional breaches, the majority rules in a democracy.
A lot of intellectually dishonest individuals on the pro-8 side argued that 'this is only about the definition of the term marriage', but I don't think there's much precedent for determining definitions of terms by popular vote. Shouldn't they have taken the argument to Merriam-Webster instead??
This isn't intellectually dishonest. How can you claim that someone is being denied the right to participate in an institution, if that instutition isn't clearly defined?
Take interracial marriages (particularly those between blacks and whites). With marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, that means that a white man and a black woman or a black man and a white woman should be able to marry without any punitive actions taken against them. That was the basis of the Loving v. Virginia case.
Remember also that Utah had to ditch the polygamy stuff, in order to be a part of the United States. That's affirmed in the 19th-century federal case, Murphy v. Ramsey, which states among other things:
For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
That is the definition of marriage there. And, it is that definition that is being challenged by gay activists.
Note: I wasn't able to have any conversations either during or after the campaign with secular supporters of the measure. Everyone I encountered on the pro side was coming from a religious perspective, so that's why many of my statements have appeared to 'target' them.
That being said, I don't know many religions that would be happy if non-religious or anti-religious people decided to vote on their right to worship as they please.
Once again, that falls under the category of a constitutional BREACH. There is a clear, spelled-out-in-black-and-white, clause in the Constutition that says that can't happen. No such thing exists for gay "marriage".
-
Then, there's a case in New Mexico (where gay "marriage" isn't even legal), where the owners of a wedding chapel were fined over $6,000, after a suit from a "human rights" firm, for their refusal to perform a "committment ceremony" for a lesbian couple.
you're mixing your outrages. the wedding chapel was in New Jersey, on publicly owned land
the New Mexico case was a photographer, and in New Mexico, like many states, if you run a business you can't discriminate based on many things including sexual orientation. that it was a commitment ceremony was immaterial. saying 'we don't do business with gays' is no different than saying 'we don't do business with blacks'.
-
California need to focus more on it's finances and less on making a legal agreement between two males who have anal sex with each other. ;) ::)
-
you're mixing your outrages. the wedding chapel was in New Jersey, on publicly owned land
the New Mexico case was a photographer, and in New Mexico, like many states, if you run a business you can't discriminate based on many things including sexual orientation. that it was a commitment ceremony was immaterial. saying 'we don't do business with gays' is no different than saying 'we don't do business with blacks'.
You are the correct on the New Mexico case. My bad!!!
But, the issue wasn't that they were gay. The issue was the "commitment ceremony", itself. It was against her religious beliefs and it basically mimicked something that isn't even legal in that state.
-
But, the issue wasn't that they were gay. The issue was the "commitment ceremony", itself. It was against her religious beliefs and it basically mimicked something that isn't even legal in that state.
biracial marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. mixed religion marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. different religions are against some people's religious beliefs. the NM Human Rights Commission would have found the photographer in violation of the law in all of those cases. Because the photographer is acting as a business, and businesses aren't allowed to discriminate.
-
Once again, that falls under the category of a constitutional BREACH. There is a clear, spelled-out-in-black-and-white, clause in the Constutition that says that can't happen. No such thing exists for gay "marriage".
Actually, I misspoke earlier. I'd forgotten that I did speak with one gentleman who said that the reason he was supporting Prop 8 was his outrage at the judges who'd overturned his previous vote on the subject. We didn't get into the reasons why he opposed the concept of gay marriage...he seemed sincere in saying that his support of 8 was based on his opposition to judicial activism and I took him at his word.
-
biracial marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. mixed religion marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. different religions are against some people's religious beliefs. the NM Human Rights Commission would have found the photographer in violation of the law in all of those cases. Because the photographer is acting as a business, and businesses aren't allowed to discriminate.
NO NO NO Tim. You just don't get it. MCWAY will argue with you till your fingers wear off. Just accept that gays are not fully human, that they do not feel real affection for their loved ones, and that they do not deserve all the many rights that a straight couple can get with a marriage license.
Just accept that Britney's or JLo's 20-hour-marriages are endowed with more societal rights and protections than lifelong partnerships between so called "loving" gay couples.
MCWAY-approved.
-
Yeah, people need to mind THEIR OWN BUSINESS. That means those who chose to live a homosexual lifestyle stop trying to force the remaining 97% of the population who are NOT homosexual into accepting and agreeing with the homosexuals elected lifestyle. Your comment Tre about everyone simply minding their own business is should be taken to heart by the homosexual community. BUT, instead they want to force their belief and lifestyle choices on the rest of us. Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
Homosexuals lost. It was the CORRECT, FAIR and JUST decision. Now, to the haters (Godphobic and anti-Christian people) live in peace, and mind your own business.
-
Yeah, people need to mind THEIR OWN BUSINESS. That means those who chose to live a homosexual lifestyle stop trying to force the remaining 97% of the population who are NOT homosexual into accepting and agreeing with the homosexuals elected lifestyle. Your comment Tre about everyone simply minding their own business is should be taken to heart by the homosexual community. BUT, instead they want to force their belief and lifestyle choices on the rest of us. Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
Homosexuals lost. It was the CORRECT, FAIR and JUST decision. Now, to the haters (Godphobic and anti-Christian people) live in peace, and mind your own business.
"Mind your own business."
Great philosophy...haha, what are we in 3rd grade here?
-
biracial marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. mixed religion marriages are against some people's religious beliefs. different religions are against some people's religious beliefs. the NM Human Rights Commission would have found the photographer in violation of the law in all of those cases. Because the photographer is acting as a business, and businesses aren't allowed to discriminate.
Businesses ARE allowed to discriminate, barring any state or federal constitutional breaches.
There was no such breach committed by that photographer. Therefore, the suit was bogus but expensive nonetheless for that businessman and his wife.
NO NO NO Tim. You just don't get it. MCWAY will argue with you till your fingers wear off. Just accept that gays are not fully human, that they do not feel real affection for their loved ones, and that they do not deserve all the many rights that a straight couple can get with a marriage license.
Just accept that Britney's or JLo's 20-hour-marriages are endowed with more societal rights and protections than lifelong partnerships between so called "loving" gay couples.
MCWAY-approved.
I'll speak and approve things for myself, if you don't mind (well, even if you do).
Since you're bringing up musicians, I'll use the title song of one....."What's Love Got To Do With It?"
The emotion of love doesn't turn wrong into right. Adultery is wrong, whether the participants love each other or not. Adults and children consorting is wrong, whether the participants love each other or not.
You can spew all the silliness you want. I suggest, however, that you do so on your own behalf.
-
Yeah, people need to mind THEIR OWN BUSINESS. That means those who chose to live a homosexual lifestyle stop trying to force the remaining 97% of the population who are NOT homosexual into accepting and agreeing with the homosexuals elected lifestyle. Your comment Tre about everyone simply minding their own business is should be taken to heart by the homosexual community. BUT, instead they want to force their belief and lifestyle choices on the rest of us. Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
Homosexuals lost. It was the CORRECT, FAIR and JUST decision. Now, to the haters (Godphobic and anti-Christian people) live in peace, and mind your own business.
"Godphobic"
Nice...quoted for future use. 8)
-
Yeah, people need to mind THEIR OWN BUSINESS. That means those who chose to live a homosexual lifestyle stop trying to force the remaining 97% of the population who are NOT homosexual into accepting and agreeing with the homosexuals elected lifestyle. Your comment Tre about everyone simply minding their own business is should be taken to heart by the homosexual community. BUT, instead they want to force their belief and lifestyle choices on the rest of us. Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
Homosexuals lost. It was the CORRECT, FAIR and JUST decision. Now, to the haters (Godphobic and anti-Christian people) live in peace, and mind your own business.
Marriage actually predates Christianity.
Gays aren't forcing anyone else into same-gender marriages, but in order to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections, people opposed to same-gender marriage state that marriage must be on *their* terms.
It wasn't just homosexuals who lost on November 4th. We all did, whether we acknowledge it or not.
-
Businesses ARE allowed to discriminate, barring any state or federal constitutional breaches.
Businesses are allowed to discriminate on certain grounds, but not on others.
Has the federal government established that discrimination on the basis of sexual/gender orientation is prohibited?
If not, I know that several states - including California - have.
-
Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
let me guess....the earth is 6435 years old
-
Marriage actually predates Christianity.
Gays aren't forcing anyone else into same-gender marriages, but in order to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections, people opposed to same-gender marriage state that marriage must be on *their* terms.
It wasn't just homosexuals who lost on November 4th. We all did, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Bullshit.
People are losing their jobs, houses cars, life savings and a lot of more important things than gay marriage. You've got car companies paying people to take products and even two wars.
The world has managed to turn without gay marriage this far and will probably survive a few more revolutions.
Try again when the economy is better. :)
-
Businesses are allowed to discriminate on certain grounds, but not on others.
Has the federal government established that discrimination on the basis of sexual/gender orientation is prohibited?
If not, I know that several states - including California - have.
As I said, the grounds can NOT clash with the federal constitution. In the New Mexico case, it does not.
Marriage actually predates Christianity.
And........
Virtually nowhere is it defines as two men or two women. In virtually all of those pre-Christian society, the standard was one man and one woman. With that said, polygamists have a better case to make than homosexuals do.
Gays aren't forcing anyone else into same-gender marriages, but in order to enjoy the same rights, privileges, and protections, people opposed to same-gender marriage state that marriage must be on *their* terms.
But, that is NOT unconstitutional. And the irony of your statement is that some of the same gay activists, blubbering about being denied the "right to marriage" turn right around and oppose polygamy, for much the same reason. In other words, they want the gender rules changed to accomodate them; but they're against changing the numbers rule for polygamists.
Gays have those same privileges. The fact that they choose to forfeit them, because of their sexual preference, isn't society's problem.
Besides, at least from the female sides, how many "lesbians" have gone onward to find husbands. Their "gayness" had no impact on the matter. They came to the church or the court with a man and got hitched.
It wasn't just homosexuals who lost on November 4th. We all did, whether we acknowledge it or not.
I beg to differ.
What the CA court did was simply show that people don't lose their right to vote on public policy, just because a certain demographic doesn't like the outcome. Our vote still counts (though I live in Florida and got to vote on my state's amendment, which got far less press).
-
Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith. It appeared NO WHERE else in history until it was brought about buy these (similar) faiths.
Are you stupid? You might want to use Google before you make inaccurate, unsupported statements. Marriage existed in nearly every pre-christian civilization. A basic web search would have told you that much. ::)
-
Are you stupid? You might want to use Google before you make inaccurate, unsupported statements. Marriage existed in nearly every pre-christian civilization. A basic web search would have told you that much. ::)
I believe he said "Judeo-Christian", which would include the Jewish/Hebrew people who were the ancestors of Jesus Christ.
-
I believe he said "Judeo-Christian", which would include the Jewish/Hebrew people who were the ancestors of Jesus Christ.
and Judaism goes back what? 4000 years, (Abraham being born around 2000 BC). There is archeological evidence of marriage rituals much further back than that.
Oh, I forgot, Adam and Eve were Jewish
-
and Judaism goes back what? 4000 years, (Abraham being born around 2000 BC). There is archeological evidence of marriage rituals much further back than that.
And, I'll go out on a wild limb and say that those rituals usually involved a MAN and a WOMAN.
Oh, I forgot, Adam and Eve were Jewish
Yep, even the forbidden fruit was kosher.
-
and Judaism goes back what? 4000 years, (Abraham being born around 2000 BC). There is archeological evidence of marriage rituals much further back than that.
Oh, I forgot, Adam and Eve were Jewish
And were two men and two women taking part in those ceremonies? It astounds me how gays NEED the term marriage so desperately that they will waste tax payer dollars worrying about a word. Marriage is between a man and a woman, get over it. They are legally allowed almost every, if not every, protection under the law. Apparently being with their partner isn't enough. It's more forcing a lifestyle in the face of America and calling them bigoted if they don't agree with it.
-
Exactly, and I'll go out on a limb and say that they took the head of homosexuals off with a sword back in the day.
Actually, homosexuality was pretty prevalent in more than one ancient society.
-
Actually, homosexuality was pretty prevalent in more than one ancient society.
Prevalent, YES (and often punishable by DEATH); the pairing of two such participants being called marriage, NO!!
-
Marriage by the way was invented by the Judeo/Christian faith.
::) You are a living argument against free speech.
What this guy is really saying is that Judeo Christian marriage was invented by the Judeo Christian faith. Well no shit Sherlock. This is the sort of red hot reasoning you get when you 'define' your conclusion as your premise. Similarly, 'A heterosexual marriage is a union between a man and a woman.' Again, no shit.
Instead of 'reasoning' to a presupposed conclusion, consider the problem this way: Are all citizens of the US guaranteed equality under law? Is the prohibition of secular homosexual marriage incompatible with your patriotism? Be honest.
Obviously, I'm talking about secular marriage only. If you want a church wedding, you have to play by church rules. The US government cannot dictate religious doctrine.
-
::) You are a living argument against free speech.
What this guy is really saying is that Judeo Christian marriage was invented by the Judeo Christian faith. Well no shit Sherlock. This is the sort of red hot reasoning you get when you 'define' your conclusion as your premise. Similarly, 'A heterosexual marriage is a union between a man and a woman.' Again, no shit.
Instead of 'reasoning' to a presupposed conclusion, consider the problem this way: Are all citizens of the US guaranteed equality under law? Is the prohibition of secular homosexual marriage incompatible with your patriotism? Be honest.
NOPE!!!
All citizens are guaranteed equality under the law. And the Supreme Court effectively ruled that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman DOES NOT VIOLATE the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Until/unless a different ruling occurs, that's the law of the land. That's why we have 30 states with marriage amendments.
Obviously, I'm talking about secular marriage only. If you want a church wedding, you have to play by church rules. The US government cannot dictate religious doctrine.
The two are intertwined. That’s why pastors can perform marriage ceremonies and sign the paperwork to be submitted to the state. A good friend of mine (the father of an old college buddy) who is a retired minister did the ceremony for me and my wife. He signed the paperwork and the marriage is official.
-
Gays and gay marriage. ::) Oh brother!!
-
The two are intertwined. That’s why pastors can perform marriage ceremonies and sign the paperwork to be submitted to the state. A good friend of mine (the father of an old college buddy) who is a retired minister did the ceremony for me and my wife. He signed the paperwork and the marriage is official.
There's something inherently wrong about the churches being in business with the states, but religious people almost never see it that way.
-
NOPE!!!
All citizens are guaranteed equality under the law. And the Supreme Court effectively ruled that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman DOES NOT VIOLATE the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Until/unless a different ruling occurs, that's the law of the land. That's why we have 30 states with marriage amendments.
The two are intertwined. That’s why pastors can perform marriage ceremonies and sign the paperwork to be submitted to the state. A good friend of mine (the father of an old college buddy) who is a retired minister did the ceremony for me and my wife. He signed the paperwork and the marriage is official.
I'm not asking about a court ruling. I want to hear personal opinions. A group is being denied by law something which is granted to others. That is the very definition of inequitable treatment. Doesn't that strike you as un-American?
-
I'm not asking about a court ruling. I want to hear personal opinions. A group is being denied by law something which is granted to others. That is the very definition of inequitable treatment. Doesn't that strike you as un-American?
But, but Americans expressed their 'free speech' and voted for it, therefore it IS American. ::)
I gotta say, watching the 'yes on 8' folks shouting about their right to free speech was hilarious. I was like, "Uh, do you people understand any of the issues, or are you just hoping to win it with buzzwords?"
-
Exactly, it's not enough for them to be fags with a contract, they have to have the term "marriage".
It's like they are trying to put it in everyone's face.
All the fags, be glad that you are gay in the western world, this is your fate in other parts of the world.
(http://www.hangar.org/gallery/albums/albums/album436/20060301162344_iran_gay.jpg)
Are you saying it's wrong to "love" your fellow man? ;D
-
Are you saying it's wrong to "love" your fellow man? ;D
You forgot to mention that you are natural.
-
All the fags, be glad that you are gay in the western world, this is your fate in other parts of the world.
There are a LOT of gays in the little Sharia police packs.
I wouldn't swear to it, but I'm sure that this Russian girl and I once caught a couple of them in a compromising position when I was in Dubai. (no homo)
-
I'm not asking about a court ruling. I want to hear personal opinions. A group is being denied by law something which is granted to others. That is the very definition of inequitable treatment. Doesn't that strike you as un-American?
Not really. This group isn't being denied anything. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in all but four states. I'll use my home state (Florida), for example.
If you're a guy, you must bring a woman to the court or to the church to get hitched.
If gays dudes forfeit that, because they'd rather do the Brokeback, that's their problem, not that of the state or the country.
You can't claim that someone being denied something, until you CLEARLY DEFINE what that something is. And that's what's at stake: The definition of marriage, itself.
-
But, but Americans expressed their 'free speech' and voted for it, therefore it IS American. ::)
I gotta say, watching the 'yes on 8' folks shouting about their right to free speech was hilarious. I was like, "Uh, do you people understand any of the issues, or are you just hoping to win it with buzzwords?"
They understand the issues quite well. One of those issues is that they have the right to define marriage as they see fit, barring any federal constitutional breach. We have legal precedence stating that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union imposes no such breach.
Therefore, their free speech is THREATENED, wheneeveer some gay activists try to nullify the votes at the ballot box, just because they lost on election day, or when some far-left Legislature plays political game to keep the people from voting on this issue (because they know what the outcome will be).
-
Not really. This group isn't being denied anything. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in all but four states. I'll use my home state (Florida), for example.
If you're a guy, you must bring a woman to the court or to the church to get hitched.
If gays dudes forfeit that, because they'd rather do the Brokeback, that's their problem, not that of the state or the country.
You can't claim that someone being denied something, until you CLEARLY DEFINE what that something is. And that's what's at stake: The definition of marriage, itself.
But you haven't even clearly defined what gender is.
If a genetic male self-identifies as a woman, does the electorate have to vote on the validity of that, too?
-
But you haven't even clearly defined what gender is.
If a genetic male self-identifies as a woman, does the electorate have to vote on the validity of that, too?
Pouring syrup on poop don't make it a pancake, Tre.
Someone could feel like Bill friggen Gates on the inside but that doesn't make them a millionaire. :)
-
Pouring syrup on poop don't make it a pancake, Tre.
Someone could feel like Bill friggen Gates on the inside but that doesn't make them a millionaire. :)
Classic. ;D
Just because Tre likes to hump she-males he wants to make gender indefinable. ::) ;D
If gender no longer has a qualification, we will need to overturn all sorts of equal rights laws.
-
All the fags, be glad that you are gay in the western world, this is your fate in other parts of the world.
(http://www.hangar.org/gallery/albums/albums/album436/20060301162344_iran_gay.jpg)
what is your motivation to post that pic? The pic is real. Ayaz Marhoni, age 18, and Mahmoud Asgar, age 17, were hanged in July of 2005 in Mashhad, Iran (after receiving 228 lashes) after being found having sex together almost 2 years earlier. Two teenagers get executed for playing around with each other, and you post it here for what? to intimidate gays?
-
what is your motivation to post that pic? The pic is real. Ayaz Marhoni, age 18, and Mahmoud Asgar, age 17, were hanged in July of 2005 in Mashhad, Iran (after receiving 228 lashes) after being found having sex together almost 2 years earlier. Two teenagers get executed for playing around with each other, and you post it here for what? to intimidate gays?
Yet, Sean Penn (who blasted the people for passing Prop. 8, while accepting an award for his role as gay activist, Harvey Milk) is all chummy with Iran's president. But, he thought George Bush was Lucifer with a Texas accent and big ears.
-
what is your motivation to post that pic? The pic is real. Ayaz Marhoni, age 18, and Mahmoud Asgar, age 17, were hanged in July of 2005 in Mashhad, Iran (after receiving 228 lashes) after being found having sex together almost 2 years earlier. Two teenagers get executed for playing around with each other, and you post it here for what? to intimidate gays?
I don't think the pic was to intimidate. I think he wanted to point out that gays in america have it good because of the freedom. Not such the case in Iran I guess. I wonder if they thought it was worth it? packin the fudge that is.
-
I don't think the pic was to intimidate. I think he wanted to point out that gays in america have it good because of the freedom.
that's still intimidation. "Know your place. Be happy with what we allow you to have."
Not such the case in Iran I guess. I wonder if they thought it was worth it? packin the fudge that is.
God. They were kids. Straight kids play around. Straight kids feel love. (we adults may call it puppy love)
-
Pouring syrup on poop don't make it a pancake, Tre.
Someone could feel like Bill friggen Gates on the inside but that doesn't make them a millionaire. :)
But society allows gender-swapping transitions for people who desire them.
-
But society allows gender-swapping transitions for people who desire them.
Re-read the 'syrup/pancake' analogy. :)
-
But you haven't even clearly defined what gender is.
If a genetic male self-identifies as a woman, does the electorate have to vote on the validity of that, too?
It's really that ambiguous to you?
Ok, I hereby self-identify as an oppressed black man. Can you maybe help me score some Affirmative Action?
-
It's really that ambiguous to you?
Ok, I hereby self-identify as an oppressed black man. Can you maybe help me score some Affirmative Action?
Wigga please!
-
Wigga please!
Who are you to tell me I'm not?
My Asian ancestors migrated to Africa and humped themselves some local sapiens, so I got that. June-August brings out the pigment, and I like me a refreshing Fanta Purple from time to time.
Also, I call my girl "Boo."
Black, I say.
-
Who are you to tell me I'm not?
My Asian ancestors migrated to Africa and humped themselves some local sapiens, so I got that. June-August brings out the pigment, and I like me a refreshing Fanta Purple from time to time.
Also, I call my girl "Boo."
Black, I say.
You're right!! I should be more sensitive and respect your inner black man.
Fight the power!!
-
It's really that ambiguous to you?
Ok, I hereby self-identify as an oppressed black man. Can you maybe help me score some Affirmative Action?
There's a lotta 'black blood' out there...
-
Also, congrats to Drkaje for hitting the 10,000-post mark in the gay marriage thread. :D
-
Also, congrats to Drkaje for hitting the 10,000-post mark in the gay marriage thread. :D
I didn't even know, LOL!
Apparently the 10,000th post was on the women's board but we'll never know because alphabet/sex board posts don't count.
-
Not really. This group isn't being denied anything. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in all but four states. I'll use my home state (Florida), for example.
If you're a guy, you must bring a woman to the court or to the church to get hitched.
If gays dudes forfeit that, because they'd rather do the Brokeback, that's their problem, not that of the state or the country.
You can't claim that someone being denied something, until you CLEARLY DEFINE what that something is. And that's what's at stake: The definition of marriage, itself.
(http://www.apmid.org/wp-content/spockvulcan.jpg)
I question your logic and I even find it a little terrifying. When they come to define citizenship, I just hope I meet their criteria.
-
Blah, Blah, Blah 11 pages of gays crying over not being able to get married to one another blah, blah, blah, boo hoo.
-
Blah, Blah, Blah 11 pages of gays crying over not being able to get married to one another blah, blah, blah, boo hoo.
X2
-
Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.
I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. :P
-
Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.
I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. :P
Outed.
-
Outed.
Yup, I imagine lots of gays involved in this thread with a few exceptions.
-
Outed.
haha
-
(http://www.apmid.org/wp-content/spockvulcan.jpg)
I question your logic and I even find it a little terrifying. When they come to define citizenship, I just hope I meet their criteria.
Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Can gays participate in that institution? YES!
Do they want to do so? NO!
Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!
Same goes for people who like polygamy.
Can they get participate in marriage? YES!
Do they want to do so? NO!
Why? Because the requirement demands only ONE spouse.
Does their desire for multiple spouses mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!
If marriage were defined as "a union of two people who love each other" (or something along those lines) and gays were not being allowed to participate in marriage, THAT would be a denial of marriage "rights".
That's why I say: Gays are NOT being denied the right to marry. They are being DENIED the right to change the definition of marriage itself.
-
Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Can gays participate in that institution? YES!
Do they want to do so? NO!
Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!
You still haven't resolved the case of the person who self-identifies as the opposite gender, which would allow him/her to usurp the existing legislation.
-
You still haven't resolved the case of the person who self-identifies as the opposite gender, which would allow him/her to usurp the existing legislation.
That case has as much merit as the Buffalo Bills, self-identifying as Super Bowl champions (although Drkaje's pancake analogy will also suffice).
-
Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Can gays participate in that institution? YES!
Do they want to do so? NO!
Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!
Same goes for people who like polygamy.
Can they get participate in marriage? YES!
Do they want to do so? NO!
Why? Because the requirement demands only ONE spouse.
Does their desire for multiple spouses mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!
If marriage were defined as "a union of two people who love each other" (or something along those lines) and gays were not being allowed to participate in marriage, THAT would be a denial of marriage "rights".
That's why I say: Gays are NOT being denied the right to marry. They are being DENIED the right to change the definition of marriage itself.
Exclusion by virtue of definition is an argument from conclusion and seems like a fascist approach to me. Why are you unwilling to disagree with what gays want to do but still support their right to do it?
Besides, it's odd that you would choose to hinge the entire case against gay marriage on something as precarious and capricious as the definition of a word. Surely there is more substance to the argument against gay marriage. Some observable reason or ethical grounding?
-
That case has as much merit as the Buffalo Bills, self-identifying as Super Bowl champions (although Drkaje's pancake analogy will also suffice).
I wouldn't be so certain.
After all, what is the state's current role in gender re-assignment cases? Can the state tell a person he/she is not allowed to pursue a gender transition?
-
I wouldn't be so certain.
After all, what is the state's current role in gender re-assignment cases? Can the state tell a person he/she is not allowed to pursue a gender transition?
A simple DNA test will do the trick in tough cases.
-
A simple DNA test will do the trick in tough cases.
So, the DNA identifies a person as XY. If he/she self-identifies as a woman and has done all the things up to and including surgery for gender transition, is he/she still a man as far as legal marriages are concerned?
Would he/she be allowed to re-classify himself as a male? After all, he's got the XY chromosome.
-
So, the DNA identifies a person as XY. If he/she self-identifies as a woman and has done all the things up to and including surgery for gender transition, is he/she still a man as far as legal marriages are concerned?
Would he/she be allowed to re-classify himself as a male? After all, he's got the XY chromosome.
Why would anyone put so much thought into such a marginal issue? Freakishly marginal.
At this point, shouldn't we be discussing mental competence and legal consent?
-
Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.
I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. :P
In other words, your parents are Christians.
-
Why would anyone put so much thought into such a marginal issue? Freakishly marginal.
At this point, shouldn't we be discussing mental competence and legal consent?
Well, now that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman, it's now time to define 'man' and 'woman'.
That's certainly a logical next point in the conversation, given how blurry the gender lines have become (and I'm not even speaking in bodybuilding terms).
-
Well, now that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman, it's now time to define 'man' and 'woman'.
That's certainly a logical next point in the conversation, given how blurry the gender lines have become (and I'm not even speaking in bodybuilding terms).
At some point the whole syrup/pancake thing will finally sink in and you're gonna feel very silly. :)
-
At some point the whole syrup/pancake thing will finally sink in and you're gonna feel very silly. :)
Not at all.
I mean, the pro-8 people in CA declared 'we saved marriage!' after the November election.
'Saved'??
Seems we put that proverbial syrup on a lot of shitty marriages, my friend.
-
Not at all.
I mean, the pro-8 people in CA declared 'we saved marriage!' after the November election.
'Saved'??
Seems we put that proverbial syrup on a lot of shitty marriages, my friend.
I'm in favor of you having all the rights, just not redefining marriage.
-
I'm in favor of you having all the rights, just not redefining marriage.
Bingo!
-
I don't get it either. The world economy is falling apart and this thread is amongst the longest around. :-\
LOL
-
LOL
Tell us how you really feel BayGayBlackMale because we really do care.
-
LOL
You could just as easily replace that caption with, "Relax!!! We're going to move the 49ers to Santa Clara"
Arnold is groveling before Obama, to get more money for his broke state; yet somehow he's got nearly a billion to move an NFL franchise.
-
I would venture to guess that the NFL is far more important to many people than is just about anything else in the US, whether it be gay marriage or the economy. It's all about the bread and circuses!
-
I would venture to guess that the NFL is far more important to many people than is just about anything else in the US, whether it be gay marriage or the economy. It's all about the bread and circuses!
Hey, football is life; the rest is just details!!
GO BUCS!!!
;D
-
Hey, football is life; the rest is just details!!
GO BUCS!!!
;D
lol. Go Niners! :)
-
lol. Go Niners! :)
The San Francisco 49ers or the Santa Clara 49ers?
-
I can make the argument that genotype determines gender, but someone else could make the argument that an individual's gender identity is self-determined.
The fact that it's legal to 'transition' from male-to-female or female-to-male means that the definitions really aren't as clear-cut as some people might like them to be.
Guess what Tre, ...Conservatives are planning to block that back door too {no pun intended} ;D really :P
Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier between Gays & Marriage:
-
Coolest Special Report headline ever.