Prop 8 did not pass....

Oh, see, I just assumed that the words "I graduated in 06. A BA in poli sci." Meant that you'd graduated in 2006, with a BA in poli sci. I know, huge leap of logic for me to have made, looking back on it, but hindsight is 20-20. Should I have assumed that you actually did graduate given what you said, or would that have been taking your words too far as well?

Alright alright. But seriously... what DID you mean, then?
 
i really don't want to argue the point anymore...especially since you're not listening. i think i already mentioned that i have gay family and i'm not arguing about how gayness affects kids this whole time i've been talking about SOCIETAL effects. anyway, have fun with this one kids.
 
I don't see what exactly is so wrong with people who want to maintain the traditional view of a white-dominated institution. blacks could have their own bathrooms, schools, and drinking fountains, separate but equal.
 
They already have things like Life Partners, but because it is not a legal marriage recognized by the state I am sure it is a lot harder to get things that married couples get, like tax stuff and insurance and stuff like that. I may be wrong because as i was typing i remembered that movie, I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry. But whatever, I think they should be able to do what ever they want, they are still going to do the things they do behind closed doors whether or not they are married or not.
 
To the thread creator:

ConservaFags? Well now, thats just horrible word choice for the argument you pose. And I think your thread title was incorrectly worded. Check your shit dude.
 
well put.

i know a gay couple that went to cali a month ago to get married because its illegal in WA. Now they want to annul all gay marriages that happened in Cali already and thats some bullshit. They followed all the laws and went to a state where it was legal, and a month later theres a chance the marriage is annuled.
 
From a person who actually voted on this....
It Did in fact Pass by something like 52% to 48%...
Anyway, I voted No.
The reason I voted No is because I believe that marriage is a term that should be used for people who are wed for religious reasons. If a church believes a couple should be married, they should be married. If a church wont marry a Gay couple, they can find one that will.
I plan on having a Civil Union some day for the fact that I have only ever been to church for research reasons. I know as much about Judaism and Buddhism as I do of Christianity. But for some reason Christians think my Union will be a Marriage because it will be between a man and a woman...
This is a civil rights issue. Separate but equal is not equal.This is a religion issue. It should be up to the religious institution to decide who they will and wont marry.
Marriage - religious ceremonyCivil Union - you can still have a ceremony, just by a judge or someone licensed to do it.
 
so when someone asks you, are you married? youll say no, im civil unioned?

gays should be able to call it whatever the fuck they want to call it.
 
I think you missed my point.
Marriages are typically associated with religion, doesnt matter what religion, but religion. A civil union occurs by a court. You can be recognized as having either. Some people do both. They will get married in another country and then do a civil union in their own to make sure it is recognized.
I'm saying that legally, gay couples should be able to call their union a marriage if it happened in the manner of any religion (there are more churches than you think).
Legally I will have a civil union cause I have no intentions of having a holy marriage. but yeah, I'll still call it a marriage.
Who cares what you call it publicly, it is what goes on paper that is the matter that was up. And now marriage is defined as being between a Man and Woman.
So you can only have a "marriage" as a religious deal if you are a man and a woman, but you can have a civil union if you are a man and a woman or a gay couple.
This is why it is both religions and civil rights.
 
yeah lets all feel so so so sorry for the gays since they haven't been able to get a piece of paper since.....ever and now they won't be able to get a piece of paper for another 4 years, boo frickity hoo.
 
damnit, still didn't make myself clear there.
A marriage certificate happens in both court and by the church, it you have it at the church depending on the situation you usually still have to go to the court and sign off on it.
In CA Civil unions are essentially the exact same thing except they arent recognized by other states.
General consensus for those who were against defining marriage as man/woman are pro handing it over to the religious community. What they would get in return is still a civil union but which is recognized in other states.
There are some people that believe it should be marriage regardless. Which I'm cool with too, but if people are going to say that defining all unions as marriage takes away the tradition, then lets hand it over to be a religious deal and let the church make up their minds.
Im on the compromising let the church decide side.
Hope this is clear now.
 
I am a strong supporter of gay marriage. It's a form of population control. Who wants these freaked out, confused people to have offspring! I think faggots should be able to get married to each other so they will stop bitching about how much society is against them. Just trying to get attention.. it's retarded. If your gay, you fucked up somewhere in your childhood.. because that's not what whoever or whatever created humankind had in mind! But please, let me repeat myself, I am a strong supporter of gay marriage so let me remind you of this before you start flaming me! :D
 
that was a better explanation

however this part is what concerns me (not that you concern me, the law i mean)

Civil unions are essentially the exact same thing except they arent recognized by other states.

that alone should be reason to either call all unions civil unions, or all unions marriages.

i have no problem with relegating married to religion, but then everyone must be in a civil union regardless of sex.

sorry if that was confusing let me know
 
im guessing this was sarcasm

if not. your not even worth a response. however if that was serious YOU are the one that should not have offspring.
 
it literally takes two seconds to figure out what you are actually voting for. shut up with the reverse psychology bullshit. thats absurd and you know it.
 
True I see the reasoning to your argument??!!

I should have made myself more clear so I will add, Hopefully most of these fags turn gay and get married happily ever after before they have children.
 
Hence my point.. population control. Did you miss English class? Sound out your words little man!
 
and all i will say in this thread about my opinion is this...

if everyone were gay, the human race would die out. it is against basic nature of survival in animals to be gay. im not homophobic.
 
so what do you think gays are going to die out? they are born from straight couples....

they can still adopt. or have a surrogate mother. lesbians can go the in-vitro (spelling?) route.
 
Like I said, I'm completely neutral on the subject. I didn't even fill in a yes or a no on the ballot (I actually probably would've put no, but these two butch lesbians outside the polling place were pushing people to vote no and if you didn't take their little vote no pamphlet "you sucked", that really got under my skin).

And I'm sorry, I'm open to arguments for it, but trying to compare this to black segregation is ridiculous. What I kind of don't like is the fact that gays and lesbians have to push this agenda that they're exactly the same as heterosexuals. A name does not mean segregation. If you forbid all kinds of unions and deny equal rights as marriage, that is segregation, otherwise its not. I just don't understand why they can't just be reasonable. Why do they have to force everyone to recognize their right to a heterosexual institution? Its just a name, their is no reason for them to stir people up against them for no reason. It hurts them in the long run.
 
i see that argument, but at the same time as you said, its just a name, who are we to say they CANT have it.

as to people outside of polling places, they should be banned.
 
because it goes against the definition of what it is.

just like I don't have the right to a negro college scholarship that NS advertises. whose to say I can't have that scholarship?
 
but who defines things, cant definitions change?

at one point black people were defined as 3/5ths of a white guy. that definition changed.
 
not defined, they were counted as 3/5 for representation purposes. Ironic I know, but it wasn't a definition by any means. Defining a black man as 3/5 of a white man would mean that they were entitled to 3/5 of the rights of white men.

 
i suppose. but my real point was, society is ever changing, words need to adapt to accept those changes.
 
I see this really as more Christianity forced down our throats. The legitimate un-religion based arguments against allowing this are pretty much straight up homophobia.
 
I think most people are overlooking the rammifications that accompanied extending marriage to same sex couples. It's not about having the ability to share in the sanctity of marriage, it's about being entitled to the rights that accompany being married to your partners. As of this current moment, many hospitals will prevent individuals from visiting their same sexed partners, especially as they lay on their deathbeds. You have the state saying same sex partners are not entitled to the tax incentives and healthcare benefits extended to heterosexual partners. I'm pretty certain most in search of gay marriage would be completely content with the recognition of civil unions to encompass the benefits extended with marriage.

The agenda to moralize marriage is a hypocricy perpetuated by the conservative right substantiated by the fictional accounts detailed in the bible. If you people in support of prop 8 want to draconize the bible's teachings, divorce should also be outlawed, you should be able to kill your children when they disobey you as their parents, and you should be able to stone your wife if she commits adultery.
 
let me explain this for you and some others in this thread, because you are just extremely ignorant about a whole bunch of things.

MARRIAGE gives couples certain legal benefits regarding taxes, adoption, power of attorney, etc. civil unions don't give the same rights.

the idea of a monogamous relationship bound in some form or another doesn't belong to religion. sorry. that's like saying being kind and compassionate belongs to christianity, because jesus taught it.

oh and lastly for you...yes, a name means segregation. if a law was passed that all people under 5 feet had to be referred to as some name other than men or humans, like I dunno, "mogs," wouldn't that be segregation? that's an extreme example but people want to be treated the same.

Lets cut the shit here, if you are against gay marriage you have a problem with gay people on some level. saying that you are fine with them doing it behind closed doors or some other stupid shit like that doesn't make you tolerant, asshole. no one likes to see anyone, straight or gay, making out in public, but I really don't give a shit if a gay man kisses his boyfriend on the cheek or holds his hand. grow the fuck up.
 
It sucks that this election couldnt be positive for everyone. And I totally agree with you on the reverse psychology thing. Its pretty ridiculous. I dont really remeber seeing too many ads on TV to vote yes or no. Its fucked up I feel like giving the benefit of the doubt that a good amount of people were confused on exactly what they were voting yes or no for. Its fucked up.
 
i havent read this thread all the way through but the reason this has not passed is because these states are not ready to go that far to the left yet. (dont bash me im making a solid point ok.) it doesnt matter if you are for or against the prop, there are far to many generations ahead of us to let this idea go through.

we just elected the 1st black president. lets hit one mile-stone at a time guys.
 
adam and eve isn't part of religion they are part of history..history has a place in government. and your point about how we should not force upon this "minority" our own beliefs and they can do what they want is a little stuipid. they are no minority. they are a group of people who made their choice to be gay. we do not have to accept anything just like we don't need to make then feel comfortable.

and please dont start the "wah wah you hate gay people" line with me..my own mother is a lesbian and I know that it is not a harmless lifestyle and yes it can ruin family values.

/rant
 
i just want to state for the record that it did pass. gay marriage was banned.

they had the right and then it was banned. prove that we can withhold rights from minorities while simutaniously breaking racial barriers. sweet, maybe in 50 years a gay could run for office or would that be too soon?
 
its to bad gay people don't rate minority status. black people did not have a choice a birth what color they wanted to be. gays have that luxury of choice.

:D
 
the fact that the majority of african-americans in exit polls stating they voted against prop 8 has no little bit of irony to you?

i'm glad this is currently a state issue, and not a federal issue. let the individual state decide what their definition of marriage is. since it is fairly obvious that we have different ideals throughout the country. san francisco = pro homo. bible belt states = no homo. although, i wonder how the state-specific definition of marriage would translate to your 1040 tax forms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top