California Proposition Eight - Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[BradB08]

LOL

I have a question. When 2 gays/lesbians marry, whos the husband, whos the wife? Seriously id like to know. Personally i could care the hell less what 2 people want to do in their bedrooms, what sexual orientation they are or whatever, but i wouldnt even call it a marriage, but more of a union or something. And if people want to "reconize" it as a marriage, more power to them. I'll probaly never call it that because to me a marriage consists of a husband and a wife. Just my personal opinion.

I have a question too.

Who says that they have to adhere to roles that are traditionally adhered to in heterosexual marriage?

I say, just let gays and lesbians marry and take whatever roles they please within their relationships.

 

[BradB08]

I and over three million CA voters would agree with you.

Yes, 3 million CA voters that are not personally affected by gay marriage.

3 million people that cheered when they were able to deny others a right that they enjoy every single day.

 

[Wokamuka]

I and over three million CA voters would agree with you.

You agree, then, that the spiriit of singling out specific person is Sanctioned.

You'd agree that slavery exist.

You'd agree that institutional sanction holds supreme above all else.

You'd forsake an individual's right to the pursuit of happiness for the sake of another.

What shame. Today, Califronia should be ashamed. Today, Californians should be ashamed to consider themselves to be Americans.

 

[sequoias]

You agree, then, that the spiriit of singling out specific person is Sanctioned.

You'd agree that slavery exist.

You'd agree that institutional sanction holds supreme above all else.

You'd forsake an individual's right to the pursuit of happiness for the sake of another.

What shame. Today, Califronia should be ashamed. Today, Californians should be ashamed to consider themselves to be Americans.

You forgot Arizona and Florida banned gay marriage, too. It's not just California. Those 3 states had the same ballot to vote. I suggest you to ask for a nationwide ballot and see who wins.

 

[Wokamuka]

You forgot Arizona and Florida banned gay marriage, too. It's not just California. Those 3 states had the same ballot to vote. I suggest you to ask for a nationwide ballot and see who wins.

I was talking to a Californian. I was not speaking to those from outisde of California. What is your point?

 

[sequoias]

I was talking to a Californian. I was not speaking to those from outisde of California. What is your point?

The point is that California isn't the only state that banned gay marriage, so get it? I feel sorry for those gay people, anyhow.

 

[dead money]

How was the same sex marriage an taboo? What if I consider the straight marriage as taboo too?

i wasnt saying it was taboo. I used parenthesis to exhibit the fact that to many people a gay wedding in their eyes is taboo, forbidden, whatever the fuck. Easy, homes im not against gay rights or whatever--like i said i could care less about it. But to me a "marriage" is a husband and a wife, the end.

 

[Wokamuka]

The point is that California isn't the only state that banned gay marriage, so get it? I feel sorry for those gay people, anyhow.

You are correct that too many states have voted in favor toward anti-gay ballots while voting a "liberal" into the highest American office.

It's a sore spot. Sorry. My brother had married his partner in California - a state where a bunch of people have just said that my brother's marriage was not recognized because he did not have a pussy.

It's a sore spot. Sorry.

 

[Foxrac]

Check out this link
Catholics, Mormons defend backing same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com

Oh my boy, Mormons from Utah has trip to CA to make Prop 8 passed.

Screw on Utah.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Liebling.

Willkommen

 

[Liebling:-)))]

So I have to add my two cents, but I'll try to do it quickly.

1) This is not an argument about people's views on homosexuality. Even if you disagree with it, it doesn't justify taking away someone's rights. This is why we banned slavery, or gave women the right to vote, and it should be unquestionable.

2) This is also not an argument about anyone's religious views. First of all, your interpretation of the bible is your own. I am perfectly happy with the knowledge that God loves me, made me who I am, and that the bible says nothing against my lifestyle. None of that has any bearing on what rights I should be afforded by the government.

3) If a ballot ever comes up to allow people to marry animals, then we can discuss that. Until then, comparing gay marriage to bestiality is just ridiculous, and a really pathetic way to try to explain your own bigotry.

4) If you try to define marriage as in any way being tied to the act of procreation, then you're going to have a whole lot of people fighting you. Unless you're going to fight to invalidate the marriage of every infertile couple, childless couple, or anyone who's adopted a child, then you have absolutely no argument except, again, trying to misleadingly distract others from your bigotry.

5) Being entitled to have an opinion does not give you the right to take away the rights of someone else as a human being.

6) The male and female organs were not "made for each other". Please move on. I guarantee that there are a hell of a lot of things that you can either fit your **** into, or fit into a woman that you wouldn't consider being "made for each other". By that argument, a woman should be allowed to marry anything remotely phallus-shaped, and a man should be able to marry anything he can fit himself into. It also happens to conveniently avoid mentioning where God got the idea for the prostate, since that doesn't happen to fit that argument.

7) Please stop saying that homosexuality is "unnatural", I really don't feel like having to go back and dig up all the studies on how normal homosexuality is within just about every species on the earth.


Hope I didn't miss anything.

for open mind

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Maria, it's so wrong to compare with human/animal and male/male persons relationships. They are NOT the same or similar thing, besides, homosexual people are a human being, too.

Let me re-tell you a story. I personally met two mommies and they were married, and they had kids. Those wonderful mommies did raise their kids (one had a kid and another had two kids) pretty well because the mommies did so amazing women. Their kids are still good children. So, clearly, those both heter and homo marraiges are a lot of similar intentions. Are you tell me that those mommies are not so natural because they are just... a gay? Hell, no! They are not doing so evil stuff, really, they know their own morals as usual like heter people do.

I don't see how you should compare someone with a something, otherwise I also don't see why you should be allowed to live with yours. =/

Anyway, I just don't like when they think homo marriage is better than heter marriage. It's so shallow and pointless to think like that. Both are just similar, that's it. 'Nuff said.

Exactly, it make itself as a homophobia for tries to compare gay/lesbian with animal...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I know that. I wasn't born yesterday. :roll:

If you know then don't bring "animal" up to compare with human being... :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Oh, gee you don't get it, do you ? I don't think you understand. :roll:

No, you don't get it.

We have no problem with your POV over homosexuality but what you tries to compare gay/lesbian with animal here is an insult because you said that gay/lesibian are not natural...

It also doesn't make me a homophobia, a racist or an anti-disablitiy when I want to share the histories about them and explain why Hitler killed or put Germans to camp because of their homosexuality and disablities, jews and races because of their criminals, etc, etc, etc... BECAUSE the history, I share is not my POV but fact!!!

Remind you that jews are not only victim of Nazi but Germans and kind of races as well.

Would you accuse me as a homophobia IF I share Hitler's history why he and Nazi killed or put Gay/Lesbian Germans to camp to share with Jews and other races because their homosexality are not natural to Hitler and Nazi' eyes? It's not my POV but history itself...


:roll:

 

[Wokamuka]

Check out this link
Catholics, Mormons defend backing same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com

Oh my boy, Mormons from Utah has trip to CA to make Prop 8 passed.

Screw on Utah.

I guess there is nothing wrong with a man marrying (or having relations with) a mother and daughter while two consenting adults is a big no-no. How pathetic.

What next - being a nation run by one religion?

 

[lsfoster]

LOL

I have a question. When 2 gays/lesbians marry, whos the husband, whos the wife? Seriously id like to know. Personally i could care the hell less what 2 people want to do in their bedrooms, what sexual orientation they are or whatever, but i wouldnt even call it a marriage, but more of a union or something. And if people want to "reconize" it as a marriage, more power to them. I'll probaly never call it that because to me a marriage consists of a husband and a wife. Just my personal opinion.

I think you're missing the concept of homosexuality. When I marry my girlfriend, she will be my wife, and I will be hers. We're gay, there is no man (or husband) involved, that's kind of the point. And it's not up to you what to call it. You don't own the word "marriage". There is a certain legal position and a whole lot of rights that accompany that position, and the legal government has decided to call that a "marriage". Unless you're willing to go to the government and request that they stop using your word, and make it impossible for anyone to get married (perhaps replacing all marriages with civil unions, which is a much more accurate term for them), it is unconstitutional to deny that right to a specific group of people.

You forgot Arizona and Florida banned gay marriage, too. It's not just California. Those 3 states had the same ballot to vote. I suggest you to ask for a nationwide ballot and see who wins.

The reason that this hasn't, and shouldn't, go to a popular vote, is exactly why we have a US Constitution. If you look through history, you will see again and again that the Constitution is in place "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the masses". (Don't remember who the quote is from, sorry). That is why we have legislators who are supposed to forget their own biases, and simply look at the laws that our founders laid down. It's also why it's nearly impossible to change the US Constitution. State Constitutions should be a lot harder to change, because of situations like Prop. 8. The truth is, popular opinion doesn't matter here, because the majority is, and has been so often in the past, frequently wrong.

 

[PowerON]

You did speak about tobacco and government.

My brother-in-law (and he will always be my brother-in-law no matter what a bunch of people say) sent me a picture. There are, already, a lot of lawyers stepping up to fight the unfair proposition.

For sake, I'm give the example as..... it's people's choice!

"People have spoken"

 

[Byrdie714]

LOL

I have a question. When 2 gays/lesbians marry, whos the husband, whos the wife? Seriously id like to know. Personally i could care the hell less what 2 people want to do in their bedrooms, what sexual orientation they are or whatever, but i wouldnt even call it a marriage, but more of a union or something. And if people want to "reconize" it as a marriage, more power to them. I'll probaly never call it that because to me a marriage consists of a husband and a wife. Just my personal opinion.

Why do you care who is in the traditional roles?

I and over three million CA voters would agree with you.

*smh*

I think you're missing the concept of homosexuality. When I marry my girlfriend, she will be my wife, and I will be hers. We're gay, there is no man (or husband) involved, that's kind of the point. And it's not up to you what to call it. You don't own the word "marriage". There is a certain legal position and a whole lot of rights that accompany that position, and the legal government has decided to call that a "marriage". Unless you're willing to go to the government and request that they stop using your word, and make it impossible for anyone to get married (perhaps replacing all marriages with civil unions, which is a much more accurate term for them), it is unconstitutional to deny that right to a specific group of people.

The reason that this hasn't, and shouldn't, go to a popular vote, is exactly why we have a US Constitution. If you look through history, you will see again and again that the Constitution is in place "to protect the minority from the tyranny of the masses". (Don't remember who the quote is from, sorry). That is why we have legislators who are supposed to forget their own biases, and simply look at the laws that our founders laid down. It's also why it's nearly impossible to change the US Constitution. State Constitutions should be a lot harder to change, because of situations like Prop. 8. The truth is, popular opinion doesn't matter here, because the majority is, and has been so often in the past, frequently wrong.

Good post!

What people are forgetting is that in California--only the Legislature can propose changes to the Constitution and must put forth to the voters for approval or not.

This was a voter driven initiative that the voters brought forward and violated the process of amending the constitution of California.

The other interesting tidbit is this:

Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint

Only in California. :roll:

 

[dead money]

I think you're missing the concept of homosexuality. When I marry my girlfriend, she will be my wife, and I will be hers. We're gay, there is no man (or husband) involved, that's kind of the point. And it's not up to you what to call it. You don't own the word "marriage". There is a certain legal position and a whole lot of rights that accompany that position, and the legal government has decided to call that a "marriage". Unless you're willing to go to the government and request that they stop using your word, and make it impossible for anyone to get married (perhaps replacing all marriages with civil unions, which is a much more accurate term for them), it is unconstitutional to deny that right to a specific group of people.

Its not up to me? I'll call it whatever i damn well please lol. And again, if the govt legalizes it or if its what the people want, then yay! but i wont be popping corks off champagne or anything the following night. But i dont think personally im gonna use the words marriage unless in a professional manner somehow workwise id had to because im sorry... it doesnt register to me that way. 2 wives? 2 husbands? Yeah thats kind of odd. And im allowed to have an opinion.

 

[Byrdie714]

Its not up to me? I'll call it whatever i damn well please lol. And again, if the govt legalizes it or if its what the people want, then yay! but i wont be popping corks off champagne or anything the following night. But i dont think personally im gonna use the words marriage unless in a professional manner somehow workwise id had to because im sorry... it doesnt register to me that way. 2 wives? 2 husbands? Yeah thats kind of odd. And im allowed to have an opinion.

Wow!

Your intelligence sure does shine through. :roll: