Prop 8 set to Pass (Samesex Marriage Ban)

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]Well that's a shame. California was the first state to even allow gay marriage and now it's about to be overturned because some crackpots disagree with it. Not much anyone can do though as it was a vote... And to the person speaking about the Gay Pride Parades: I agree, lol. If gays want to be respected I believe they should present themselves in a way as to gain that respect. Don't march through Cali, New York, and D.C. wearing pink leather chaps, feather boas, while dancing to "It's Raining Men"; it really is an embarassment to all parties involved and only reinforces gay stereotypes (which is the reason many people look down on gays in the first place).jubino

Some crackpots? So 52% of the entire population of California are crackpots? That's silly.

[QUOTE="omfg_its_dally"]

Meh...The word "Marriage" to me means an official union between two life partners. All this fuss over a word?

ragek1ll589

Thats the thing, the Church defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But since seperation of church and state clearly doesn't exist, that definition was adopted by the states.

By the way, I'm Catholic.

Yeah, I suppose I understand the religious aspect of it, but if people thought the religious aspect of marriage was so important then they would not divorce or commit adultery.

[QUOTE="jubino"]

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]Well that's a shame. California was the first state to even allow gay marriage and now it's about to be overturned because some crackpots disagree with it. Not much anyone can do though as it was a vote... And to the person speaking about the Gay Pride Parades: I agree, lol. If gays want to be respected I believe they should present themselves in a way as to gain that respect. Don't march through Cali, New York, and D.C. wearing pink leather chaps, feather boas, while dancing to "It's Raining Men"; it really is an embarassment to all parties involved and only reinforces gay stereotypes (which is the reason many people look down on gays in the first place).Jandurin

Some crackpots? So 52% of the entire population of California are crackpots? That's silly.

That's really probably closer to the truth. Only 52% were open about being crackpots.

Hopefully they'll ban being homosexual altogether next. Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]Hopefully they'll ban being homosexual altogether next. _Tobli_

yeah. how would they possibly enforce that?

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]Well that's a shame. California was the first state to even allow gay marriage and now it's about to be overturned because some crackpots disagree with it. Not much anyone can do though as it was a vote... And to the person speaking about the Gay Pride Parades: I agree, lol. If gays want to be respected I believe they should present themselves in a way as to gain that respect. Don't march through Cali, New York, and D.C. wearing pink leather chaps, feather boas, while dancing to "It's Raining Men"; it really is an embarassment to all parties involved and only reinforces gay stereotypes (which is the reason many people look down on gays in the first place).jubino

Some crackpots? So 52% of the entire population of California are crackpots? That's silly. As for the gay pride comments, I couldn't agree more. If they ever want to be taken seriously as part of the community, they shouldn't try to be as "out there" as possible. Those people need to show some class.

I should clarify about the crackpot statement. Yes, I believe it is crackpot-y to ban a civil right that you do not agree with. It does no direct harm to you so why should you ban it? Them being gay and wanting to marry is not detremental to anyone's health so I see no problem in it. I'm not saying you have to AGREE with it but no one should ever want to take away the rights of someone who has done nothing wrong.

[QUOTE="jubino"]

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"]Well that's a shame. California was the first state to even allow gay marriage and now it's about to be overturned because some crackpots disagree with it. Not much anyone can do though as it was a vote... And to the person speaking about the Gay Pride Parades: I agree, lol. If gays want to be respected I believe they should present themselves in a way as to gain that respect. Don't march through Cali, New York, and D.C. wearing pink leather chaps, feather boas, while dancing to "It's Raining Men"; it really is an embarassment to all parties involved and only reinforces gay stereotypes (which is the reason many people look down on gays in the first place).stevenk4k5

Some crackpots? So 52% of the entire population of California are crackpots? That's silly. As for the gay pride comments, I couldn't agree more. If they ever want to be taken seriously as part of the community, they shouldn't try to be as "out there" as possible. Those people need to show some class.

I should clarify about the crackpot statement. Yes, I believe it is crackpot-y to ban a civil right that you do not agree with. It does no direct harm to you so why should you ban it? Them being gay and wanting to marry is not detremental to anyone's health so I see no problem in it. I'm not saying you have to AGREE with it but no one should ever want to take away the rights of someone who has done nothing wrong.

Indeed. To me that's just like if on the next ballot they were to put down something like "Ban sufferage: yay or nay". I don't think it's anybody's right to deny another human being any rights of any kind.

It's only a matter of time before being gay is punishable by death. :wink:

Well, maybe not that extreme, but I wouldn't put it above the American public. Maybe in ten or twenty years when people aren't as stupid.

It's only a matter of time before being gay is punishable by death. :wink:

Well, maybe not that extreme, but I wouldn't put it above the American public. Maybe in ten or twenty years when people aren't as stupid.

Greatgone12

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"]

It's only a matter of time before being gay is punishable by death. :wink:

Well, maybe not that extreme, but I wouldn't put it above the American public. Maybe in ten or twenty years when people aren't as stupid.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"]

It's only a matter of time before being gay is punishable by death. :wink:

Well, maybe not that extreme, but I wouldn't put it above the American public. Maybe in ten or twenty years when people aren't as stupid.

Greatgone12

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"]

It's only a matter of time before being gay is punishable by death. :wink:

Well, maybe not that extreme, but I wouldn't put it above the American public. Maybe in ten or twenty years when people aren't as stupid.

Jandurin

What blows me away is that all of the anti-abortion propositions were shot down, but the anti-gay marriage props passed.

It all seems so backwards to me.

Bio_Spark

Couldn't agree more. We will continue to allow women, who were simply foolish enough to not take the precautions to avoid getting pregnant, to take the life of an unborn human baby but we just simply will not allow gays to marry.

That's because I'm an abstract poster. Just because you can't appreciate art, doesn't mean everyone can't (or can? hmmm....). Greatgone12

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]Angry. I see these state bans as nothing less than the 21st century's answer to the Jim Crow laws. Bigotry in legal form.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]Angry. I see these state bans as nothing less than the 21st century's answer to the Jim Crow laws. Bigotry in legal form.xaos

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]So much for land of the free.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]Angry. I see these state bans as nothing less than the 21st century's answer to the Jim Crow laws. Bigotry in legal form.Jandurin

They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .xaos

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"]That's because I'm an abstract poster. Just because you can't appreciate art, doesn't mean everyone can't (or can? hmmm....). Jandurin

[QUOTE="Bio_Spark"]

What blows me away is that all of the anti-abortion propositions were shot down, but the anti-gay marriage props passed.

It all seems so backwards to me.

stevenk4k5

Couldn't agree more. We will continue to allow women, who were simply foolish enough to not take the precautions to avoid getting pregnant, to take the life of an unborn human baby but we just simply will not allow gays to marry.

You mean you're not gripped by the wonder and majesty of this? :o

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .Jandurin

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]So much for land of the free.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Bio_Spark"]

What blows me away is that all of the anti-abortion propositions were shot down, but the anti-gay marriage props passed.

It all seems so backwards to me.

Vandalvideo

Couldn't agree more. We will continue to allow women, who were simply foolish enough to not take the precautions to avoid getting pregnant, to take the life of an unborn human baby but we just simply will not allow gays to marry.

[QUOTE="stevenk4k5"][QUOTE="Bio_Spark"]

What blows me away is that all of the anti-abortion propositions were shot down, but the anti-gay marriage props passed.

It all seems so backwards to me.

Vandalvideo

Couldn't agree more. We will continue to allow women, who were simply foolish enough to not take the precautions to avoid getting pregnant, to take the life of an unborn human baby but we just simply will not allow gays to marry.

And what is so hard about making it a protected class?

I did not know this.Funky_Llama

And what is so hard about making it a protected class?stevenk4k5

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .xaos

BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I did not know this.Vandalvideo

Depends on the rights associated with each :) The reason that there is some opposition to the civil union term though, is that treating straight relationships and gay relationships differently means that they are being regarded as different and it comes back to the "separate but equal" thing I mentioned above.xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .Archon_

BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

[QUOTE="Jaforbe"]

[QUOTE="blasted_panties"]It seems so ironic that the very same states that voted Obama in should choose to vote against gay marriage. It makes you wonder just where their motives are at.leviathan91

I thought Obama himself was against gay marriage. I could be wrong though.

He's morally against it and believes that the states should decide this.

I agree with Obama.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

Archon_

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .Archon_

BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="Jaforbe"]

[QUOTE="blasted_panties"]It seems so ironic that the very same states that voted Obama in should choose to vote against gay marriage. It makes you wonder just where their motives are at.Theokhoth

I thought Obama himself was against gay marriage. I could be wrong though.

He's morally against it and believes that the states should decide this.

I agree with Obama.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .Archon_

BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

And how many infertile women have had babies? Thanks.

Your logic is mediocre at best.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"][QUOTE="Jaforbe"]

[QUOTE="blasted_panties"]It seems so ironic that the very same states that voted Obama in should choose to vote against gay marriage. It makes you wonder just where their motives are at.Theokhoth

I thought Obama himself was against gay marriage. I could be wrong though.

He's morally against it and believes that the states should decide this.

I agree with Obama.

I disagree with both you and Obama. :xFunky_Llama

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I disagree with both you and Obama. :xTheokhoth

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I disagree with both you and Obama. :xFunky_Llama

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I disagree with both you and Obama. :xFunky_Llama

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

Don't forget the crumpets.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I disagree with both you and Obama. :xJandurin

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I disagree with both you and Obama. :xstevenk4k5

You're British, so not only are you obligated to agree with Obama, but your opinion doesn't matter.:x

Don't forget the crumpets.

Homosexual relationships are for pleasure only.

Archon_

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Archon_"]

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="xaos"]They can't and that's never been what this is about; it's about legal marriage. Marriage in the USA is a legal phenomenon, which is why you can get married at City Hall by a public official. There would have been nothing that would force churches to perform gay marriages, just as they are free to deny to perform ANY heterosexual marriage .Archon_

BUT THEY ARE NOT EQUAL.

How many men do u know who have had babies? Thanks.

That would not be fair whatsoever, because what they are doing IS anatomically correct. Because their system is defective is not their fault. Homosexual relationships are for pleasure only. Ergo, they aren't the same as normal relationships because they cannot possibly yield a child. Put simply - the parts don't fit

I see nothing wrong with gays being legally bound to one another. Thats their choice. But they shouldnt call it marriage because they are in no way comparable to healthy heterosexual relationships.

What makes you think homosexual relationships can only be for pleasure? Heterosexuals don't have a monopoly on love.