Prop 8 did not pass....

Arabian.

Arabian.

Active member
Fucking Conservafags once again stymie social progress with help of everyone's favorite book: The Bible. I am so, so, so, sad for all the gays living in california who have to deal with this shit for another 4 years. I guess it didn't help that voting YES meant banning gay marriage and NO meant you were for it. Strange reverse psychology.

Next election, vote NO on prop 8.
 
Apparently it was the high african american turnout that did it... oh the irony. I have to stand by my original statement, though, that it shouldn't even matter; if there's a law being proposed that takes away a right from a visible minority it really should be struck down as unconstitutional.
 
but Jesus says it's bad...

but I agree, let people do what they want, there shouldn't be a law against gay marriage, that's ridiculous.
 
I think its ridiculous. The main reason is to keep the family values so they say but if that is so important then they should make divorces illegal...that effects more people then a gay person getting married would.
 
To everyone who voted Yes on prop 8... FUCK YOU!!!! You're all a bunch of religious nut job assholes.
American elected Obama, you clearly want 'Change'. How about we start by ending discrimination and blind hate in America? This issue is a joke compared to the Civil Rights Movement in the 50's and 60's. All you had to do was say, "It's none of my business who marries who," and vote NO. The fact that this is even an issue makes me sick. Once again, anyone who voted yes on Prop 8...
FUCK YOU, GO DIE!
 
its so dumb how people care what somebody else can and cant do when it will never affect them
 
I know quite a few people who are not religious who voted yes on 8.

I don't see what exactly is so wrong with people who want to maintain the traditional view of marriage as a heterosexual institution. It would be just as easy for the gay community to make up their own word for their unions, with equal rights as marriage. A proposition like that would pass by a huge margin. If something like that didn't pass, then we'll talk about denial of rights.
 
isnt that up to the individual though? if i want to define marriage one way then i can. if someone else has a different definition than thats cool too. why does it matter? i just dont understand, why should they have to change the name?
 
Maybe because those same black voters who voted for Obama voted Yes on 8? Are you saying the black vote is unimportant? Its funny that all you fools accuse white conservatives for this passing, even though whites on average voted No on 8 more often.
 
thats not that surprising, alot of blacks are fairly christian in their values, and therefore not to stoked on gays.
 
I personally do not care at all.

I'm just correcting people who are so quick to label people who voted to pass 8 as bigots.
 
i wasnt really arguing against you, more just saying that i dont really think thats a valid argument either. it just seems unconstitutional to me.
 
For many people, legalizing gay marriage mean that they have to accept their lifestyle choice, that its somehow in the mainstream because they can get married just like heterosexuals do. The fact of the matter is is that it is not mainstream and no one should be forced to accept all the lifestyle choices of others. Tolerate yes, but accept no.

Gay people can have their unions and even claim to be "married". But they should not force others, especially the large numbers of people that view marriage as a sacred heterosexual institution, to have to recognize this.
 
The gays have no business being married. They can do whatever the fuck they want behind closed doors, but marriage is 1 man, 1 woman. Period.

It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
 
it's more complicated than most of you think. it's not just a matter of man and a man marrying each other and what people think about it. it has mostly to do with how it effects society. it's just not that simple. it's not as dire as you might think: gays in california can already enjoy all of the same rights and benefits as married couples besides being able to say that they are "legally married."
 
please explain to my why you should be able to rule that on every gay in america.

adam and eve is part of religion. now, does religion have any place in our government? no.
 
how it affects society? unless your an intolerant homophobe it doesnt affect society at all.
 
again. the bible should not affect government rulings. hence that whole separation of church and state thing.

its unconstitutional.

period.
 
Hahaha wow it makes no sense how people are allowed to get divorced but yet two men or two women can't get married. People believed the commercials that they were putting out. It's bullshit it was never gonna be taught in schools and it had nothing to do with the bible, If it had to do with the bible than the proposition would have never existed in the first place (separation of church and state). Why in the hell do people want to ban it anyways, it doesn't affect them at all, it doesn't change my life if two men get married, just let them live their lives. This is just like saying a black can't marry a white. It's fucking retarded and now all these gays that have never done anything wrong towards the voters are being penalized because of the way they've been since they were born. Think about this- We just changed our whole country in a day by electing Obama and now we're restricting gays from getting married. Now there's only two states that still allow gay marriage. How fucked.
 
and by alternative I don't mean choice, I mean it by this definition

employing or following nontraditional or unconventional ideas, methods, etc.; existing outside the establishment: an alternative newspaper; alternative lifestyles.
 
please explain to me how allowing gays to marry would affect yours or any ones life, other than the gays getting married.
 
my friend wrote this, well put and humorous. very worth reading especially if you are anti-gay marraige.
A couple arguments that keep getting thrown around that I am voicing my opinion on.

How does banning gay marriage "protect the family"? I think Lewis Black made a good point here, the Gay Banditos (youtube it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk ). For those not familiar with it, he asks the same question I did, but continues on about a group of gay men who go around and terrorize families by having gay sex in front of them.

Has this ever happened? No.

Gay marriage doesn't do anything to "destroy the family". Your family will be the exact same today as they were yesterday if gays are aloud to marry. In fact some might even be happier. If anyone's family will fall apart because two people who love each other are aloud to marry your family has much bigger issues.

Fact: Gay marriage isn't the "gateway marriage" that will lead onto people marrying animals and in some arguments I have heard, inanimate objects. Look at any country that has legalized it. Not a single one allows marriage to animals. But where it is aloud there is a severally lower amount of AIDS.

Gay parents will not have gay babies. One: two guys/girls can't have a baby. Two: Gay parents who adopt or have a child wont raise a gay baby. If it was true that gay parents raise gay children wouldn't it also be true that straight parents would raise straight children? If that were true wouldn't there be no gay children?

The old "gays are unnatural" fight. Recently a series of genes were discovered that nearly every gay person has. It is being said that this will cause a child to be gay. This may or may not be true because we don't fully understand how genes work in this sense. If it is true, being gay would be just as much a choice as skin color, height, and eye color. Point two, there are gay animals. I'm not going to get into details on this but there are over 70 mammal species where gay couples have been discovered, and every primate group (apes, orangutans, chimps, etc.) fall into that category.

Gays destroy the sanctity of marriage. I think straight people have done that just fine. Drive through weddings, day later annulments, the "if it doesn't work we can always get a divorce" attitude. Which of those helps preserve the sanctity of marriage?

Religious freedom. There are many churches and religions that fully support gay marriage. Shouldn't everyone in this country get to exercise the same religious freedom?

To summarize:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
 
Okay now in all seriousness, I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I even work with a few of them, and would consider them friends. As far as marriage, I do believe it's a union between man and woman. Why can't they come up with some other term for it when it comes to gays? I mean something. Try and make everyone happy?
 
but then EVERYONE isnt happy. they wanna call it marriage. why cant we leave that up to the individual. if you wanna call it a civil union, call it that, no ones forcing you to call it marriage.
 
You wanna call it a civil union? Fine. I'm okay with that. Just don't call it "marriage." Oh and I also don't want to see them hold hands.
 
so YOU can call it that. but why cant it be called marriage by the people that wanna call it that. christ its a word.
 
small example: lets say you have kids (please don't) when they're like 7 years old do you want them being taught about gay marriage in school? like not hearing about it...the teacher having story time and reading them a book about a boy marrying a boy. are you down with that? i'm not being a dick i'm seriously asking. i'm not. it's already been a big issue of IF or WHEN kids should be taught sex ed in school. what about gay ed? all i'm saying is that it has it's effects.
 
what? you shouldnt be teaching a 7 year old about sex in school either way.... and what does it matter if you teach them WHEN THEY ARE READY about both. are you afraid that just hearing about gays is gonna turn them gay?
 
Er... no, actually, denying abortion would be the removal of a woman's right to choose, so the opposite of what you're implying is true. The argument about abortion is not about a tension between a woman's rights and a baby's; no one denies a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body and no one denies babies' rights to live. The argument is whether a fetus in the first trimester IS a baby from a moral and legal perspective, and if not, then "babies' rights" don't even come into the argument.

However this thread is about gay marriage, not abortion, so keep your diatribes to yourself.
 
fyi...that story happened in massachusetts where it is currently legal for gays to marry. and a judge said that parents don't have the right to know about it beforehand or pull their kids out of class that day

i'm not homophobic.i don't have a problem with gays at all, but i do have a problem with the legalization of gay marriage. gays being gay has a MUCH smaller affect on me, my kids, society than legalizing marriage. it comes back to the point that they already have all the same rights as married people do.
 
so they werent teaching gay sex. they had a book that showed a gay couple.... should we also not allow books that portray interracial couples until they reach a certain age? same concept.
 
you're a dumass. i have family that's gay. does it bother me how that will effect my kids? not really. marriage is a whole different game. maybe someday realize that the world is a little more complex than you think. maybe you should take an economics class or start educating yourself about society, social issues, economics, business, and politics.
 
who is? am i supposed to be impressed? graduate with a BA? wowzers. i graduated in december '06. a BA in political science.

the fact that you use words like "pwned" shows the level of sophistication we're dealing with here.
 
christ it was a joke because you called him a dumbass, and hes definitely not.

regardless you never answered my question, if we arent gonna show gay couples should we also not show interracial couples?
 
I know how to find out who should win this Poli Sci BA pissing contest... a one question quiz to determine which one of you is more creative:

What are you going to do with a BA in poli sci?
 
okay you buttfuckers settle down it was banned within good reason who ever made this proposition was fucked in the head because it stated that any minister preist ect.. that did not want to wed a gay couple would lose their federal funding. It is up the minister or who ever is in charge of their own church to decide who gets married inside it and no one else. Taking away a churches federal funding because of personal choice is ridiculous. Also they were going to force gay marrige to be taught about in public schools.

I don't know what they were thinking but it sounds like they asked for way to much. And I think the majority of people that didn't want it to pass and actually voted against wasn't because they don't like gay people but everything else in the proposition was unconstitutional
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top