as long as you’re straight
Incorrect source or offensive?
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous YES, I HAVE A HEART | Kick me… Next »
» 557 comments
-
Recent Comments
dissimilitude on Get of your dissimilitude on Let’s imagine the look o… Lynx318 on Let’s imagine the look o… LarsVonLederhosen on TRAIN ORIGAMI bob on Shhhh…be…completel… Xenon on Let’s imagine the look o… Xenon on Let’s imagine the look o… paws4thot on Let’s imagine the look o… paws4thot on Get of your Default User on Get of your 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Why does this seemed photoshopped….
hm… because it IS?
no, I think, B-79 is joking about how true this sign is.
Because that’s Ohio in the background
WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe eastern Ohio near the WV border, but most of the rest of OH is flat.
And yes, I answered you funny post with a fact. Time for more tea……
I was going to say Utah, but I wanted to give the home state a shout out. My grandfather was born in 1892 in Warren, my grandmother 1901 in Cleveland. Still have tons of family all over the state. If you’ve got a job it’s not a bad place to live.
Photoshop is not that hard to use…at least make the color and saturation match!
Well, the people have spoken…Nothing hateful about it. Would you want the sign to read “Welcome to California as long as your gay”? If the ban had failed? Leave it alone already.
There are a lot of hateful things about it… It’s basically saying a large portion of the population things that they can be happy, but happiness is surely not okay if you’re gay. This whole “Welcome to California as long as your gay” thing doesn’t really hold up, since before Prop 8 everyone was allowed to be happy.
Not allowing other people to be happy when it in no way effects you = hateful.
That’s your opinion. Let’s point out what’s wrong with it. 1) There are plenty of happy single people, 2) there are plenty of unhappy married people, 3) Proposition 8 in no way affected domestic partnership laws, so those are still fully in effect.
Proposition 8 was about 2 things. The courts overturning the will of the people willy nilly and the radical redefinition of the culture. Nobody cares who gay people love, screw, hang out with at parties, etc. etc.. But no one wants other people’s views foisted upon them, either. That doesn’t make them hateful. I think it says a lot that this passed in California.
How are other people’s views being foisted upon you? And how are you not doing the same by supporting Prop 8?
“Proposition 8 was about 2 things. The courts overturning the will of the people willy nilly and the radical redefinition of the culture. ”
– It’s the courts’ job to “overturn the will of the people” when the will of the people is to discriminate against, hate, & murder people.
.
–Same-sex couples want to be INCLUDED in the culture. That’s one reason that same-sex marriage is more important than civil unions, even if civil unions grants all the exact same rights.
.
“Nobody cares who gay people love, screw, hang out with at parties, etc. etc.. ”
–Good, then give same-sex couples the same rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy when they love, screw, hang out with at parties, etc. etc..
.
“But no one wants other people’s views foisted upon them, either. ”
–Exactly, so get out of my house telling me how to live my life.
.
“That doesn’t make them hateful.”
–At the very least, it makes them hypocritical.
““But no one wants other people’s views foisted upon them, either. ”
–Exactly, so get out of my house telling me how to live my life.”
Nuff said…
Homosexuality is breaking the laws of NATURE, flat out, no religious views inthis… 1 male + 1 female = continuation of species. 1 of the same sex = death of a species. 1st grade science, morons.
Tell that to all the gays animals, dumbass.
Exactly. First grade science often glosses over the complexities of the real word. Homosexuality provides genetic benefit to species, which is why it is SO COMMON in nature. Homosexuality builds group cohesion. For a young male animal, a an older homosexual partner provides many benefits that can lead to increased chances to mate productively. First, there is the opportunity to practice sexuality with someone who has the same equipment you do. Also, the older homosexual animal will protect the younger male from rivals. Female homosexuality among animals has also been shown to increase group cohesiveness, and provide better child rearing opportunities. Female homosexual pairs will still mate with males and have children, but with two females looking after the babies, the children have a much greater chance of success.
–
You are wrong. Laughably wrong and ignorant. It is as if you are claiming that the sky is green and the grass is blue, your statements have no basis in reality.
I have a much simpler view.
.
If God didn’t want two guys to get it on, why did He put the male g-spot (i.e. the prostate) a penis-length up the butt?
What what in the butt?
And good lord, does it ever feel FANTASTIC when that g-spot is… ya know..
What a joke. You are arguing that somehow nature is always right over a computer. Want nature? Go live in a cave.
“3) Proposition 8 in no way affected domestic partnership laws, so those are still fully in effect.”
Noone hosted their views upon anyone.
A Marriage is a way for loved ones to share the same benefits that others want.
and fell they deserve. A civil wedding doesn’t actually hold with the same
benefits that a marriage does.
Your same sex spouse is dying in a hospital, can’t see ‘em. Cause you’re
not married. Some people, are religious, and don’t WANT a civil union
they want something to feel ‘right’ to them and only a religious wedding
would do this.
This is the same thing as separating blacks from white. Why are WE being
classified as 2nd class citizens because we’ve found someone we’ve
truly and finally love?
You want to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Fucking Bad Divorce.
Are you out of your mind? Separate but equal is still NOT equal.
Its following the same pattern of other major civil rights issues. First the courts recognize that equal protection under the law takes precedent over religiously based bigoted views. Then we have a period of moral outrage, fueled by well-funded interested parties. Laws will be passed. More court cases will overturn them. Finally the supreme court will have to take it up. Hopefully we can skip the Plessy v. Ferguson phase of this and get right to Brown v. Board of Education, but eventually it will happen.
I still don’t quite get how marriage in general is any of the government’s business anyway but we’re way past that now. Ah well, I’m out of kool aid so its time to stop.
I don’t get how it’s the rest of the population’s business either, but that’s me.
Also, most of the things we’re voting on aren’t about marriage but civil unions. It’d be nice if people would stop spreading the HATEFUL disgusting crap being spewed all over Florida about “Protect the Children” on prop 2 banning homosexual civil unions.
it’s the government’s business because you get tax exemptions and whatnot based on your marital status.
i don’t care if you consider it a sin or not… let them “sin”, it’s not affecting your life. more room in your happy exclusive heaven for you. i’ll share my heaven with the unbaptized babies
nice one
Here, here!!!
I’m a gay Californian. I want to get married, and have 2 adopted kids (so they can have a loving, supportive, home with opportunities for education and happiness) and a whole heard of LOL Cats. What right is it of a small majority to tell me different?
Seriously. It was a 4%difference in the totals. A 4% difference to revoke rights afforded to citizens by the State. How is that Just, or AMERICAN! F^^^ tea, I’m gonna dump some STARBUCKS in the Bay!!!
Its days like these that make me embarrassed to be a heterosexual man. I voted no on the damn thing and I still feel guilty.
I think you hit the bulls-eye with that comment. I’ve been feeling the same way.
Ok, so, I might be a Brit but even I understand the constitution is important to you guys.
So surely all it should take to repeal this, is for a group of gay people to argue that they will not be happy till they have married their partners under the full and unambiguous definition?
In other words, either prop 8 is un-American (by denying happiness) or the constitiution, (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is… *gulp* Dare I say it… Wrong? :O How is happiness obtainable if prop 8 removed all hope of it?
Can these two be reconciled?
Damn it! That was the Declaration of Independence.
Historical Document FAIL!
They were British! Honestly, how much of ANY British historical document do you know?
Sorry, I should have said they ARE British. At least I presume they aren’t dead.
Magna Carta son! Edward can suck it!
What does it say?
Actually the Magna Carta was signed into law by King John (b. 24th December 1167 – 19th October 1216)
After some really awful defeats in a bunch of wars, the English nobility got sick of the King treating them like shit, taxing them unreasonably, and jailing dissidents.
The Nobles rebelled, and ordered the King sign the Magna Carta into law. Most important of the new laws was ‘Habeas Corpus’ (the right of an indvidual not to be thrown in jail by the state, without evidence and a trial based on it)
Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all this happy crap going on about gay marriage. It’s often referred to as the Equal Protection clause, basically if you’re a citizen here the laws apply equally to you no matter which state you’re in. With straights, if you’re married in one state then your marriage is acknowledged as valid by every other state. But with gays obviously that’s not true. All it takes is a stubborn lawyer taking this crap to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court doing their goddamned jobs, and that’s the end of gay marriage bans.
DOMA. Defense of Marriage Act. It was signed into effect by Presiddent Clinton on his way out of the White House.
Basically, any state in the Country can IGNORE a Gay Marriage from another state.
Isn’t it nice to know you can create laws and policies that OVERRIDE the Constitution of the United States?
Not true…
Remember that the 10th amendment of the US Constitution says that the states retain the powers not specifically granted to the federal government. The main effect of the DOMA is to affirm that legal definitions of marriage are determined at the state level and not the federal.
Yeah, hey, remember that part of the Constitution called the Full Faith and Credit clause which requires states to recognize contracts (example: a marriage) made in other states? I do.
ROFL!
I love how the state has a 65% divorce rate and it’s those people screaming about the “sanctity of marriage!” and all that bullshit. Sanctity my ass. You’ve got people fighting extremely hard to get this simple right that straight people abuse day after day.
the sad thing is my BEST FRIEND (female) has been married 4 times and is getting divorced and getting ready to get married a 5th time at age 38 and I as a LESBIAN woman who raised 4 happy children whom are all well rounded adults now cannot get MARRIED, and she voted YES because she beleives she be allowed to marry and divorce multiple times………..
yea CALIFORNIA really screwed up the numbers here
That sounds like a variation on a Queer as Folk plot.
Parents happily pay for (hetero) wedding number 3 for the straight daughter, but nary a dime for the lesbian one’s commitment ceremony ‘Because it’s not real”
As for screwed up, as I used to use in my email signature FOUR YEARS AGO: If Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage wasn’t a violation of the sanctity of marriage, than how can gay marriage be one?
no, you can have that tax exemption without having a marriage.
same benefits, same everything. only difference is they want to make it normal to pork a person of the same sex and feel socially ok with it. they some how feel the need to have that piece of paper to say HA look, you said we couldnt but WE DID IT ANYWAY, in your face! we are now married. Adam and Steve, right??
oh, by the way, the mormons are fixing that problem with all them unbaptized, going to hell babies. seems pretty unfair to them for innocent babies to go to hell, why should we get rewarded for living? i though y’all would have known that, whatwith them supporting prop 8. maybe you should cure your ignorance… irony in that statement?
so pretty much, your ‘heaven’ will be pretty empty. well atleast of those babies you talked about.
FYI, Mormons don’t believe unbaptized babies go to hell; other wingnut “Christians” believe that, but Mormons believe you’re not accountable until you reach the age of 8, which is when they get baptized.
I’m pretty sure no one believes that anymore…that was Catholic Doctrine back in the day, but unless I’m mistaken (I’m not up on my Catholic doctrines so much) that has since passed out of fashion.
That’s not true. Civil unions don’t confer all the rights of marriage and furthermore are not recognized on the federal level, unlike marriage, so it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
So change those laws, stop redefining culture.
Culture is constantly being redefined. Keep up or get out.
Exactly this. Culture is not a static concept.
I’m not catholic, so correct me if you have any proof to tell me i am wrong, but I’m fairly sure that unbaptized babies have not commited any unforgiveable sin, so they go to purgatory and their souls pay for original sin, just as every person besides saints works off their sins to get into heaven. I believe with the new decision that limbo isn’t really there any virtuous person that didn’t know jesus will also get into heaven via purgatory.
The Pope closed purgatory around 05. Babies now got straight to heaven…
I still want to know how a mortal is supposed to be able to do that… I need to advertise my cult better. Dark Dragon God worship is on the decline. I need a Televangelist!!!
Considering that purgatory’s supposed to be a sort of “temporary Hell,” I’m not sure anyone wants to think their baby went there either.
Much, much better than the Calvinist doctrine when, taken to it’s lgical conclusion, places infants who have not accepted Jeebus squarely in Hell. And it’s not purgatory you guys are talking about, it’s limbo – not a part hell, not a part of heaven, a sort of celestial waiting room where they pump in Muzak and you get to peruse old issues of Fish & Stream or whatever.
Ah, but for original sin to be correct, then Hell is where dead babies go…
Calvinist Win!
So what you’re saying is it has nothing to do with love and is an economic issue.
It’s a matter of Justice and Equality. If your partner’s family can ignore any will you leave and take everything, including your partner’s remains, and deliberately exclude you from taking part in any funeral or memorial, where’s the justice?
agree^
I think all the unhappy homosexuals in CA would disagree. If they left it alone when it came to slavery and women’s suffrage, our country would be entirely different.
“Well, the people have spoken…Nothing hateful about it.” How do you figure? How does a bunch of people saying the same hateful thing suddenly make that thing not hateful? Were the laws against interracial marriage not hateful when the majority supported them? Were the laws denying women the right to vote not hateful when the majority (of men) supported them.
The ban failing wouldn’t have taken any straight people’s rights away.
And the people speak all the time. They spoke back in the 60s when 17 states had laws forbidding interracial marriage. We didn’t leave that alone, and we shouldn’t have. Majority rule isn’t the only hallmark of our system of government. Another one, more important, is the safeguarding of all our rights from the tyranny of the majority. It’s what lets Catholics be Catholics, for instance, when the majority of the country for most of its history mistrusted and feared Catholicism. Rights of minorities should NEVER be able to taken away by the majority, and when they are, we will NOT just leave it alone. If we had, a black man wouldn’t have ever been allowed to run for President.
“No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee. ”
some how, the popular abrogation of people’s right to equality diminshes us all…
Thank you, Uncle Fester.
I guess we should all be happy the people haven’t spoken that all the bigots should be rounded up and deported to Saudi Arabia, huh?
The only people who think it’s a good idea to legislate human rights are the ones whose rights are never in danger.
Aye… Or people who lack the imagination necessary to see that their rights too may some day come to be questioned.
I have a right being threatened as we speak, if what my husband said is true. I haven’t had a chance to look it up, but I believe that Obama wants to get rid of the concealed carry. Not a human right, but still a Constitutional one, since I can’t open carry.
-
We have all sorts of rights that will come into question if this one (gay marriage) goes down.
Other than it being a vapid straw man, I don’t see the link…
No so much a straw man as a red herring.
While we’re on the subject of Barack Obama, you know he’s against gay marriage, right?
don’t give a rat’s ass what Nyalathotep thinks…
You made the assumption I’m a Liberal. I’m probably more socially conservative than most, but can see when natural justice is being overturned by mob rule.
More importantly for this conversation, Obama opposes prop 8
“The only people who think it’s a good idea to legislate human rights are the ones whose rights are never in danger.”
yep, pretty much. ain’t it funny how it takes a 60% majority to pass a tax increase but 52.4% of the vote is enough to deny equal protection under the law to a minority?
“Your gay?”
Whose gay?
It’s “you’re.” You fail.
The People have not spoken, a 52% to a 47% win on a voter turn out of 68% of the state with 13% of the votes actually uncounted is not what I would call a ringing endorsement.
It sure as hell isn’t the will of The People.
While I admit that statically speaking its unlikely that the uncounted votes would change the outcome, (Previous outcomes don’t change probability, the remaining 13% of the votes would be expected to break down the same way the counted ones did.) the gap isn’t exactly huge now is it? A half a million votes isn’t exactly a huge margin in a state as large as California.
Of course the real tricky problem in this is the whole separation of church and state issue here, its no secret this is a largely religiously motived issue. In fact Christian groups are all but bragging about the outcome.
Where is the line between laws religions like and laws motived by religious interests? One is a happy convenience (for them) the other is unacceptable.
Also, not John Connor
Nooo John Conner, Welcome. Please make yourself at home. We have a bedroom for you at the governor’s mansion. Wuahahaha
No Predators allowed. (Sexual One’s Fine)
Um, seems edited.
but, if it’s true…
I’m ashamed to live in Cali D:
Its because of that new law (Propistion 8?) passed in Cali… I think
Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason for the caption. Same Sex marriage id now illegal, as amended to the state constitution. Civil unions still ok. Separate but equal rules the day.
Actually in Cali we have Domestic Partnerships and not civil unions (which DPs have better benefits and CUs generally). Not that this makes me any less disappointed in my fellow Californians for taken away the rights of my gay homies.
We’ll just pretend I spelled anything right in that post.
The worst is where you misspelled “homos” as “homies” .. LMAO
But “gay homos” would be redundant.
Yes, but I couldn’t think of anything better to say at the time.
FAIL!
… I’m sorry, I guess I missed your witty and much funnier comment…Asshatpersondude123456789
You must have missed the part where he spelled a four letter word
right… thats witty on his end, trust me.
LOL!!!!!
“Gay Homies”? I kinda like that thought…
I read *somewhere* that the Governator is publically speaking out against Prop 8 and suggests that the CA Supreme Court will not uphold it.
Sounds like AHnold is throwing some weight around.
I’ll have some mad respect for him if he does that. Way to lose the next election because of principles!
Well, first off, it’s too little, too late from the Govinator who refused to sign the bill for same-sex marriage passed by a majority of the California legislature. And now he’s all pro-gay-rights? Stuff it! Ahnold!
Secondly, he’s termed out after this round and since he ain’t running for sentate from California anytime soon, I don’t think he particularly cares about the next election. Although I guess he could run for Congress or something. ::shrug::
Still, stuff it Arnie! You should have supported civil rights when your vote actually counted for something.
He has to work after his term. Hollywood isn’t exactly the ’straight capital of the world’ now is it… do the math
Politician – one who does what is expedient rather than what is ‘right’ and would sell his mother for glue if it would get him one more vote
The movie industry, like most businesses, really only cares about is the money. Arnie’s still a big box office draw and no studio exec in their right minds will turn him away because of his political stance. Also, seriously, this “Hollywood” you speak of is not one monolithic being all of a like mind. A lot of “hollywood” actually supported Prop 8. Certainly many stars that did come out to challenge came late to the game, perhaps complacent about it’s chances. Who knows.
I’ve never cared for Arnie’s politics or his movies but he has enough clout, not to mention money, that he isn’t going to be hurting come Jan 3, 2011.
Hollywood doesn’t *have* to be the frigging straight capital of the world, not with Brangelina exuding enough het vibes to cover the entire frigging state.
Het vibes? Splain for a foreign devil, please? We don’t get out much in our koala shelter…
Heterosexual vibes. Angelina Jolie drips sexy to the point that she turns gay men straight and straight women gay. I think she was built in a laboratory to maximize the sexy.
I think she needs to eat more…
Indeed.
I would do her in a heartbeat. And every time I say that my husband faints.
Sound very kinky but she has been wasting away every time I see her, she used to be nice and filled out. Now… Not so much.
She got extremely skinny after her mother passed, and also because of the physical stress of having twins. Did anyone else notice that she seemed to balloon up overnight?
-
I would still do her. And Shakira. Twice.
I would be more than willing to videotape.
-
As an aside, am I the only one a bit concerned at how Hollywood women (don’t) gain weight during pregnancies? I’m frightened to look at the numbers of cesarean-sections (“Posh, not Push”) — does anyone in that town deliver vaginally?
Angie is near the top of both mine and my partner’s “lists.” (Actually, Lara Croft more so than Angie. We’ll break all the rules for Lara.)
@ herb: I gained a total of 7 pounds during my pregnancy. I’m a naturally curvy girl, but I’m not by any means fat or skinny. I fall right smack in the middle. I lost about 20 pounds before I knew I was knocked up, and only gained 7 pounds over my regular weight. Now, not as an excuse, because I believe that HOllywood pregnancies are really unhealthy, but it is possible to be 7 months preggers and not look it. I know I won’t get that lucky on my second one, so I’m enjoying it while I can, LOL.
Ah ok, I’m not a californian so I haven’t been following stuff out that way. Comment retracted, thanks for setting me straight (no pun intended). And now that you mention it, it sounds like some tactic to gain more publicity if he does decide to run for congress/senate/whatever.
What makes you think that the “right” was ever there for the taking away?
Um, the fact that it was passed into law earlier this year? That’s pretty conclusive.
A court ruling does NOT constitute law.
But a court ruling CAN override a law, as in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which ended 30 states’ bans on abortion.
Surely you aren’t serious — you can’t really think that judicial activism is the same as legislation? Or maybe you can, and sad if that’s the case…
Judges legislate from the bench all of the time. That dosnt make it right, but it happens.
only this time, they maybe did something ‘right’ for once…
Judges never legislate. That would require passing a law, which they never do. What they do is sometimes determine the constitutionality of a law. They kind of have to do that, because sometimes the legislative branch gets too big for its britches and passes laws it has no right to pass. You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a Congresscritter, after all, or a state rep or any kind of senator. However, for most judicial jobs, you do have to be one.
So the judicial branch says, “Wait a minute, that law you passed sucks,it violates this article and this amendment, so it’s an illegal law.” If they didn’t do that, it might be years before the composition of that part of the legislative branch changes enough that they will repeal the law. Kind of like what happened with Prohibition, except that was a constitutional amendment so they DID have to wait until Congress changed its membership around some. Had it been a regular law the Supreme Court could have struck it down.
And I’m sure you know all of this, but like any conservative you just don’t wanna hear it–and why, I have NO idea, since Congress passing stupid laws is a special pet peeve of conservatives in the first place. Oh, but you’re fine with the Supreme Court knocking down laws YOU don’t like.
Correct. The California Supreme Court did not give gays the right to marry earlier this year. The courts recognized a right that has existed under the state constitution for a long time, but which gays had been denied by the passage of an unconstitutional law.
Yes Judicial “Activism”. That’s the same thing that ended separate schools for different races, isn’t it? That’s the thing that ended abortion bans too isn’t it.
People generally use the term “judicial activism” when the judges don’t rule they way they want them to rule.
It’s like the difference between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist.
Remember when Afghans were Freedom fighters and Iraqi was our friend?
Thanks to TV, I can’t remember what happened eight minutes ago.
Maybe because prior to Prop 8, the Californian supreme court granted the right for gays to marry. So unlike the other states that banned gay marriage this election, California was taking an already established right away.
California didn’t take anything away – a majority of the voters in California took the ‘right’ away.
So explain to me why you don’t find it a right to be happy? Because this is really where I’m confused. Two consenting adults want to be happy together and you have a problem with this…. Why?
Because their magical friend in the sky told them so.
Hey, be nice!
I’m Christian and voted No on 8. Not everyone who
believes in God voted Yes. Some of us think that there is no problem
with gay marriage!
AMEN!
HERETIC!
Hast thou not read LEVITICUS?
Think of the CHILDREN
etc… ad nauseam
Seriously, well done. Nice to know some moderation is possible within the American mindset of what god would do if he knew the facts of the matter…
Great, but if you’re part of a Church that took part in this travesty, you’re still lumped in with the rest. You have the onus of responsibility to change your Church or leave it–which I think you’d agree would be what was needed if you were part of a Church now that said black weren’t allowed to marry.
And if the church that I attend took a stance on this other than it being my own responsibility to pray and decide where I stand on it, I would leave that church in a heartbeat. I left the Catholic church at age 12 because I could not reconcile some of the teachings with what I felt was right. However, my church takes the stance that it is up to each person to pray and see where they feel led on issues like this to make their own decision. In other words, “Here is what the Bible says. However, that can be interpreted many ways (thanks to translations), so what do you think is right?”
Zann, I’d be proud of that church if I were you…
Wow. Just going to throw this out there. Many people accuse Christians of being intolerant, but what exactly is it called when you mock a religion by saying “magical friend in the sky”
Intolerance.
Nope, not really. He/she did not say he has a problem with your magical friend in the sky. In any case he/she did not accuse Christians in general of being intolerant, he/she only stated that some of those who are intolerant are justifying their intolerance with religion.
As to mocking religion, this is a place where anybody mocks anything, so who cares?
The question was about why anyone would want to stop someone from being happy. The response was “their magical friend in the sky told them so” That’s pretty clear
But is it not the truth? Or are they now taking direction from another entity?
God isn’t in the sky, he’s in your heart. The right ventricle, specifically. Try not to exercise too much, it makes him nauseated.
Matthew, that is EXACTLY what some of them are claiming.
What’s your point?
God isn’t in the sky, hes not there at all. And if anyone wants to bitch about me bieng opinionated, well frankly thats not an opinion. It’s a fact supported
by every piece of evidence there is and contradicted by none.
The time has come to wake up and smell the athiesim people.
“the right ventricle”??
Please, for the love of dog, tell me that was a joke.
Ok, I admit – I stopped reading at “god is in your heart. The right ventricle…”
Disregard my idiocy.
I’d not respect an imaginary friend called ‘Dave’, I’m not going to respect one called ‘Josh’…
And if I keep this up for just about 1000 years I’ll not have matched Christendom’s levels of down home nastiness.
Amen, Hooray for the crusades…
The difference is that some Christians are passing laws based on their intolerance. When there’s a law telling your church that two consenting adults can’t pray together in the privacy of their own home then you can talk about intolerance.
If you don’t want the justification for hate to be mocked so hatefully, the only recourse you have is to never hide behind such a flimsy justification. If you justify your intolerance with your clinging insistence on fairy-tale logic, prepare to be mocked. Call it intolerance all you want, but dressing foolishness up as faith doesn’t make it less foolish.
In the court of common sense, magical thinking deserves what it gets. Faith doesn’t require magical thinking, but foolishness does. You can’t hide your foolishness behind the label “faith” and expect a free pass.
Read any of my other posts on here, you will see that i never once condemned gay marriage. I did say it should be illegal if all werent given marriage rights, such as polygamists
Matthew -
queers + marriage = polygamists?
wut?
Please do tell us more about your logic there…
It’s the same “logic” that says homosexuals are all automatically guilty of pederasty, bestiality, and necrophilia, just by virtue of being attracted to the same gender.
If that’s the case, where do I sign up?
I am just waiting for a case against a pyropedonecrobeastiphile. The trial would be entertaining.
“I did not have sexual relations with that dead and burning puppy!!! But I did rub myself on it.”
pyropedonecrobestiofrotage?
What about cryonecroecdysiaphilia? Sex with dead, frozen strippers?
My point is this, spelled out as clear as can be:
I DO NOT oppose gay marriage. However, this ban can be justified by laws regarding polygamy, pedophilia, beastiality etc.
I AM NOT equating gays with pedophiles, polygamists etc. But if a pedophile were to claim “Me and this 15 year old are in love, why is this wrong, why can we not get married” someone would say “well that’s just wrong” If a polygamist says “I love many women, why can’t I marry all of them?” they too would be shot down
It’s a double standard really.
There is no law, even with Prop 8, that prevents two people from being happy together. I’m confused about your confusion…
Okay… Then WHY do you think they can’t be married? Besides “it’s for a man and a woman” because that’s not really a reason. What does allowing gay people to be married actually DO to affect you?
Actually there is a problem.
Friends of mine, in the US, been a couple for 30 some years. Richard too sick with cancer, David nursed him to the end. Then Ricardo’s sister sails in like a clipper under full sail, threw David out of the shared house, and takes over the funeral. She’d cut R off when he came out. Legally, she had every right, since David and Richard’s status wasn’t ‘recognised’.
So, where’s the justice?
And sh*t like this happens all the time. It’s sad.
My “stepfather” – who isn’t really because he’s not married to my mother – commented that he believes gay couples should have the same choice he and my mother had. The choice to decide that marriage sucks and isn’t right for them. Unfortunately, now they do not have the choice.
And this should have gone to your next comment. . . herm.
I don’t have a problem with anyone being happy… The question I have is this – WHAT FLOGGING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF YOU”RE MARRIED? Jesus, people – I guess no homosexual ever stopped to ponder why the lawyers are on your side. It’s not (just) because they want to seee justice done… they’ll make that much more in DIVORCE CASES.
.
Take it from a 2 time divorcee – Marriage sucks. Stay single – You love them enough to be together forever? DO IT!!! Who gives a sh!t about a legal document proclaiming that the state recognizes you as one taxable unit?
.. I’m tired of hearing the crap about death, burials, etc… you can put ANYONE as a beneficiary on health and life insurances – and get a will.. make your ‘partner’ executor of your estate. DONE. See how easy that was?
…
It’s not that easy to do, actually, and legal contracts like those generally only extend to one state. Move and you have to go through the whole process all over agagin.
Well, states vary anyway – like here in Indiana, a person’s Will doesn’t HAVE to be followed by the executor of the estate, where as other states do honor a legal will as gospel more or less…
But a marriage would be binding throughout the states. If you don’t like marriage, don’t get one. Get out of the way of those who actually want one. Lynn and I have been together for nine years but we want to get married. The thing stopping it is she wants it to be a more than we can afford at this time and I am okay with that. It is something we both want to do just once and have no problem with doing right the first time. Being married would be easier on our accounts, bills, etc.
Yes marriage can be miserable but it is simply what you make of it. It isn’t magic but it does have benefits that should be available to any who want them and have a willing partner.
Hey, I’m not standing in the way… There’s a problem with the mentality somewhere though, people seem to think that a person can’t disagree with them. Just because I disagree with Gay Marriage doesn’t mean I’m ‘in the way’ – I don’t have to see it your way for you to have rights.. and on and on.
There are something like 1,400 separate & distinct rights, privileges, & responsibilities that marriage grants the couple. Would you want to go to court to handle each of those 1,400 points?
Besides, equality? Hello?
That’s the bit I never understood. The people who are against it seem to be saying that if you pass the law, then they and their children have to become gay.
That’s a ROFL if I ever heard one.
I was so upset when I heard about this fail. I’m straight, and Aussie, so really it had no effect on me. But I want those people to be happy. And I want everyone else in the world to follow suit (and let’s face it, we all follow the US around like lost puppies). I’d also like to think that if I happened to fall in love with another woman, we’d have just the same legal rights as a straight couple. I can see no reason why not except for a millenia-old religious doctrine that has to do with reproduction of the species.
And I’m pretty sure we’ve got too many people as it is.
!Kca – can I get that list of the 1,400 separate rights that you suddenly get when you get married – cuz I’m pretty sure I got gypped.
.
And – Will SOMEONE please tell me – where in the world in the history of human kind has it EVER been commonplace to have homosexual marriages??!?!?!??!?!!!!!?!!!!!!
And – Will SOMEONE please tell me – where in the world in the history of human kind has it EVER been commonplace to have homosexual marriages??!?!?!??!?!!!!!?!!!!!!
X-Bert, if you insist.
You might start with reading Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell …
Or you can dismiss it as queer propaganda…
Either way, its got tons of interesting sources in the bibliography if you’d like to study up.
Thanks for the info, Peepster – it was a legitimate question. I highly doubt that I will change my mind any, but it’d be worth a look just so I can try to understand the other side of things.
Thanks.
So quite WHY do you find it objectionable?
You like broccoli? .. well some people don’t. Why not?
So…. you’re saying we should ban brocolli farms?
Do a majority of voters feel that we should?
Is a majority vote justification for everything? If a majority of people voted that we should castrate you with a belt sander, would you not object? A majority of people are Christian, should we vote out other religions? Are we still able to call ourselves the land of the free if we are basing harmless private matters on the majority?
“If a majority of people voted that we should castrate you with a belt sander, would you not object? ”
WELL SAID.
I’ll get you, DWN… next time!!
*flys away with steel gauntlet and cat*
“You like broccoli? .. well some people don’t. Why not?”
Ah the distant cry of the moron…
No, I don’t much like broccoli, but I don’t feel the need to stop people who do like broccoli to try and get a law enacted to suit my prejudices.
Why do you need your likes and dislikes enacted by law?
I think Penn & Teller said it best.
In their example, they were voting on the sex of a cat. Whatever they decide to vote, the cat’s sex (male/female) remains unchanged. Like the brocolli example, regardless of whether or not a majority votes to ban it, it remains a healthy, nutritional vegetable.
Getting back to the conversation, whether or not a majority votes to promote hateful, hurtful discrimination, it remains hateful & hurtful discrimination.
It’s just common sense.
Fester – you are pure troll, dude.
“Distant cry of the moron” – is that the extent of YOUR argument?
I don’t require ANY of my likes or dislikes to be law, bud. I didn’t start Prop 8, ididn’t vote on Prop 8, and I could care less if it passed or not.
You are a perfect example of a bigot. You like to fling that word around, but you aparently have no clue as to meaning.
I’m the type that will play devil’s advocate just to try and see another’s point of veiw a little clearer. That doesn’t make me a moron, or a bigot. Neither does having a differing opinion make me a bigot.
I’m perfectly capable of intelligent debate… it’s a shame there are so few of that nature on these boards.
I’ll close with another argument that’s more on your level – Na na na boo boo.
Or, you could respond to my post instead.
.
In a nutshell, why should an oppressed minority roll over & accept that a majority has voted to continue the hated & discrimination?
It’s still hateful discrimination, even if people voted on it.
I don’t suppose they should just “roll over” (sorry, this made me chuckle) & accept it. If you read my post below… you’ll see that I’m all for them taking it to the Supreme Court for a final ruling on it, something that would apply to all states. That would either settle the matter, or give people a ruling to try and overturn, as with Roe v. Wade.
Belt sander logic, I has it.
You’re right, marriage is meaningless. So then let’s just let them get married, who cares right? What’s the big deal about letting them get married?
Twice divorced, so you have twice exercised the right you would deny to other people just because you couldn’t hack it.
Marriage sucks when people make it suck. And you still have no right to deny it to some people while you enjoy the right yourself just because the idea makes you feel yucky.
1. just because you’re not the type that can keep up a marraige doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have a chance to try.
2. Lawyers don’t just do EVERYTHING that has to do with the law. they specialize, so those trying to help people get marraige rights are different from defense lawyers, from divorce lawyers, from criminal prosecuters.
~
you are bitter, let it go. If it makes other people happy just let it go.
Marriage has legal benefits, including tax breaks and the ability to have your partner as executor, beneficiary, guardian of your kids if you die, etc. WITHOUT having to fill out separate forms for all of those things. See how much easier that was?
I think that’s clearer than my David and Richard story…
Natural justice… what’s that? Oh it’s that thing being trampled by religious bigotry.
Gay marriage was also banned in Arizona and Florida. For shame Arizona, I am embarrassed to have been born there.
What I don’t understand is how people just do NOT see the broader, more terrifying implications of this. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care who or what people want to marry, but it’s the big picture that scares the shit out of me.
Think about it (you stupid voters), you just gave the GOVERNMENT the RIGHT to tell a MINORITY (gays) that they do not have the same right as the MAJORITY (straights). Because there are more straight people we get to say the gays are less of people than we are, and make sure they know it by passing an anachronistic, bigoted, HATEFUL law.
Seems not less that 50 or 60 years ago the MAJORITY (whites) were telling the MINORITY (blacks) that they cannot pee in the same places or sit in the same places on the bus or drink out of the same fountains…
How do people just not see that we cannot pass laws that DISCRIMINATE against a minority just because we are blindly predjudiced? What happens next? What happens to freedom when we tell the government they can make discriminatory laws? That they will get tacked on to Senate Bills unnoticed and become law?
Marriage should be in the hands of the person performing the ceremony (the I will or will not perform this ceremony). Any marriage performed by a person authorized to do so should be legally recognized. It should not be left in the hands of the majority and certainly NOT in the hands of the government.
*disclaimer* I try not to include myself in the “we” as if I lived in one of these states banning gay marriage, I would have voted no. Repeatedly if possible.
I still fail to see where “marriage” is listed as a right in any Constitution, state or federal.
That would be in Amendment 9, part of the Bill of Rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I would have gone with the 14th amendment and the whole equal protection under the law deal.
So… shall we chalk that up as two separate amendments then?
Make it three amendments. Since supporters of Prop 8 (and the similar bans in other states) have stated that Marriage is a religious term and institution and therefore the state has no right defining it on the grounds that it violates their first amendment rights to freedom of religion, those same supporters have just denied the first amendment rights of any church who would define marriage differently. Way to go wingnuts!
If it’s a religious term only, then they really shouldn’t get tax breaks, not should the partner be legally next of kin…
For my next trick… Why Irish peasants whould feed their young to the rich…
What a modest proposal, Fester.
I still like the idea of abolishing the term “marriage” from legal and civil parlance. The missus and I are civil joined in commonlaw marriage; we’re waiting on having a wedding until we’re more financially stable. I don’t see why this sort of thing can’t be extended. Allow two consenting adults both over the age of consent and both of sound mind to be allowed a civil union; the option of a religious ceremony (marriage) is left to the option of the couple.
It’s a legally recognizes right that straight people have. Straight people get married, their marriage is legally recognised, they receive federal/state/employer benefits in terms of tax credits, tax withholding and insurance (I know some if not most companies recognise domestic partnerships and civil unions, but not all, whereas they all recognise straight marriages). This is something gays can’t have because they are gay. Nothing against blacks marrying whites, or mexicans marrying asians, or indians marrying polynesians, just the gays. They do not have the “right” to legal recognition because of their sexual orientation. There’s nothing in the Constitution saying straight people have the right to get married, so why should the government have the power to say that gays do not have the right.
If you’re going to point out that it is specifically not listed as a right anywhere, then you have to acknowledge that by that reasoning *no one* has the “right” to marry anyone else and that could result in free reign over who can and cannot get married. It’s faulty logic.
It’s called Equal Protection. If you can have it, I can have it, they can have it.
Amen
EXACTLY.
on the upside, the single biggest group of supporters for this horrible bill was old people, young people tended to oppose it. and the thing about old people is they’re likely to die sooner then young people. so it’s just a matter of time until the old pre-civil -rights generation that gave us Jim Crow and 70 years of american imperialism post wwII and bush and who’ve formed the single largest core of the neo-fascist authoritarian right in america die off.
not that all old people are evil and right wing. far from! but evil right wingers tend to be older then their progressive counterparts, and that’s a cause for hope as we look toward the future…
(trying desperately to be optimistic here but mostly feeling pissed off.)
If it’s a comfort, no one expected better of AZ.
With our country’s poor history of protecting minority rights for blacks, women, handicapped, etc. I can understand why everyone cries about discrimination on this topic. However there is one trait that each of the aforementioned minorities share … they cannot change their condition.
If someone can prove to me that homosexuality is a condition that does not have its basis solely in a persons choice of sexual orientation, then sure, lets put them on the same level; Otherwise it’s an insult to those who are truly disadvantaged. If a person can choose to become a minority or not, then they should never be allowed to be a minority.
Additionally, my choices should not dictate the protections I receive. For example, if I like to sky-dive can I demand that my life insurance costs the same as someone who does not take that risk solely based off of an argument that it would be discrimination against sky-divers?
Finally, … I give a damn if gay couples want to marry, however spreading these BS discrimination arguments is getting VERY old.
“If someone can prove to me that homosexuality is a condition that does not have its basis solely in a persons choice of sexual orientation, then sure, lets put them on the same level;”
.
If someone can prove to me that CHRISTIANITY is a condition that does no have its basis solely in a persons choice of religion, then sure, let them on the same level
.
See? Even if it was a personal choice, then homosexuality deserves the same sort of protection that any other “lifestyle choice” SUCH AS RELIGION enjoys.
.
If gays can be discriminated against because of a lifestyle choice, then so can other people’s lifestyle (RELIGIOUS) choices.
Where exactly did religion enter into this?
according to dictionary.com a lifestyle is “the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lifestyle
.
I can’t think of any other example that fits that definition better than religion.
(the first time I tried to reply didn’t seem to work. please forgive if this is a double post)
.
According to dictionary.com a “lifestyle” is: the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.
.
I can’t think of a better example of that definition than religion.
.
Btw, you might want to reconsider your choice of words the next time you choose to reveal your bigotry. “Not letting them on the same level” is the same mentality that slave owners used to justify the Jim Crow laws.
Religion (or lack thereof) is a choice, a mutable quality of your personality, yet the right to your religious beliefs is enshrined in our US Constitution. Is it insulting to women and blacks to say that people of a certain religion should not be discriminated against?
The SCOTUS declared marriage one of the fundamental rights of human kind in the Loving v Virginia case. The California Constitution guarantees equality under the law. Absent a REALLY GOOD and above all SECULAR reason for saying that the state should only recognize a legally binding contract called marriage between one man and one woman, this is a right we should extend to any two consenting adult people.
Also, your example of life insurance has two major differences from banning gay marriage: 1) there is no constitutionally protected right to life insurance as there is for marriage and 2) this is NOT the government denying you.
Again … Where exactly did religion enter into this? I had absolutely no religious justifications in the point I made.
Secondly … I am not talking about rights … I am simply asking how a persons choice can dictate if they belong to a minority that can suffer discrimination?
What if I want to marry my dog? Or how about if I want to marry multiple spouses at the same time. How, … really …, would this be any different?
Well, marrying a dog adds the complications of a) not consensual and b) NOT HUMAN…
Heh … well yes, obviously. It was a hypothetical after all. But how about polygamy? That is a practice that is in fact illegal now; should it be? The point is, if a line is to be drawn anywhere, where should that line be? And why?
Personally, I think that the government should get completely out of the business of recognizing marriage in any sense. Whats the point after all? It’s becoming an issue that divides us rather than uniting us. Much in the same way that there is a division of church and state.
There are laws out there dealing with survivorship, and other aspects are generally considered marriage.
There are secular reasons for outlawing polygamy, and as someone who used to practice polyAMORy I’m pretty familiar with some or all of those reasons, but it’s a bit too complex to discuss on a blog post.
Let’s just say that I had enough drama squeezed into about five years of my life to last me the rest of my life, and leave it at that.
I never said you brought religion into it. But you brought up the (bogus) argument that sexual orientation is a choice and why should people get to choose to be something and expect to be protected. Point is, religion is a CHOICE.No one is born believing that Jesus died for our sins etc. Hell, MARRIAGE is a choice, for those of us who want to marry a partner of the opposite gender. Both choices are fundamental rights as guaranteed by the our US and the California constitutions. This puts the lie to the idea that because something is chosen behavior it cannot or shouldn’t be protected.
Other forms of behavior protected under our constitution:
speech
press
assembly
owning guns
Shall I go on?
omg, y u so smrt?
Awww, shucks! I’m blusing now.
But seriously, my father was both a minister and a college professor. He taught us from an early age to think critically about our positions, even on religion. I think he was slightly disconcerted when my critical thinking skills led me to leave Christianity, though. LOL!
Also, full disclosure, my father was Asian, my mother was white. They were married in 1966, the year before the Loving decision. In many states, their marriage was NOT legaly recognized until after the SCOTUS smacked Virginia and the other states with these hateful laws. Add to that, my mother came out after my father, to whom she was married for 25 years, passed away. So, yeah, between that and the many good gay friends I have, this marriage business is kinda personal. But even if it weren’t, I’d support same-sex marriage on civil rights grounds. And it isn’t an insult to me as a woman, or as a bi-racial person, that gays (rightly) claim this as such.
Although I am apparently still not entirely capable of proper spelling or good grammar.
When it’s a good message, grammar is of secondary interest.
Bravo!
::blushing:: Thanks!
OK … interesting perspective, and good point.
If we do equate the choice of religion, to the choice of sexual orientation, should not the state maintain the same separation as the separation of church and state? That is to say, allow the practice of choice by all, but not specifically condone any one institution?
At any rate, this still does not get to the point I was trying to make earlier.
Disagreeing with someones choice, does not equate to looking down upon someone because they are different in a way that they can’t change.
You’re mixing principles here: on the one hand you have the separation of church and state, which is to say, churches should stay out of making laws and states should stay out of creating or sanctioning religion. On the other you have a minority that is simply asking for the same right that the SCOTUS has declared to be one of the most fundamental in human history, as the majority. Very different concepts here.
And no, I don’t see any difference between looking down on someone because they are, for instance, Catholic, and looking down on someone because they are say, Asian. One is immutable, one is not, but the hate is still just as awful. But that is also spotting you the idea that sexual orientation is a choice. I know I didn’t say it early, because I was arguing to your particular statement, but I don’t believe it is wholly a choice. We do not really understand the various forces that go into our sexual orientation. I suspect it is a very complex interplay of biology, environment, socialization etc. But except for those who are truly bi-sexual, it’s really not that changeable.
But even if it is, so what? So is religion, your political views, the city you live in etc. It’s not acceptable to hate someone for something they belief in. It’s no more acceptable to hate someone for who they happen to love. Hate is hate regardless of the target.
I think people seem to take “preference” in sexual terms as another
word for “choice”. I for one would love to see any straight male try
to get aroused by another man by choice. Its clearly not a choice.
Things that turn you on arent choices, they’re preferences… and this
equates into other avenues as well. You order a steak at a resturaunt
medium well. Thats your CHOICE of preference. You didnt one day
just decide you like steaks medium well before you ever tried it.
The preference was already there, you just had to find that out to
CHOOSE it later.
When people look at the term preference in this light, a lot of questions
are answered.
That’s an interesting way of looking at the issue. I hadn’t thought about it that way. I’ll have to mull that over.
It doesn’t matter if you disagree with someone’s choice. You don’t get to enshrine that disagreement into law if that person’s choice is not hurting anyone. It’d be just the same as if you disagreed with someone’s choice to become Christian and then tried to ban conversion to Christianity. It’s just as hateful.
“I am simply asking how a persons choice can dictate if they belong to a minority that can suffer discrimination?”
So why don’t the Jews just convert and save themselves the perils of Antisemetism?
Am I wrong that Jewish is a race as well as a religion? You can’t convert from being a particular race. I’d like to see a black man convert to being white
Michael Jackson?
Your BS ‘it’s not a choice and I have that as an article of faith’ is older BS by far.
Thanks for that rational, lucid, and well prepared rebuttal. You have added to the debate greatly.
I was aiming at the level of your debate… I think I still shot over your head though…
That’s stupid. People choose their religions all the time and yet that right is covered under the federal Constitution and, if I’m not mistaken, every single state as well.
Shall we throw out the First Amendment because people choose to speak, write, assemble, petition, and worship?
That’s right. Homosexuals have a choice:
1. They can choose to be gay and not act on it, in which case they are either celibate or living a lie by pretending to be something they’re not (i.e., straight).
2. They can choose to act on their homosexual impulses and be discriminated against for being what they are (i.e., gay).
As a bisexual, I don’t have to worry about this particular problem, but when you’re not at all interested in the opposite sex, pretending to be straight is not exactly an attractive option.
Gay is NOT a choice. People who think that are completely under-educated and full of blind predjudice.
Do you really think someone would WANT to be gay, when people hate them so much? Wow, I thought we had gotten beyond the morons spouting “Gay is a choice!”
“Do you really think someone would WANT to be gay, when people hate them so much? ”
–I really hate this argument. First off, it’s a classic example of the fallacy called “argumentum ad baculum.”
Second off, anyone who backs off of a basic human, inalienable right because of a threat of violence is a pussy.
Third off, that violence is NOT inherent in homosexuality. In other words, if you became homosexual you do NOT generate violence. The violence originates from stupid, hateful discrimination.
I don’t see it as an appeal to force at all. The reason *I* said it is because many of my gay friends have been insulted, and worse, by people telling them it is a choice and their choice is wrong. Their response was usually “Do you really think I would *choose* to be something that is the target of such hate and violence?”. If *being* gay really were something where you could just wake up one day and say “Hey, I’d like to be gay”, then I doubt a rational and sane person would *choose* it and *express* it. Not as extreme but like waking up one day and saying “Hey, I’d like to be a terrorist”. Not many rational people do that. Being a terrorist is a “basic human inalienable right” just because it is a matter of choice. The fact that it is illegal would stop most people from wanting to become a terrorist. If gay were illegal, I’m sure there would be a lot less “outted” gay people around. Everyone has choices they can make in their lifes, and you have the right to make that choice. Even if it is illegal, it’s your right as a human being to consciously decide to do something. But you must also accept the consequences. If it’s against the law and that doesn’t deter you, well then you deserve what you get. Once we start to take away someone’s right to choose, no matter what that choice is, we become tyrants. The best we can hope for is that the punishment will deter the potential crime.
Being gay however, is not a choice. It’s just who you are.
Now, *being* gay and *choosing* to come out have the unfortunate possibility of being subject the appeal to force. Some people choose to not come out because they don’t want the ridicule, the hate and the discrimination. But others accept who they are, and express it to the world, or at least those around them. It’s sad, that they are afraid of the hate and violence in the world. I also don’t think it makes them weak for not coming out, or expressing themselves because of that fear. It doesn’t make them a pussy, it makes the rest of society ethically bankrupt. How many Jews in Nazi Germany do you think didn’t want to admit to being Jews for fear of persecution? True, they could stop being Jews if they wanted to, but it’s their right to choose their religion. Hiding one’s true self for fear of persecution is a necessary human trait. It’s part of the “Fight or Flight” response.
And I never said anything about gay = violence. Violence is inherent in human nature when we do not understand something. That’s why we need understanding so there is less violence.
You really need to rethink your examples.
.
First off, being gay is NOT the same thing as being a terrorist. Not in any way, shape or form.
.
Second off, you really need to look up the difference between being part of the Jewish race versus being part of the Jewish religion.
.
That being said, I agree that, for some people, homosexuality is similar to being part of a racial group, which is one reason same-sex marriages should be allowed. Human rights based on racial characteristics are protected, & since those characteristics are physiological & homosexuality has physiological characteristics, then the human rights of homosexuals should also be protected.
.
However, I also think that, for some people, homosexuality is similar to being part of a religion (to use your example), which is ANOTHER reason that same-sex marriages should be allowed. Human rights based on the lifestyle choices of a minority (i.e. religion) are protected, therefore the human rights of any lifestyle choice should also be protected.
.
“And I never said anything about gay = violence.”
–No, you never explicitly said that, but the argument, “Who would choose to be gay with all the violence in the world?” presupposes that violence is connected to being gay.
There are plenty of places where there is no hatred towards homosexuals. In those places, there are homosexual people who do not suffer any violence.
See? The argument is foiled, because the origin of the violence is shown NOT to originate with homosexual people.
Now, in such an environment, why wouldn’t a person choose to be gay?
There’s no reason not to be. Lol, believe me. This is something I have studied… rather intimately
Let me restate things a bit simpler.
.
“Do you really think someone would WANT to be gay, when people hate them so much? ”
You can restate this like “Don’t be gay. They’ll kill you.”
I don’t know how much clearer it can be that this is an appeal to force.
The easy way to explain all of this to the “it’s a choice” people is as such. If picking your sexual orientation is a choice, then choosing to like people of the opposite sex must have been a pretty big choice in your life. I mean… It really seems to dictate the way the rest of your life is going to go. Option 1. Heterosexual: Accepted by governments and religions everywhere. Option 2. Homosexual: Not as widely accepted by governments or religions. Or just plain people for that matter…. So when was it in your life that you made this big huge monumental choice? Or did it just happen that you came out attracted to whoever you ended up attracted to? If you can’t remember MAKING that choice, then there’s a distinct possibility that it wasn’t actually a CHOICE.
Also… My favorite and the most childish argument: If being gay is a choice, then go be gay. I mean really. Go try it and try to enjoy it. OH wait… you can’t bring yourself to enjoy it? You’re probably not ABLE to CHOOSE to be gay. Lame!
I clearly remember doing the research, making the choice, & laying out my plans to make the change.
.
Sure, it was difficult, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Really? Either you have a really good memory or you’re making things up. At what point in your life did you make this choice, anyway?
I remember the day I was turned straight…1968 – Goldie Hawn in an orange bikini on the Rowen and Martin’s Laugh-in show…
It was nailed home by Valerie Leon in ‘Blood From the Mummy’s Tomb’ (1971)
lol, Uncle Fester
.
I made the decision when I started studying psychology & sociology. I figured I had the books, might as well read them & try applying their teachings to a practical experiment.
Well… WHat was it like for you folks before you made this huge choice?
Perhaps you would restate it that way, but you are completely misconstruing this.
What about “I am not gay, and I am not going to choose to be gay because then I will be targeted for hate (and because I’m not gay)”? That’s not an appeal to force, it’s an appeal to sensibility. I am not going to choose to be something I’m not, followed by, choosing to be someone I am not will lead people to hate me.
Or “I am gay so I will be gay and damn what other people think of me”? That’s not an appeal to force either, it’s how life should be. I am who I am and if the world doesn’t like it they can shove it up their ass.
There’s a difference between saying being gay is a choice and believing people say “I choose to be gay”; and understanding that gay is who someone is and they say “I choose to accept I am who I am (gay) and if others don’t that’s their loss”. Any person who is not gay, rational and in their right mind, would not say “I want to be gay” because ANY rational sane person would not say “I want to be something I’m not” ESPECIALLY when there are such stupid people out there doing stupid things. Why would someone pretend to be someone they are not knowing that people would hate them for it? It’s not in the human psychological makeup.
It’s not like Christmas “Dear Santa, Please make me gay this year”, it’s just who someone is.
*And I’m not talking about things like “I am not a doctor but would like to be one”. But those are too many fine points to argue.
“What about “I am not gay, and I am not going to choose to be gay because then I will be targeted for hate (and because I’m not gay)”? That’s not an appeal to force, it’s an appeal to sensibility. ”
–That is the exact definition of an appeal to force fallacy.
.
“Or “I am gay so I will be gay and damn what other people think of me”? That’s not an appeal to force either, it’s how life should be.”
–You’re changing the topic of the conversation. (By the way, I agree with this statement.)
.
“when was it in your life that you made this big huge monumental choice? Or did it just happen that you came out attracted to whoever you ended up attracted to? If you can’t remember MAKING that choice, then there’s a distinct possibility that it wasn’t actually a CHOICE.”
–Actually, I very clearly remember the moment I made the choice to be gay. I didn’t understand what the big problem was, so I started doing research. First I went to the university library to find any sort of physical or psychological dangers that might’ve been inherent in homosexuality. Guess what? There were none.
Then I started talking to my friends, both straight & gay, & no one could come up with any reason not to be gay.
I started wondering if you could take a straight person & make him gay. The only person I could use in such an experiment was myself. It literally took years of effort, but the end result: a 100% homosexual individual.
.
Point is, sexuality isn’t black & white. It’s not a switch between gay & straight. Sexuality is a range & (some) people can move along those degrees.
.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN IMMUTABLE INBORN TRAIT OR A LIFESTYLE CHOICE, HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAT EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ENJOYS, BECAUSE INBORN TRAITS (PRECIDENTED BY RACE) & LIFESTYLE CHOICES (PRECIDENTED BY RELIGION) ARE REASONS TO PROTECT A MINORITY GROUP.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
To me, gay people are just people. They are my friends and I love all my friends equally. I have been to many pride picnics and marches and festivals and I don’t see anything wrong with being gay. What pisses me off is not religious people, or otherwise bigoted people, saying “It’s a choice”, but them saying “That choice is wrong”. I find in appalling that so many people think all the gay people in the world just chose to be that way for whatever reason, and that they have the right to judge them and tell them the way they live their lives are wrong. I firmly believe it is something inborn and innate. I’ve never heard of someone who “made themselves gay” as you say you have done. Bravo to you.
Gey people don’t hurt people by being gay, and they don’t hurt people by marrying eachother.
But the big point there is not that they are gay people, that they are people. I am horrified that because so many people find homosexuality repulsive that they would pass laws saying that a group of people can’t do something the majority can do. It disgusts me.
As a gay friend of mine once said “We have every right to get married. We have every right to be just as miserable as straight people”.
This phenomena that I’m talking about is extremely uncommon. I want to make it clear that I was not talking about people in general, but a minority of a minority.
.
There is very little clear examples of this in scientific circles. For one thing, you never hear about the happily converted people. It’s always the despair-filled tragedies that make news. Even worse, the hateful stigma associated with the homosexuality+choice topic influences the scientific community away from studying this sort of thing. Yes. Sceintists are politicians, too.
.
Even if something is rare or difficult to do, it can still happen. I’m living proof.
.
But! That’s all besides the point, because if sexuality is a physiological trait (as it seems to be with most people) then homosexuals deserve the same rights that any other sexuality deseves, AND if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (as it seems to be with some people) then homosexuals deserve the same rights that any other liefstyle choices (such as Christianity) deserves.
We actually agree on quite alot of important things.
Clearly, you did not read what I wrote. At all. Gay is not the same as being a terrorist. Not at all. Choosing to be gay is not an option. Choosing to be a terrorist is. Now, choosing to act on being gay, that’s where the choice comes in (unfortunately.. it shouldn’t have to be that because there shouldn’t have to be a choice to reveal to the world what your true identity is). let me put it in a way you don’t seem to understand…. GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. My point, which clearly was lost on you, was that (rational) people do not wake up one day and say “I want to be gay”, much in the same way (rational) people don’t wake up and say “I want to be a terrorist”. PEOPLE ARE GAY. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. AND IT IS NOT LIKE BEING A TERRORIST. Perhaps you should make sure you fully comprehend something before you twist it around.
Also, explain the “Jewish Race” to all the Polish Jews. Even someone in the “Jewish Race” can decide to be christian, or muslim or any other of the hundreds of religions on the planet. Ancestry does not dictate one’s path.
I never implied violence at all, I said “hate”. Hate does not always beget violence, that’s something you inferred based on your own experiences. The part where I mentioned violence was a direct quote I have heard, many times, from gay people that I know. If you don’t agree with THEIR quote, that’s great, but I never implied, explicitly or not, that gays beget violence. There is no presupposition there at all. They are however, the target of violence. Matthew Shephard comes to mind. The origin of the violence is a REACTION to people being gay. Violence also comes as a reaction to many many other things. The reaction of bigoted morons who think their morals and values need to be imposed on the entire world, violently and murderously if necessary.
Though, I do agree there are places in the world where they are accepted and not the subject of violence and hate. California and Arizona happen to be some of those places, just not the majority of the voters. Gay is becoming much more accepted and hopefully one day it won’t be the target of such bigotry and ignorance.
Religion, race, I see gay more as a culture. That’s just my personal viewpoint. But whatever it’s viewed as they have the same rights everyone else does. If a straight person has the right to get married, so should a gay person. There should be no distinction. A person is a person.
Also, I don’t think even in a loving environment, someone would “choose” to be gay. Open much more to experimentation for sure, even to the point of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. But if you are not attracted to, and do not get turned on by the same sex, you just simply can’t be gay. It’s the same as gay people “choosing” to be straight. They live a lie and tend to be miserable. I don’t think there is anything at all wrong with being gay, and being open about it. You’re right, there is no reason not to be gay, even if you are targeted for hate. Plenty of other groups are as well. I’m talking about choice. You cannot choose to be something you are not, that just makes you a phony and a liar, and tends to destroy you.
See my post above.
.
Although I really think you have some issues towards gay people. Comparing them to terrorists? They’re IRrational crazies?
*sigh* I did not compare gay people to terrorists. I was illustrating a point. The point being gay is not a choice (I concede the rebuttal above that one can make themselves gay if they so choose, it is an argument I have not heard before). Terrorism is. It was the first thing I thought of. Nor did I say terrorists are irrational crazies, I said a rational, sane person wouldn’t wake up and say “I want to be a terrorist”. Rational, sane people tend to not make choices that have so much stigma attached to them, can get them imprisoned, or killed (unless they believe that their death/imprisonment serves a purpose). Rational sane people do not wake up and choose to cause random chaos. Case in point, the people terrorizing our country don’t think they are terrorists. They think they are doing right by their god, or religion, or culture, or whatever. So when they woke up and made the choice to bomb a building, or fly a plane into a building, they did it because their faith tells them it is the right thing to do, not because they want to be a terrorist. Because *we* call them terrorists doesn’t mean that they do. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
As a total aside, which has nothing to do with the conversation (see above for the conclusion)….
.
“Rational, sane people tend to not make choices that have so much stigma attached to them, can get them imprisoned, or killed (unless they believe that their death/imprisonment serves a purpose). ”
.
-therefore “Homosexuality is a bad choice because the Christians will kill you” is an argumentum ad baculum
I’m speaking entirely from a logic-based stand point here. Sure, people might be influenced by this sort of “reasoning,” but that still means that the violence originates from the bashers, NOT from homosexuality.
Speaking as a rational (read: logical), sane person, this was not a valid argument.
.
lol, that’s another one you can add to your list of things to look up, the definition of “rational.” Do you have access to a debate coach? Maybe you can go ask him/her about this.
Rational:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one’s reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
It is aggreeable to reason that a person who is sane and lucid would not make a choice that could have a disagreeable outcome, unless the outcome is outweighed by principle or faith. Whether the outcome be hate, violence, or being miserable because they chose to be someone they are not.
You are completely missing the point. I was not saying “Homosexuality is a bad choice”, nor am I saying “Don’t be gay or christians will kill you”. what I was saying is “Homosexuality is NOT a choice”. Because of the undesirable results that can come from this decision, I do not believe a rational person would make a choice to *be something they are not* ESPECIALLY because of the negativity. And that is just using logic. Logically, living beings do not make choices that have negative outcomes, unless the gain is greater than the risk. To risk a negative outcome by choosing to be something you are not is not logical, nor is it human nature. Choosing to embrace who you are and express it is completely different than choosing to be something that you are not.
Perhaps you have an English coach and a dictionary that can help you comprehend the actual meaning of the words being used?
Curiosity in wondering if you can “turn yourself gay” seems to me to be a purely scientific approach to a question that puzzles someone. But for you, clearly when you made the choice, the reward greatly outweighed the risk. Kudos for having a curious mind.
All of those definitions descend from the original definition of rational, which means logical.
)
.
“I was not saying “Homosexuality is a bad choice”, nor am I saying “Don’t be gay or christians will kill you”. ”
-Yes, you are. You present that by using the argument, “Who would choose to be gay?”
This argument is FAIL because it is a fallacy based on the points I have stated above. Therefore, your arguments are not rational. A rational person might decide to turn gay, despite your irrational arguments.
.
“what I was saying is “Homosexuality is NOT a choice”. ‘
I am not addressing that topic, but if I were I would ask you to present some evidence, rather than repeating a fail opinion ad nauseum.
.
” Because of the undesirable results that can come from this decision, I do not believe a rational person would make a choice to *be something they are not* ”
-I have shown many times that the undesirable results do NOT come from this decision, therefore your idea is fail.
-I’d also like to introduce you to a new fallacy “circular arguments.” (three & counting
.
“Kudos for having a curious mind.”
-Why, thank you
But seriously, though, go ask a debate coach why the “Do you really think someone would WANT to be gay, when people hate them so much?” argument fails based on the fact that it is an argumentum ad baculum.
Dress it up in all the logic arguments you want, it doesn’t hide the fact that you are completely (and probably intentionally) misinterpeting what I said.
I would try to continue to debate logic with you ad nauseum, however it is difficult to try to continue a debate with someone who does not comprehend the actual words that I am using.
I also would address the “homosexuality is not a choice” argument with the studies I learned in my academic work in the Human Sexuality and Psychology fields, but knowing that you seem to enjoy misinterpreting what people say so you may continue an argument you would probably say they are not sound evidencial proofs.
Perhaps you should consult a debate coach on the subject of misinterpreting your opponent as a means to “winning”. As much as you say I am begging the question, I have been trying to get you to understand the meaning of the words I used and not your intepretation. If you will not understand the words that I am using, then it is a certainty that you would view my explanations as circular. Someone trained in logic and debate would tell you that if you do not understand someone’s argument then you cannot justly refute it.
ad hominem much?
.
Woot! Fallacy number 4!
.
If you can’t refute my logic, don’t get pissed off you lost. Buhbye
Don’t forget that Arkansas passed a piece of anti-gay legislation this time too. Not gay marriage, but preventing same sex couples from adopting (and I think fostering) children together.
I don’t think it specifically mentioned gays in that bill, I think it said that no unmarried couples could adopt. Which serves the same purpose, unfortunately.
Yeah, it was specifically unmarried couples. Which I guess they did to try to make it look like it wasn’t actually aimed at gay couples. I find it appalling that the state automatically declares people who aren’t in “traditional” relationships unfit to parent. It’s tragic because it appears that at least 400 kids will be pulled from the homes they are in and that Arkansas really has nowhere to send them. Foster homes and beds in groups homes are notoriously lacking and suddenly pulling a large number of potential foster or adoptive parents out of the programs is going to make it that much worse.
What a slippery slope…I wonder, if a couple were to adopt a child, and later divorce, would said child be taken away, even if the parents are loving and fit parents that simply could not work out their differences, must the kid leave because they are no longer a married couple?
I wondered something similar, but I was thinking, what if one of the parents died? That would be even more tragic, to lose your spouse and your child because you are suddenly “unfit” to be a parent.
How horrible. Me and my 3 sisters were raised by our dad and while I can’t say he was the perfect parent, he did the best he could with what he had and we all turned out fine. How horrible for those kids and potential loving people to be denied the opportunity to discover eachother because of some retarded arbitrary position.
Politicians are generally more concerned with what’s popular than what’s right.
This is why I loathe the lot of them
…or generally more concerned with what will line their pockets..
Generally power is more of a motivator than money, in my experience.
Actually the law didn’t say anything about single parents – which is very surprising to me. I would doubt there is anything that can be done to currently completed adoptions. I’m pretty sure this can’t be retroactive – I believe that is unconstitutional. But in the case of foster kids, who knows.
you’re on a website where people apply things called ‘captions’ to real pictures in order to make them funny.
your post belongs on another, similar site… http://failblog.org
You know what? I’m sick of this. California is NOT the only state that passed bans on gay marriage, and our ban wasn’t even the worst one that was up for vote. I’m tired of my state being singled out, when gay marriage has NEVER been passed by a vote. I’m amazed at how ironically hateful these stupid pictures have been, considering we’ve always voted this way. I’m not pleased that the ban passed, but people are blowing this way out of proportion, much like people who keep making mean lolpeople about Bush. He hasn’t done anything particularly stupid or evil lately, so it’s really unnecessary. Let’s all try to grow the hell up, people.
people are just disappointed because things looked so good in Florida before they added the ballot initiative. Finally equal marriage rights were observed in the world’s fifth largest economy. I think it was a long shot, because you’re right, a simple majority has never won equal marriage rights or a lot of other civil rights initiatives, because the majority tends not to protect the interests of the minority, that’s why we have a constitution and judges, but it just feels like a let-down in California because it had been legalized.
I was disappointed in Florida. I voted no on Prop 2. Since I haven’t lived here for very long, that was pretty much the only state issue I felt informed enough to vote on. And it passed.
I can’t stand it. As a bisexual woman, I have no problems with marrying a man, but I’d like to know that if I wanted to, I could legally choose to marry another woman instead. And it really bothers me to know that homosexuals, who don’t want to marry the opposite sex, are banned from having their long-term monogamous relationships legally recognized. That’s basically saying, “You’re not a person, because you can’t get married.” We did it to the slaves, and now we’re doing it to homosexuals. Grow a heart, America!
IF your neotenous state had ‘grown up’ then you’d not be mocked, now would you?
Jennifer’s point was that everyone keeps bringing up California, when Florida & Arizona passed similar laws as well.
and I pointed out that no one expected much of the third world hells those places conjure up to a lot of people…
Your state was targetted by huge religious interests from outside the state? Why? Because the state’s a vanguard for such activism. And the ads they put up in CA were filled with hate and misinformation–misinformation so flimsy that only haters could ever find the information credible. So, the disappointment is warranted, both for what it says about the people who voted for it, and for what it says about the nation as a whole.
It’s not blown out of proportion. It’s a travesty to rob our fellow human beings of their rights, no matter how many other states do it too. It’s odious every single time it happens. It’s more than just disappointing. It builds momentum for more of this kind of injustice around the country. If you don’t want to live in a state where local matters are of such national importance, you can move, but you can’t insist that CA doesn’t get the focus of such national scrutiny. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.
California was A. the most publicised, and B. Had the best chance of passing it.
Most people who support gay rights knew nothing of gay marriage bans in FLA or AZ. Certainly none of the activism sites I subscribe to mentioned them.
I knew. The famous sex column “Savage Love” mentioned the CA and FL propositions. That’s how I knew I wanted to vote no on Prop 2 in the first place. I agree that Prop 2 wasn’t publicized nearly as much as Prop 8, but a lot of people both in and out of FL still knew about it.
Just don’t give up hope. If Massachusetts, home of the Puritans, can pass laws allowing gay marriage, there’s certainly hope for California, someday.
Like it or not California is a bellweather state. There were great hopes of us defeating this shit and of course a corresponding despair that it passed. Also, the fact is, we had same-sex marriage, albeit for only a few months, and it was voted away. So, yeah, that’s kind of a bad precedent.
You’ve got one of the largest gay populations in the country, so passing an anti-gay marriage law is an especially epic dose of fail on your part. And your inability to see that is even more epic still.
Not true, not true. They love the gays in California, since they, too are taxpayers. They welcome all taxpayers regardless of their sexual orientation.
However… if two same-sex taxpayers want to shack up and make it legal, well, that is an ABOMINATION!
Well, they can’t go and make a “I like it in the butt” tax – the pornstars (among others) would have a fit. So, instead, they opt to make sure that they are taxed at the higher “Single” rate.
.
It’s ’straight’ economics.
lol
… not to mention certain Republican Senators who would have to be taxed…….
Marriage is a religious institution, so the state shouldn’t really get to say anything about who can get married. But since they do anyway, for tax purposes, it makes sense to define it as one man-one woman. If gay marriage were legalized, then Polygamists would have a fit. etc.
actually i believe since you get benefits from the state and can have a court marraige they are removing all the rights for the state benefits. I’m sure if you could find a god to gay marry you, you’d be married in the eyes of that god all you like, it doesn’t mean the state will see you as married and give you any benefits.
“If gay marriage were legalized, then Polygamists would have a fit. etc.”
Well it’s straight marriage that’s led to calls for gay marriage and homosexuals having a fit, so by that logic straight marriage should be outlawed.
This actually is not far off the mark. The problem is that we’re calling it “marriage”, which has very specific and immutable religious meanings for (obviously) the majority of humankind. For example, there is no concept of “divorce” in the Catholic faith, yet legally, divorce is fairly common with tons of laws and rulings surrounding it.
The solution for all this is to remove the term “marriage” from the legal definition, and everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, beastialists (is that a word?) and so on, all live under “domestic partnerships” in the eyes of the law. That’s the *only* way to have equality in legal terms (which, if you listen to the anti-8 arguments, is how they see the issue). Framing the issue in terms of “marriage” is, as I said, the actual problem.
“For example, there is no concept of “divorce” in the Catholic faith,”
Actually there is… it’s just that they think they’re the only authority who can do it
(The Vicars of Christ by Peter De Rosa.)
Yes, and they call it an annulment. Basically it changes the books so that your marriage never existed in the first place. It makes your kids illegitimate and everything. It’s MUCH better than divorce. *sigh*
Thank you Xavier, that was my point exactly. The state shouldn’t get to decide what marriage means at all. Some religions practice polygamy, but that has long since been outlawed in the United States. Is that right? who knows? So restricting the rights of one minority group while promoting the other is fairly stupid.
You mean like letting slaves go was dumb while suppressing the land claims of the Native American?
You haven’t made a single point, you have just flung insults at religious establishments and various other people.
No, boy, you’re just too fat assed dumb to see them…
That he fails to realize that polygamy made the marriage system way too complicated which was one of the bigger reasons for banning it. Gay marriage has no such problem as it remains two people getting tax benefits.
I’m all for polygamy between consenting adults (none of this creepy old guy marrying 13 year old girls crap). Way too progressive for those people who can’t even wrap their heads around same sex marriage though.
Technically I am too since Lynn and I have a girlfriend we love. That aside, I can understand why polygamy probably won’t become legal since it has tons of backlash in divorce and inheritance situations.
Besides, can you imagine paying alimony to two women, five women?!
I guess you’d just divvy it up equally? Like if you were going to pay 20K with one wife you’d pay 10K for each wife if you had two?
Oh wait, it would probably be different if wife 1 had a child and wife 2 didn’t. nm, it would be a mess…
Trust me, I have thought this out. Yaaaa, right now it is messy. Now add a bunch of companions all wanting a peace.
*piece
No peace for the wicked, but the righteous can get a piece any time he likes
I need to be more righteous.
“Honey I’m getting biblical on you tonight!!!”
“You mean you are going to isolate me while I am my period and have sex with my sister if I prove to be barren?”
“Ummm, I was thinking fantasy rape actually…”
“Oh, so Catholic School Girl uniform?”
“I’ve lost my mood.”
Yeah i’m with you. Someone explained to me once that there is one version of polygamy practice, the husband must treat each family equally. if wife A get’s a pretty dress so does wife B,C, and D.
If anyone can handle that respectfully and everyone in the situation is happy, i don’t really see why not.
~
I can see how it would be a bitch to the system set up with eurocentric ideas though.
Indeed. Polygamy works in Africa because their culture makes cooperation with your husband’s other wives easier.
In European culture, marriage implies exclusivity, so polygamy implies jealousy, bitterness, and a competition between your wives for your approval.
Polygamy goes well beyond the exercise of human rights into the practice of self-aggrandizement by men, who are exponentially more likely to have multiple spouses than are women. Since women in the United States are able to find employment and since we have social services to deal with indigent mothers and children, there’s no reason for men to have multiple wives. Sorry, guess you’ll have to figure out some other way to re-enact the scenes you watch in the videos you buy from that sordid windowless little shop just off the interstate.
The basic problem with that is that there are more than 1400 different legal right granted by marriage. Going through and changing all of those laws and regulation would be a major problem, and completely pointless
The thing to do it what churches across the country and the world already do: refuse to acknowledge, for their internal purposes, marriages conducted outside the church. You’re not married in the eyes of the Catholic church unless you have a church wedding officiated over by a priest whether or not the marriage is between one man and one woman. Granting gays the legal right to marriage will have no effect at all on that.
And I don’t think anyone really gives a good bugger what the RCC think about much…
Actually, based on religious membership statistics, there are 1 billion Catholics worldwide, who do give a good bugger what the RCC thinks about because it’s their religion.
A lot of churches have a similar idea: if you’re not married in their church (or at the very least, A church) then you’re not married “in the eyes of God,” only “in the eyes of man” and are therefore “living in sin.” Had my mother’s first marriage been in a church (any church) instead of the courthouse, she would not have been able to marry my father in the Catholic church later, because the Catholic church does not recognize divorce. As far as the RCC is concerned, she was living in sin with her first husband, and didn’t get married “in the eyes of God” until she married my dad.
I meant civilised folk…
No, sorry, wrong. Marriage is not an immutable religious institution. Marriage has been many things across time and cultures, from a contract about property right or titles or progeny, to the love-based institution we in the Western world think of today. Not to mention the religions and cultures, some of them right here in this country, that practice(d) polygamy. So it is hardly immutable. And the fact that one can go get married by a civil servant belies the idea of it being a only religious institution.
And if the state has to get out of the marriage business, that means that everyone, including all straight couples, need to have their marriage licenses revoked and be issued a “domestic partnership” license. How do you think that will go over my friends. Nope! You can take my marriage license when you can pry it out of my cold, dead hand. (Or my husband decides to trade me on a younger model. LOL!)
Marriage is not a religious institution, atheists get married too.
Dearly beloved,
We are gathered here today in front of these witnesses and a God that doesn’t exist – to join together Peter and John in Holy.. er.. uh.. in matrimony.
I’m not going to get married in a church or use god or any other religious terms in my wedding. My marriage will be just as valid as anyone who does.
My husband and I aren’t religious. Sort of agnostic I guess? At any rate, we had a civil ceremony which we wrote (read plagiarized) our ceremony, mostly editing a bunch of stuff we researched together. Some was generic higher power stuff. Small “g” god I guess. We wouldn’t have even included that except we wanted to make up something to our families who were maybe disappointed there wasn’t a church wedding. There was no way I was going to have a catholic ceremony. I haven’t been catholic since before my confirmation back in high school (in the cretaceous).
My wife and I are both agnostic as well, and we were married by a judge. No mention of anybody’s god in our ceremony. If marriage is a religious institution, does that mean they’re coming to rip up our certificate next?
A fellow confirmed ex-Catholic?
You’d think if confirmation were meant to actually confirm one’s religious status, that they’d push the age back a few years. It must be super-embarrassing for the RCC to know that so many members of its flock get confirmed, intending to remain good little Catholics for life, then leave the church in college. But that’s a separate rant for another day. ;P
They gave us the choice to opt out by writing a note of decline to the priest or something I think. We had to write whatever our intent was about going through with it? I only got confirmed because I was afraid I’d upset my parents if I didn’t.
You’re referring to the legal institution. They’re referring to the religious idea of marriage, which is what religious folks are so up in arms trying to defend. What’s being suggested is that the word “marriage” be stricken from the record. Everyone would get civil unions, which is a legal contract. If you want a “marriage”, join a religion that offers them, and add that on top of your civil union.
Why change everyone to civil unions though? Why not just have same sex marriage and call it that? By allowing some people civil unions and others full marriages you promote the concept of separate but equal, which didn’t fly during the civil rights movement either.
In this case, it wouldn’t be separate (unlike the civil unions for gays/marriage for straights solution). However, I agree that we shouldn’t change the term to civil unions and we should reject the idea that marriage is a strictly religious institution. If it spans all nations and religions, isn’t it the institution of society as a whole? I’m an agnostic, I wasn’t married in a church, but my marriage is a marriage, my wife and I call it marriage, our family calls it marriage, and I don’t think it’s necessary to invent another name for it when we all agree on what it is. I’m sure you could find someone who thinks we shouldn’t be married, or that God doesn’t think we’re married, but I don’t give a **** what they think. I have the right to marry who I want.
Because instead of holding forth with righteous indignation that the term “marriage” (which is heavily loaded in religious terms) should be applied to anyone who wants to enter into one, the path of least resistance, at the polls, is for the secular establishment to recognize only “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”. In practice, they are the same thing, and everyone knows that, and you lose the resistance from those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
It’s the pragmatic choice, in other words — if the issue is truly about “equal rights under the law” then it’s the only way it’s ever going to pass without a huge fight.
Hmmm….”righteous indignation” that marriage is for everyone vs. “righteous indignation” that marriage is only for the religious. As an atheist, I’ll be taking door number one, Johnny.
The civil union would be the legal document, and the marriage would be a non-legally-binding thing that the religious group can do. Mormons who practice polygamy already do this; so do Neopagans who are polyamorous, and gays and lesbians who live in states where legal marriage is not available to them–they go have the religious ceremony done but it’s not binding.
I wonder if you think that Jews, Buddhists, or followers of any other religion also have to perform the ceremony with a nervous Christian preacher.
I’m packing up my keyboard and going home – everyone has become WAYY too fucking serious around here.
.
Sarcasm/LOL detection – steadily holding at a 90% fail rate.
Why do you assume that when I say “marriage is a religious institution” do you assume I mean Christians have sole right to marriage? Judaism had organized, religious marriages thousands of years before Christianity.
For thousands of years the Jews washed their hands after taking a dump. Does that make good hygiene a religious institution that should reserved for a certain segment of the populous?
If the hygiene practiced was required by their religious faith, and if the hygiene has a specific name in their faith, then yes, practicing that named practice WOULD be a religious activity, and the state would have no place requiring or forbidding that named, religious activity.
Same with marriage. Let the state offer Civil Unions. Leave “marriage” as it it named in religious sacraments out of the State’s hands. Let people ALL get the equal Civil Unions if they want their relationship recognized legally by the state. And leave the religious sacraments out of the halls of government and leave those to the various churches of the world.
What about taking translations into account? We like to translate similar concepts. surely the Quran, Bible and any other religous work in their original manuscripts did not have the word “marraige” there was a cultural concept of a union described with another word. we recognized the similarities and translated the similar traditions into the same concept. If you want to protect religous sacraments then start learning some latin, arabic, hebrew, ancient egyptian, so on and so forth, because he decribe these people as having “married” though their sacred word for such a union would have been quite different.
You completely missed the point. Yes, washing your hands and getting married in a church are completely and totally the same thing.
Only because we call it “marriage”. See my comments above.
shhhhhhh…. the christian’s don’t realize that.
even with out the apostrophe that isn’t supposed to be there @_@
Isn’t “without” one word?
When I got married, my then-fiance and I went to meet with the judge who did the ceremony. He asked why we wanted a judge and not a minister. I responded with, “Religious differences. He’s atheist, and I’m agnostic.”
Amazingly, the judge still married us.
It’s not his place not to! Because he’s a judge and not a minister he has no reason to argue.
And this is kind of an offshoot of what I think. The problem is not that we should not have to replace the word marriage with civil union, domestic partnership, etc. (which we probably should in all honesty), the problem is that every religion (including those who don’t believe in one) have their own idea of what marriage is. Unfortunately for California, the majority must be christian.
Doesn’t make it just.
I’m still annoyed I have to say “a civil union of the minds” perfectly good saying got ruined
Actually, marriage is a combination of two institutions:
A legal institution, which grants tax exemptions and other legal benefits to married partners, and
A religious institution, which establishes married partners as “one flesh” in the eyes of their respective religion.
These two institutions overlap, but do not really affect one another. One can get legally married in the courthouse and not be married in the eyes of Religion X. Similarly, even if you want to get married in the Any-Odd Church, you still have to fill out the legal paperwork if you want to reap the legal benefits of marriage; otherwise, you’re still single in the eyes of the state, even if you’re married in the eyes of the church.
Thus, allowing homosexuals to enter into the legal form of marriage does not in any way impact the religious institution of marriage.
Now, you see your problem there? You’re applying logic to something that religionists have hijacked to prop up their superiority ‘I’m a worthless sinner but you’re WORSE!’ complex.
Americans are, sadly, very puritanical. A good rogering all round! People need to lighten up. Religion used to be something to celebrate. It was a way to apply reason to things that are unreasonable. It should never have developed into the dogmatic monster it is nowadays. The growth of fundamentalism is dangerous in any religion.
Here-here! It seems strange that the people who are most up in arms about fundamentalist Muslims are fundamentalist Christians. I would think that they could relate on some sort of “I loves my dogma” level.
Now the movie Dogma, that’s a different story.
Buddy Jesus rules!
The gravest enemy of a doctrine-obsessed nutjob isn’t someone who doesn’t care about the doctrine–it’s the person who’s just as obsessed over a slightly different doctrine.
Although there’s a lot of anti-atheism running around right now
I don’t believe in athiests
… or even spell check apparently – my bad.
We don’t believe in you either.
Did either of us stop existing from our non-belief?
My lack of faith relates to your cognitive abilities, which seem to be lacking in this area… Pumping out trite old relgionist bollocks really doesn’t help that idea alone, now does it?
*sigh* I’ll take that as you’re way of saying “Nuh uh – you’re stupid”
DAMMIT – I’ve really got to start looking before I “Add comment” … “our”.. note “you’re” …
I noted it.
They may have their dogma, but their karma is a slow-running P.O.S. ;P
Totally agree… until not so long ago religion was something to ignore, except for when you got presents.
I whole-heartedly agree with this post.
Seconded.
Hmmm… akshully, doll, the state grabbed the marriage idea to prop up taxes. Before any State got involved, the Church couldn’t enforce anything at all. Thank Augustine & Constantine.
It was Eusebius and Constantine, but not ratified until Theodoseus the emperoro after Constantine.
With respect to Constantine, all he wanted was to stop the fights and to be able tax everyone. If Nicea had failed, he’d have wiped them out, but since
Eusebius managed to forge a common dogma in the form of the Creed, thus making the two primary streams of Christianity both correct AND heretical (if you adhered to just the part you were raised in) . Thus one could wipe out heretics (as did Athanatheus of Alexandria within month of the creed being agreed)
Now, I bet they didn’t teach you THAT in history…
*snork* Most of what I know about religious history is self-taught; I’m always looking to learn some more. I understand Constantine’s desire – the fight went on at Niceae for.. how long? And over minor points. I blame Augustine for introducing the idea of original sin & thereby strengthening the argument that the great majority of the ‘faithful’ were incompetent to govern themselves since they were so very flawed. It was political expediency on the Pope’s part to adopt Augustine’s rants after 4 centuries of the doctrine of Original Blessing.
Thanks, Fester, I’ll look ‘em up :>
Hear Hear!!!!
Ya and it lets them shit on the concept that everybody is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…
But that’s down to buying Leviticus…
coming soon in Calif
1 Ban on eating shellfish
2 Ban on Tattoos
3 No eating Rabbits
all in the same book… mush have the same weight…
I’d like to see them enforce tassels and chops… Which I think may be Deuteronomy, but hey, it’s all Mosaic law!
DOWN WITH INDOOR TOILETS… bury your waste outside town!
Will CA also have stonings for those caught working on the sabbath? Tourist attraction for sure!!
A new source of tax revenue…
Sales tax on approved stoning rocks…
and ticket sales…
For someone who appears so well informed, it’s surprising (or deliberately misleading?) to take the authority of the Old over the New (which supercedes the Old). For example, in Matthew, when Christ says, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality [Gk porneia] theft, false testimony, slander.” Now there is no Biblical scholar of any repute that would assert homosexuality would not be included with sexual immorality (porneia) to a first century Jew.
I take no authority from either. And there is little consensus among scholars as to what is and is not implied by ‘porneia’. It’s usually the Arskenos word that people apply to the NT’s damnation of gay men (when the only other time the word has been found it applies to temple prostitutes of either sex)
However, taking the insane ramblings of a man who may or may not have had a grande mal seizure while heading to Damascus, 1700 years after the words were recorded seems pretty rash when trying to form a legal system that claims equality for all…
Basically, it’s all lame.
As you may of guessed, your myth of Christ really doesn’t wash…
Yes, as I may “have” guessed, you are a person of tremendous faith. I mean, to disregard all the evidence that Christ was who he said……kudos!
Um, that only looks like “evidence” to people who are looking for that sort of meaning in it. Not everyone sees it the same way. Not to mention, Most of the writings weren’t even contemporary. They were written in the century following. A lot of fictionalization can happen in the interim. Not to mention the numerous editings by church officials, mis-transcriptions or mis-translations, etc. It’s very subjective. Far from absolute.
I have to dispute the timeline you indicate for the original texts to be written down. Most of them were written down less than 50 years after the death of Christ, considering that the authors were dead less than 50 years after the death of Christ. Luke was the only Gospel written by someone who hadn’t actually met Jesus personally, but he was (and still is) known as a historian of almost the same repute as Josephus. And you know as well as I do that for the ‘mythical’ label to be applied to the story of a real person you have to have at least several hundred years between telling and writing as you have in the case of Alexander the Great and other great figures in history who became almost god-like in their legends.
-
I do agree with you that in the later tellings it may have gotten added to by church officials, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are viewed as being the most acurate, and they were written VERY soon after Christ walked the earth.
-
Even Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, did it less than 50 years after the death of Christ. That can hardly be viewed as ‘not contemporary’.
But you’re right about using the Bible itself as evidence of Jesus’ divinity. You have to go outside the actual book to make your arguments, because otherwise you’re falling into a trap. People see what they want to see, and it’s colored by their own life experiences.
LOL, this totally puts it in a different and very logical light…
@ Fester: P.S. Matthew was not written by Paul, just so you know.
As it’s coming from DWN, my vote is “deliberately misleading.” A la carte christians are so silly.
Ding Ding! Gutter tell him[her?] what [s]he’s won!
“Thus, allowing homosexuals to enter into the legal form of marriage does not in any way impact the religious institution of marriage.”
Agreed 100%. As I mentioned, it’s the unfortunate use of the term in both contexts, that is why this is such a hot topic.
Legal benefits aside (since many other people have brought up that argument), considering there are religions and even Christian denominations that allow gays to have weddings where they are “married in the eyes of God,” you FAIL!
I think the legal stuff is more the point that some Bronze age despot given divinity
No fail at all. It’s entirely up to those denominations if they choose to support the notion of gay marriage in a religious sense. The failure here, is your mistaken notion that all religions think and act alike.
but you had a hissy fit and voted for Prop 8…
nothing like a fit of pique to overcome ones finer feelings.If you were going to gor
I am still wondering how having a tiff justified the vote… I am mad at how things are going so I am going to vote for second class citizen rights…
…. What?
First, marriage is NOT (solely) a religious institution. Which is what allows people (like me) with no affiliation to be married.
And secondly, aside from religious reasons, who the hell cares if some guy wants 12 wives. If he can support them all, and they’re all cool with it, so what?
It’s stupid, that’s what. If you’re legally married that means you have to go through at least minimal legal action to get unmarried again. It’s extra complicated if you have kids. And these guys with twelve wives always want the kids.
So. If you go into a polygamous marriage as a woman, married to a man who has multiple wives, you have to share him with all those other wives. If it’s twelve wives that means you never see him. Eventually, especially if he leaves you caring for the kids, that’s gonna make you pretty unhappy. But you can’t just walk out. You have to get a divorce too.
To further complicate the issue, if the other wives want to be bitches about you leaving, and if the state is friendly to polygamists, what’ll happen is they’ll all band together and take your kids. So you were neglected by your husband, betrayed by your sister-wives, and then bereft of your children on top of that.
Polygamy is total fail. I’m glad it’s illegal because I did the next best thing and was in a polyamorous relationship with a guy who had another girlfriend and a wife. Just me getting pregnant was enough to ramp up the drama to a level you would not believe. Thank god the relationship imploded during my pregnancy. I hate to think how angry I’d be all the time that a couple of frigging busybodies would be constantly criticizing me for how I raise my daughter, etc., and God knows how many more girlfriends that man would have brought in before he finally decided he had no time for sleep.
Get it now? Gay marriage doesn’t even begin to compare. At least it’s still one on one and they can do the relationship justice.
Don’t dump on polyamory just because you picked a couple lame-asses to try it with. It works just fine for some of us. Here’s a tip: don’t get pregnant unless you have a full commitment from all involved. I’m a second generation polyamorist and I saw my parents’ relationship fall apart for the same reason you mentioned.
Well actually, my dad was dumb enough to get both women pregnant at the same time. Don’t do that.
–
If you are going to try polyamory, I recommend trying to find support and discussion groups in your area. Read a few books on the subject, ‘The Ethical Slut’ is a good start. My wife and I have been together for eight great years, and actively polyamorous for the last two. It’s been difficult at times, but only for the same reason that one on one dating can be difficult. Many people are jerks. At the same time, it has been very rewarding, and has brought us closer together in many ways. But it doesn’t work for everyone. Some people, even guys, are naturally monogamous. Amazingly enough, not all people are the same.
Of course it’s edited. Exactly what site do you people think you’re looking at right now?
FTW.
… Photoshopped? Are you serious? or is the color so spot-on to you that you can’t figure out that it’s a caption?
Random question of the day.
Why are there 10 pictures on the front page of the LOLCats, but only 7 here?
Lolcats have a much lower necessity for humor or IQ.
but cats are cute…
Click the link. It explains everything.
Ah, a graphical representation of a scientific study involving Lolcats. I never thought it would happen!
That’s perfect!
They always add more to LOLcats than any other site, roflrazzi only gets like 3 a day.
actually I think he did that on purpose. You know, homies as in friends. He was saying he had gay friends, not saying “the rights of my gay homos”. Sounds kind of idiotic now if you say it that way.
You fail at nesting.
or the site fails at nesting
Hey now, there’s plenty of gays in California!
But there’s also plenty of macho Latinos and Blacks whose manhood is being threatened by the possibility of gay marriage.
There’s also a lot of old scared white people.
It ain’t over yet, though!
The California Constitution has not been amended yet.
Proposition 8 can still be overturned.
Check my name for a link – If they overturn it because of a few loud protests, riots, what have you – after it was made clear that a majority of voters in the state WANT it, what kind of precedent will they be setting?
.
That would be crazy and dangerous.
Do the majority have the right to oppress the minority though? Back in the day, a majority supported slavery. Back in the day, a majority supported the concept of women being property. Back in the day, a majority thought mixed race marriages were wrong.
I feel that amending a Constitution with a simple majority is wrong. It needs at least to be consistent with the federal Constitution, and be 3/5 (I’d prefer 2/3).
Good point – I’d have to agree with that.
Until the minority can convince enough people that they are right.. YES. That’s the way it works… and going out into the streets basically rioting is NOT the right way to convince people that your opinion is right.
.
It does give gay-hating cops a good opportunity for fun and target practice tho.
If you support the idea that the majority can oppress the minority, isn’t that essentially tyranny, not democracy?
Not as long as the minority can vote…
Invalid since a minority can never win a vote.
No, but they can persuade – look how long it took to persuade the majority to vote in an African American President…
So there is no protection for the minority… fair enough.
Some how one would think that the Black American experience would be an object lesson… ah well…
“Do the majority have the right to oppress the minority though?”
Well, you hit the debate at the heart of democracy square on there… I have no idea.
That hasn’t stopped Newsome, SF, Santa Clara, Los Angeles, et al, to promise to repeat June with judicial activism to thwart the will of the people, as expressed a second time at the polls, in less than a decade.
“will of the people” vs. “inalienable human rights” = inalienable human rights ftw, baby
My source? Just the Constitution of these Unites States
Again, you fail to show where “gay marriage” shows up as “inalienable human right”.
The only reason that the judicial system struck down the earlier measure that the people passed, was because it was not consistent with the word of the California constitution. Now, not only is that original measure consistent, it’s actually codified into the constitution. That’s basic civics, btw.
sorry, i thought it was obvious.
Marriage = pursuit of happiness.
.
And, it’s actually still inconsistent with the wording of the California Constitution, since the California Constitution guarantees equality. All the pro-Prop 8 people have done is create a drawn out court battle during which the state courts will decide how much internal contradiction the California Constitution can stand.
That’s basic civics, btw.
And if you don’t want to go with the pursuit of happiness line, you can always go with the tried and true ‘all men created equal’. That tends to trump the ideal that we can repress.
When the law banning marriage between the races, 70% of american polled believed that marriage between whites and blacks should remain illegal. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t mean it is just. In a democratic republic, the laws must protect the few from the many. Not the other way around.
you’d think that, wouldn’t you? But I’d brace my self before they start calling you a Marxist…
The minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Now if I could only remember who said that. Also I am still wondering when we will actually let every American have that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness we keep saying is the American way. I supposed adding unless you’re “etc, etc, etc” would have made it less snappy. -_-
Been married – didn’t make me happy – best of luck to others.
I thank you for your grace. I’ve seen plenty of divorce in my life. I still want to get married. I want to try and get it right and not have to go through that. Lynn and I talk things out so our communication is good. I am keeping my fingers crossed for extra luck though. >_<
a minute majority. roughly 494K votes. And letting people vote on this is akin to letting popular vote decide if blacks and white can inter-marry in the 60s.
I suppose California is a lot more moderate than people previously thought before.
Now both the radical right and the radical left hate them. :/
California is far more conservative than those outside Cali expect — there is a reason the state continues to elect Republican governors. SF and LA are not the only places in the state that people live; they are just the ones that get the most press.
Our current repugnican governor actually opposed Prop 8.
And on the topic of “Welcome To California” signs… The background of this photo shows exactly where most of 8’s supporters live: eastern part of the state, middle of Nowhere Diverse. That might be Palin’s “Real America,” but it ain’t Real California.
Apparently, it actually *is* the “real” California.
I think moderates have a better grasp of fairness and ‘natural justice’, such that giving someone else equality does not erode any of their rights. The right are a lot more, what’s mine is mine and not yours and I’m keeping it since God’s stopped keeping score (and if he hasn’t I’m his favourite)
Fuck Prop H8te. I am ashamed of California.
Never mind the OTHER states that outlawed gay marriage in the election. I guess California is just more fun to mock for some reason.
California sells it’s self as more tolerant than the Third World Hells that have banned it already, who no one really expected better behaviour from.
No, people who don’t live here paint it that way. What most people who don’t live here don’t realize that that outside of the major cities most of California is very conservative. We also have a very large Catholic population with the Latino population that is here. Also, this Prop was misrepresented to many people in the ads. Many ads stated that gay marriage would be taught in schools. This is simply not true, but people believed it.
Either way, the rest of the world expected better of California. However they didn’t get it so it’s Nelson Muntz time…
What exactly does it mean to teach gay marriage in schools anyway? That it would be brought up? That students would realize that gays and gay marriage exist? That someone would talk about gays, oppression, and the push for equality and tolerance? OH NOES TEH HORROR!
Look at what you’re dealing with here. You’ve got a staunchly religious group that has voted against gay marriage. Catholics voted it down. Catholics believe that being homosexual will send you straight to Hell. Ergo, teaching in school that gay marriage could be tolerated…….BURN THE WITCH.
-
My problem is with a sect of religion, not necessarily with gay marriage.
Point of order – Ain’t just the Papists…
Some of us remember a Gay Pride parade in New Orleans being singled out as the cause of God’s wrath in the form of Katrina by some be-wattled lick turd of a ‘Conservative’ Christian ‘pastor’ (who seemed to have less command of biblical scholarship and archaeology of the Holy Land than this welder’s son)
Loud dumbassery is pretty much ecumenical.
I don’t know what they thought would be taught. It was a lie anyway, it is already taught, along with other family structures. Currently what is taught/discussed is different family types. “Traditional” families (mom, dad, bio-children), step-families, single parent families, adoptive families, grandparents with grandkids, aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews, gay families.
In my 4th grade class last year, I had foster kids, kids in divorced families, step families, kids being raised by other family members, one kid who lived with his lesbian grandmother and her partner, as well as kids in a “traditional” home. And this is in a small town in California. We talked about it all. When I wanted things to be taken to a parent I would say “Take it the adult at home that is in charge of you!”
California’s the only state that is taking away gay marriage, which is why it’s getting much more attention.
It is reinstating a Prop that was voting on less than 10 years ago (sorry, I don’t remember the exact year that it was voted on) that was overturned by judges. Of which 4 out of 7 judges are the ones that voted that way.
Trust me, I am NOT saying that it is right at all. I was very against Prop 8. But to say that it is being taken away isn’t really true, in that judges were legislating from the bench, which they shouldn’t be doing.
Regardless if it’s merely overturning a judicial decision that overturned previous prop:
On Monday gays could marry. On Weds they couldn’t. Sorry, but that’s taking away their right to marriage
We try to think of ourselves as above all the bigots and crazies in the rest of that nation. This sadly proves that we are not.
Don’t you think that the lies from the ads deterred people? I know people who voted yes because of the “this will be taught in the schools!” stuff. Which is true, but it already is. It was a 4% difference between yes and no. But really, the Yes on 8 campaign was full of lies and had a LOT more money for ads (thank you LDS church! *end sarcasm*) than the No on 8 campaign did.
I voted yes for three reasons, in this order:
1) “whether you like it or not!” (Gavin Newsom)
2) the juvenile and sometimes criminal actions of some 8 opponents, who eventually started actually vandalizing properties and intimidating their owners, where pro-8 signs were posted. Look, leftists, you can’t be morally outraged about abortion-clinic bombings/killings and then turn around and do the same stupid shit yourself. If you can’t be adult and civil about an issue, you don’t deserve to have your point heard
3) if you have to draw the line somewhere, then regardless of where you draw it, someone is not going to like it, so we might as well draw it where it’s been recognized for milliennia
You’ll notice none of those reasons involve “lies” or “LDS”. The fact is, a large number of blacks and Hispanics (who largely are religious) came out and voted for Obama — and they also voted for 8. This would have happened regardless of any media blitz from either side.
Let’s face it — even in California, LGBT is a very, very, very small percentage of the population. It impresses me that the no vote was as high as it was, to be honest.
Ah a fellow bigot.
come embrace me in a deeply sexual way, brother…
This is why you can’t have an actual debate on the topic…one side of the conversation isn’t really interested in debate, and is interested only in shutting down the opposition with names and epithets.
OH I’m a bigot too…
Come, embrace me!
To give you more dignity than you’re due… basically, to decided that you’d have a hissy fit over a minority of a minority, and vote against equal rights.
And you expect to be taken seriously? Please….
Who had a hissy fit? I enumerated the reasons I voted yes. the hissy fit is ongoing even now, as the politics-of-screaming-babies plays itself out in the media, and those who didn’t get their way are going to try to get the judiciary to legislate from the bench once again.
Looked like a hissy fit to me, sadly enough. You are annoyed at what a small group of a small group did/said and then talk about a line needing to be drawn? What line and why?
Seriously, what does two men or women getting married do to ANYTHING you have to do in life? What line of yours does that cross that you have to vote to suppress the freedoms of two consenting adults who honestly did nothing to you?
So pretty much, yes, you had a fit of pique and decided to perpetuate a second class citizen scenario. At what point am I supposed to take you seriously or Uncle Fester for that matter since he is a decent amount more wacky than myself.
Actually I liked the comment
“3) if you have to draw the line somewhere, then regardless of where you draw it, someone is not going to like it, so we might as well draw it where it’s been recognized for milliennia”
It’s always been that way, so it has to be right… mmmkay… I bet those uppity women having opinions and not being property must be a PITA, aince that only stopped about 150-180 years ago… no time compared to the time women ere chattels.
Craziness I tell you, absolute anarchy if them pesky gays get their marriage rights? Just look what happened when blacks and women were allowed!!! More equality, too zany for my blood…
We need to go back to the good old days where everyone was either a white man or property!!
I have had a white man call me master… But I wasn’t gay so after I finished his training as a submissive, I let him go as he was getting too clingy for the teacher/student situation.
How would that pan out?
Come on now, don’t be instilling gray into my safe little black and white world. HEATHEN!
He wante me to instill more than some gray, hence why I terminated the arrangement.
“It’s always been that way, so it has to be right…”
Except, that’s not what I said. I said that if you are going to sak me what is my definition of marriage, then for the reason I have amply stated in this discussion, I’ll stick with the definition that has been accepted for millennia.
I’ve also said that the major hangup here is on the term “marriage”. To some, “marriage” has a LOT more meaning than just a civil contract between consenting adults (one that can be terminated at any time for any reason between those adults) .
And how does that marriage mean any less to gays? They simply want the right we have to marry and cherish it like we do.
It has nothing at all to do with what I have to do in life. however, the issue was raised, and as I have the right (and duty) to vote, I voted as I did for the reasons I mentioned. Is voting having a hissy fit? Or is it just that your position on the issue was a losing one that causes you to see it as such?
I fail to see, as I always have, how anyone’s freedoms are suppressed here. Did the measure outlaw homosexuality? did ti prevent same-sex couples from living together, from joining in a perfectly legal civil union? No, to all of the above, so how were anyone’s freedoms impinged upon?
It denied them a freedom that heterosexuals have. I thought that was obvious already… I can marry the person I love, they cannot. Why that is so unclear to you, I can’t even begin to fathom.
Because he’s running a game plan from a book compiled sometime in the 1300s, from a collection of Latin translations of Greek texts selected by a man who wanted to take the teachings of an anarchist and forge them into a religion to rule an empire.
He’s actually not a bigot, since it’s not his bigotry, but the bigotry of a bronze age tribe who killed everyone they met overlaid with Roman social mores.
I actually thought about using a different example. A wants to marry B and it is Legal. C wants to marry D but it is not. So why is wrong for C to marry D?
1) “whether you like it or not!” (Gavin Newsom)
I don’t understand why this would dissuade you from ending discrimination against a suffering minority. Any discrimination should end “whether you like it or not.” It’s all part of being a human being.
.
2) the juvenile and sometimes criminal actions of some 8 opponents, who eventually started actually vandalizing properties…
Let’s pretend you had been suffering vile, murderous, discriminatory hatred for decades. Wouldn’t you be equally frustrated?
I’m not saying it was justified, but then two wrongs don’t make a right…. & the Right have been wronging same-sex couples for a MUCH longer period of time. Speaking of which…
.
3) if you have to draw the line somewhere, then regardless of where you draw it, someone is not going to like it, so we might as well draw it where it’s been recognized for milliennia
Let me introduce you to a fallacy called “the appeal to tradition.” For all the reasons why a millennia-old piece of hateful discrimination is still hateful discrimination, see the other posts on this forum.
.
I don’t see the logic of your arguments.
Because there is none… it’s a hissy fit backed by religion.
And that’s fine, for your reasons. But if you bought into the fact that gay marriage
would be taught in the schools if this passed, you bought into lies. Different
family structure is already taught in schools, and respected, and that includes gay
families.
The LDS was one of the MAJOR sponsors of the yes on 8 campaign. So
any believing of the ads was thanks to them.
And yes, the LGBT pop is small. But many of us saw this as a civil rights issue.
Just like letting blacks and women vote was.
And as for No on 8 people doing things, it was a small group that did things. And
I saw Yes on 8 people standing on street corners yelling “f-ing homo’s” to the No
on 8 people standing across the street from them. Yet I never saw the No on 8
people respond. (I wasn’t at the sign holdings but I loved hearing that in front of
my 3 year old.)
Not saying that 8 supporters misbehaved as well. Just saying I don’t recall hearing about someone parking their SUV, with “FAGS LIVE HERE” painted all over it, in front of a house with an anti-8 sign in the yards. I think I would have, given that the only radio I listen to is KCBS…
Also agreed that the schools line is disingenuous at best, but I don’t think it really had any impact on the outcome. Agreed that the LDS (inexplicably) supported 8, but still believe that their support had little to do with the outcome either — the vote did not turn on media blitzes IMO.
However…
“But many of us saw this as a civil rights issue.
Just like letting blacks and women vote was.”
If I were black, I would find this equation deeply insulting and offensive.
Feel free to detail why it would be insulting and offensive. Blacks were told they couldn’t marry Whites for a long time. Women were considered property for a long time. Gays can’t get married.
I find the whole gamut insulting but you still perpetuated a state of second class citizenship.
Because in this country, gays have never been considered 3/5 of a person. They have never been treated as property. They have never have legally been forced to sit at the back of a bus, or have legally been prevented from drinking at the same water fountain as whites, nor have they been prevented from getting a job or voting, because of the color of their skin.
They were not shipped across an ocean bound in chains, packed like cattle aboard ships, and taken against their will from their families and their homeland to be sold into slavery for hundreds of years.
Gays (except on relatively rare occasion) have not been beaten or had firehoses turned on them at peaceful gatherings, or been murdered, simply for being gay.
This should all be self-evident.
But gays have still been discriminated against, regardless of the nature OF the discrimination.
“Gays have not been beaten or had firehoses turned on them at peaceful gatherings, or been murdered, simply for being gay”
Uh hello? You should recognize Matthew Sheppard at least. There are hundreds of other cases of hate crimes against GLBTQI individuals in the US.
And let’s not forget the fact that numerous evangelical sites essentially burn homosexuals in effigy. The sheer frequency and brutality of threats against homosexuals on some of those sites is sickening. (And I’m not just talking about WBC, although it is a primary offender.)
That and the KKK has been killing them as often as they could find back in the “Good ole days.”
And we are still oppressing Gays.
Oh, and don’t let annoying Newsome dictate anything of what you think. He’s a
moron.
He’s actually not a moron, but he is a politician, and always on the lookout for Gavin Newsom. Whatever he thinks increases his power base, he’s for, and this is no different.
If you generally base your political decisions on those factors, it’s amazing you ever end up voting for anything.
Where did I say I “generally” base my voting on those factors? I said that in this case, on this specific issue, those were my reasons. At least I have rational reasons.
You have reasons (which is better than many), but I wouldn’t call them ratinal reasons.
Those three reasons are pretty crummy, but whatever.
ah yes. All, ahem, excellent reasons for taking away the rights of someone when those rights, being present, DONT AFFECT YOU.
I’ve even heard of people who voted “yes” on Prop.8 because they thought it said the opposite of what it did (i.e. that it established gay marriage instead of banning it)
Yeah, my hubby is a pretty smart guy (2 BS’s in engineering) and I had to tell him
that we were voting no. He got mad, then I explained it to him. But yeah, that
happened last time too.
The joy of attention span and I wonder how many people were pissed at their vote when they found out why.
sorry I stopped reading half way… what did you say?
TL;DR!!!
Actually, this was before the voters guides arrived to our miniscule little area
and we were looking at ads. We are lazy in that we put more effort into our
city counsel election and what those people running stood for at the time than
state and national things because there is a HUGE issue facing our little city
right now.
Anyway, it happened last time this vote was around too.
Sorry Zann, your numbers are a little off. Yes on eight had more money? Actually, they raised about 6 million less than the no campaign. 27 mil to 21 mil. And the Mormon church? Directly donated about 3K, though of course members of the church did make private donations. Yes on 8 was a pretty broad coalition from both sides of the aisle.
Anyways, since this was about the importance of facts, here are some sources:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081007/news_1n7prop8.html
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?appSession=21447707346197
See, bigotry is cheap
I was going to say, like your mom, but that would be above my standard set of wit.
OH SNAP SON.
You know my mother? Was it three for two night, or did she have her teeth in?
Really? That is directly opposite to everything that I have read about the LDS church
giving over 8 mil. If I’m wrong I stand corrected. I’m trying to remember where I
got the numbers I had, I know if was a reputable site though! lol I’ve just gotten so
much info about this that my brain does not remember it all. That and a sick 3 yr old
have sucked my brain dry.
Supporters raised 28 million, Opponents raised 21 million according to:
http://cbs2.com/politics/Gay.Marriage.Ban.2.849565.html
Not gonna argue with the specifics of the mormon church though
Since I’ve not read prop 8 I’m ill placed to comment…
However, if there is no mechanism for common ownership of property, notification and power of attorney for medical care (including visiting rights), and finally the right to bury your partner in the way they wanted, then I’d say we’re legislating a de facto second class citizenry… but hell, this is America… it’s only 1972 everyone got voting rights in all states
Even better: the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery was never ratified in the state of Missippi until 1995.
Thanks, I’ll use that in the future
Oh, you mean domestic partnerships?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
Bleh, sorry about the double-post — Firefox wouldn’t show it after I posted it the first time for some reason…
PK has a delay on anything with a link or swear word
SIGN THE PETITION TO BAN DIVORCE: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce
Remember “Protect the children!”
how is it “protecting” the children if they have to live in a house full of tension hate and violence?
That’s not the point… It’s the next logical step from protecting them from de ebile GAYZ!!!!1111 eleven !
Wrong place for this dude.
I thought it was a great piece of performance art!
All the hate in the world today is really putting me in a bad way, lately.
Arizona’s 102 disappoints, but doesn’t surprise, while California’s 8 was just the nail in the coffin of my post-Obama-wins high. D:
See, you just said you’d be happier if McCain won, then you would have had no high expectations.
I am reminded of the Mad TV skit called Lowered Expectations…
Hell, short of burying the bar I couldn’t set it lower, and folk still fail to meet it…
It is why I am glad I don’t have to date anymore. Anybody worth my time is hundreds of miles away. Lynn was me winning the companionship lottery. If something happens to her or with her, I am just SOL.
GUH I LOVED Lowered Expectations!!!
Whoaaaaaaaa I understand everything now. Thanks, mister!
Despite all of the opinions flying around here I still can’t get over one simple fact.
There were actually people who weren’t sure whether or not this was Photoshopped? Seriously?
Ahaha.
Totally! “Hey that’s not real!” It’s almost as if they’re saying “You’re a great big phoney!”
Interesting read – http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/11/prop-8-postmortem-part-1-dissecting-history.html
Talks about how Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place and has speculation on why it was allowed on…
Oh California, you fail. You might as well put up a real sign that says that. You bastards fail when it comes to defining equality.
Hehe sorry for the multiple fails.
Someone sent me an email about protestors in Palm Springs going nuts on an old lady.
This is not a way to have someone see your side. That’s not cool.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=5908
After reading this thread I have come to this conclusion:
Anyone defending gay marriage rights, doesn’t really care about equality, they just want a reason to argue with those “bible thumping hicks” and tell them their God is a myth, all in the name of tolerance and equality. You make me sad for intelligent liberals everywhere
Um, actually I have very conservative home values. I could be called a Good Old Boy who just wants a safe neighbor with law abiding neighbors. I just don’t have a problem if my neighbors are black, purple, gay, Muslim, or anything else that either they can’t help or do consensually with themselves. I take issue if one of my neighbors is being crapped on for amounts to nothing logically.
It is entirelly illogical to stop gays from marrying. I’m allowed to marry the person I want, why can’t a gay person do the same? It is a flaw in my country and thus I care about it.
I don’t care what other countries are doing since we keep being told to butt out anyway. I just care if my neighbors are well treated as I am sure they care if I am well treated. I am trying to do the right thing by them because it is the right thing, not because I am told to or some higher power say so, simply because it is part of equal protection under the law. My gay brothers and sisters aren’t being accorded that by the same mandates that kept blacks and women among others under an oppressive thumb.
I don’t require your justification but I didn’t come here to fight, I just came here to speak on behalf of my friends.
Your conclusion is complete and utter crap, sadly.
What makes me really sad is that there seem to be almost no people who respect those who disagree with them on this issue.
Replace the word Gay with ‘Black’ or ‘Jew’ then see how much respect you feel and for whom…
Actually, I’m an evangelical Christian. Until I got pregnant with my son (well, till my 3rd trimester actually) I worked at an evangelical church and I have said that it was wrong and I haven’t said a word about God being a myth.
You’re highly wrong in what you’re saying.
In America, same-sex “marriage” is legal in 2 of 50 states. Of all countries in the world, it is legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain. That’s 6 out of approximately 193 recognized countries. In the U.S., then, it’s 4%, and in the world it is slightly over 3%. So … why is California or Arizona or Florida “evil,” backwards, bigoted, or hateful while the whole rest of the world is just fine? And why is it that no one gives two hoots about the opinions of all those who have voted on these things?
I think Amused pointed it out
“why is California or Arizona or Florida “evil,” backwards, bigoted, or hateful while the whole rest of the world is just fine?”
1. We are Americans. We are talking about America. There are plenty of people who have opinions about foreign countries, but for this thread, the topic is America.
.
2. Isn’t is shameful that a country that was literally bombed & blasted apart by apartheid is more caring of its citizen’s inalienable human rights than “the Land of the Free”?
.
“And why is it that no one gives two hoots about the opinions of all those who have voted on these things?”
Obviously we do care about those people opinions. That’s why we’re commenting about those opinions & offering a dissenting viewpoint.
Because the United States is the land of opportunity, where each and every one of use are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness. Two out of three doesn’t count.
So, if two people want to be legally joined and recognized the same as a man and a woman, who are you to stop them? They’re not forcing you to go out and get yourself a gay marriage, are they?
**us
You missed the UK
The Puzzling fact for me is…
Total Voters – 11,258,568
Total Voters Voting on Prop 8 – 11,169,647
Voters not voting on prop 8 – 88,921
Voters who Agreed with Prop 8 AND voted for Obama – 6,766,587
So Given that from the Outcry across the country, these 6,766,587 Had no clue as to what they were voting for, and people are pushing a petition to tell these 11,169, 647 what they ment to say… Then I must conclude that those 6,766,587 also were incorrect with their presidential vote, and thereby a petition to put McCain into the whitehouse should be produced, since it’s obvious that Outcomes from voting are just a suggestion and don’t mean squat anymore.. lets just fill out petitions for passing bills, creating laws and electing our government officials.
It was put on the ballot, the people spoke, move along, nothing to see here.
Voting on a president isn’t voting to revoke an established (no mtter how recently) right.
So California vote no on Prop 8 again.
When will people learn that this is a democracy, and what the people vote is what we should get.
Because you dont VOTE on someones rights. Not EVERYTHING needs to be (or should be) decided by voters.
If that were the case then owning people (mainly blacks) would still be commonplace.
This is NOT a democracy. It is, I believe, a constitutional republic. Pure democracy = mob rule. I am “married” to my partner. We are raising children together. We pay taxes together. We own a house together. If I die, she is destitute except for a small life insurance because she does not currently work and home schools our children and cannot get my social security benefits. If she dies, I have NO legal right to even see our children except by the charity of her living “legal” relatives. Why the F*&^*& should the opinion of religious bigots and fools keep me from having the same protections for my family that they have for theirs? I live in the great Commonwealth of VA. I HAVE lost a job because I’m gay and have no legal recourse. Even in state where we can marry, we still have no Federal recognition of the life we have built together. Pardon me if I have no tolerance for people who legislate me into second class citizenship because the ooky gayness might rub off on children. In spite of statistics that show that children of gays are no more likely to be gay than the children of heteros. No matter that pedophiles are usually straight white guys. Pardon the heck outta me if I’m angry at being blamed for the world’s ills by right-wing wacko nut-jobs. Pardon me if I want my wife to get the social security benefits that we’ve both worked for because I couldn’t have been as successful or comfortable if it hadn’t been for her. What we have is a marriage no matter what anyone else wants to call it. What we have has been beneficial to society no matter what anyone else chooses to believe. We ARE discriminated against on both a state AND a federal level no matter what the ignorant say. I live it every bloody day so don’t tell ME that I have every right that heterosexual couples do.
I didn’t mean to rant quite so vehemently. Guess I’m angrier than I thought.
We are one of the 18,000 couples who got married during the recent legal window. Californian born and raised. We were married by our minister in our church. (watch out for those inaccurate stereotypes!)
Lets consider the evidence
Jesus Christ
-Unmarried
-Was friends with young sailors
-Thought his mother was godlike
-Rebelled against his father’s manual occupation
-Was drawn to tragic women
-Had a bit of a flair for the dramatic
-Kissed men
Need I continue….
Let’s consder your post.
Jesus Christ:
-Unmarried: Unknown, but likely true
-Was friends of young sailors: actually, fishermen
-Thought his mother was godlike: falacy. Creation of the Catholic Church. Jesus specifically said that His mother was not any better than any other girl, she was simply Chosen.
-Rebelled against his father’s manual occupation: also untrue. He was a carpenter until He was about 30, when He started His ministry.
-Was drawn to tragic women: semi-true. He was drawn to sinners.
-Has a bit of flair for the dramatic: true. Your point?
-Kissed men: where are you getting this from? Unless you’re referring to the practice of the double kiss on the cheek for greeting, which is still practiced today.
-
Your post reeks of FAIL.
Sense of humour fail. It made me laugh… but then I don’t try to believe that stuff, other than a pretty common type of illustrative myth.
OK, history lesson: an unmarried Jewish man in his 30s would have been worthy of note in the record, simply because the culture usually had them married by 15 latest (bar mitzvah earliest). So, he’d probably either been married, or was currently married, otherwise the ‘uniqueness’ would have been flagged by people who were TRYING to make just another messiah ( and one who got himself killed) unique. Unless, of course they were hiding something else, like batting for the ‘wrong’ team… then the silence would be an implication that Josh liked girls when the reverse was true.
It’s just a joke. The fact that people take it as an insult to even imply that jesus could be gay says a lot about them.
Jesus really liked to point out the failings of the Old Testament as a book of law at every opportunity and how with his coming it was replaced with the New Covenant. he didn’t think homosexuality was an important enough sin to mention to anyone. Spent a lot of time on the “let he who is without sin” and “judge not lest ye be judged” and “Blessed are the peacemakers” and so on. We know that St Paul didn’t approve of it, but for Jesus, clearly it wasn’t a big deal.
“We know that St Paul didn’t approve of it”
And then we’re taking the word of a man who never met Jesus, although that is another piece of dogma one has to swallow…
Somehow, I don’t see Jesus, sitting beneath the fat Passover moon in Gethsemane suddenly thinking ‘SHIT! I FORGOT TO SAY I HATE TEH GAYZ!’ just as the Romans turned up…
I wish I had the artistic talent in rendering accurate human forms to draft a picture to that end. It would be hilarious.
Paul, feh. Deutero-Paul, double feh.
He is Saul of Tarsus and he always will be, politically motivated fake conversions notwithstanding. He was the first of many to hijack and bastardize Christianity for their own ends.
Indeed… man was a twat.
I’m pretty sure Prop 8 didn’t say “round up all them gays and put them in concentration camps to work hard labor til they die, and prevent them from coming in, getting jobs, or buying property” so they’re still as welcome as anyone else.
Getting the joke FAIL!
Olbermann hit the nail on the head in my opinion (click name for it)
You can’t defend Prop 8, or marriage bans in general, without identifying yourself as a homophobe. Own it, and stop hiding behind 2nd Grade notions of how government works.
Prop. 8 was the best thing to happen to california. it makes me proud to say I was born there now, instead of being called a fucking queer, and laughed at when I try to walk into a church. Do any of you understand that being straight in California and then moving somewhere else makes you a target for prejudice just because of all the fucking fags? Go back to Greece, ass-pirates.
meanie
A final thought, from resident idiot, x-bert:
Whine, piss, and moan all you like – it’s worthless. You should be rejoicing that it was defeated. Why? Now you have a standing court ruling being negated by a piece of legislation (ok, amendment, whatever…). Several Californian cities have stated that they will NOT abide by Prop 8 until they are forced.
Don’t you realize that this will force the issue into the Supreme Court – where for good or ill they will make a ruling that will more than likely make Prop 8, along with the bans in Arizona and Florida, unconstitutional.
Once more for clarity, in case this isn’t coming through: Once it’s ruled unconstitutional it will be settled nation-wide. Any human who is of age can be joined in a legally binding union with any other human who is also of legal age, and that marriage will have to be recognized in any state that couple desires to travel.
Now, chill out and sit down, or join together in the pending lawsuit that will help push your issue to the Supreme Court.
… in the meanwhile, it’d be cool too if you did more than talk trash to those of us who disagree with you. Thanks and later.
x-bert
Bitter, whining, AND a bigot…
Now that is EFFICIENT.
Bitter? No – I don’t live in any of the states involved in all this…
Whining? No – just stating a fact and pointing out others whining
Bigot? Nope, you’re still wrong – A bigot is someone who is intolerant of the opinions of others. I tolerate the opinions of others just fine. Those (like you) who would put me down for having a differing opinion are the bigots.
You lose, sir.
In a dozen or so blogs, you’re the first person I have seen raise this point. Thanks from a No on 8er.
Holding that a group is less eligible for equal rights based on arbitrary classification is ‘bigotry’… I was just pointing it out… you’re completely entitled to evince it, and I’m equally entitled to point out that I think you’re a bigot… which I still do.
I treat every one as an equal until they prove me wrong.
I think you’ve proved me wrong… feel free to take that in any direction you like, but we both know what I mean…
THis is balls.
A bigot is intolerant of other people’s existence. Noone is entitled to an opinion. Any view can be freely expressed without fear of violent retribution, but it is completely open to counter-argument. you must be willing to defend it with logical argument, if it doesn’t hold true then your “opinion” was worthless to begin with, if it holds true then you are entitled to call it a theory or something or more worth. “opinion” is the absolute bottom rung of the ladder of ideas. Grow a pair and stop looking for the UN to deploy on your behalf anytime your ideas are challenged.
You’ve been sniffing popper again, haven’t you?
This is coming from a high schooler, 16 years old, and gay. I don’t think it was even a choice, I just grew up liking guys. And, naturally, I’m perfectly okay with that!
Every day, I have to live with the knowledge that, in school, there is a one in a million chance of me ever having a relationship. I will likely never go to a school dance, never have a boyfriend, never have anyone to hold hands with. You know, the usual. If a guy isn’t publicly gay (like myself, only a few friends know), he’s got a 99% chance of being straight, whether I like him or not. This will continue on until college.
And, even if this happens in college, I have to face the hurdle of actually telling people, including my parents. Bright future, amirite?
My overall point is, those results were disappointing. California, Florida, Arizona AND Arkansas. I missed part of school on the election day just to watch the votes come in and the counting go on. My life is, for now, a waiting game. Seeing if the Supreme Court does anything about this, and what will stem from that.
All of the arguments have been mentioned plenty of times above. I just wanted to point out, some of us who aren’t even out the door of adulthood are affected by this.
To gay people: I apologize. I am ashamed Prop 8 passed. Someday things will be equal. Please forgive the ones who voted for this amendment, they know not what they do.
They did… they get off on it… that’s what mobs are like…
To gay people: is too bad so many don’t favor the gayness liek yours. Oh, well.
love is love, and wether this is California or Ohio or any state. <3 leave these people alone and stop trying to control what they do. Worry about yourselves. If two men – or women love each other thry should allowed to be married.
clearly propaganda to distract the American people from the real issue:
Gay Abortion
my mom made me go to church a couple weeks ago, nd this guest preacher was ranting about how “idiots” in california are going to hell. fucking chode. makes me mad as hell…
as long as you’re straight and white.