Prop 8

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: net

prop 8 passed

Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.

I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.

Just terrible, compared to growing up in the state's custody. Another idiot. post.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

see my above post (just posted it) and furthermore, re-read my post you quoted since I said their are different rules for different states and rules for federal guidelines on voting in laws or ballot proposals. This one is law because it follows CA's rules; he implys that it should pass because it didn't pass the federal guidelines for passing a bill; however, this is a CA ballot proposal NOT a bill going through congress.

Clearly he was not 100% right when we should overrule the electorate and/or ignore him which he clearly stated in his post (also explained in the post above this one).

He was 100% correct in the passage that you quoted. You simply didn't read it well enough and missed where he said 'our' democracy. (where minority rights are frequently respected and mere pluralities not enough to pass laws in many cases) You then took him to just mean democracy in general, which he in no way said. This is why you should have simply admitted your error and moved on.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zoiks
I voted for it.

What gave you the moral right to discrimnate against gay people's equality? What gives you the right not to have people vote against your right to marry?

What gave him the right?
How about the US government? See the US is a republic based on democratic principles such as a citizen?s RIGHT to vote.
zoiks used his RIGHT to vote on who gets to partake in a PRIVILAGE known as marriage.

There is nothing stopping the electorate to bring up a ban on heterosexual marriage but I don't think a ban on heterosexual marriage would pass. Just a hunch.

You ignored the word moral when I said moral right. DOn't post an idiotic post based on misrepresenting the issue as his right to vote.

The issue is his right to vote to deny others' equal rights. It's the same question as "what gives you the right to vote for bringing slavery back?"

An answer to that question deals with why it's wrong to support slavery, not that it's his mechanical right to vote for slavery.

Clearly you ignored the importance of the capitalized words: marriage isn't a right it is a privilage. If you can't realize the difference between a right and a privilage, then we will cease to be able to debate this issue.

Where do you have the moral right to equate gay marriage with enslavement and abuse of african americans? One can't get a slip of paper that says your married while slavery was the depravement and denial of rights of a human being by another based on the color of skin. I just don't see a moral equivalance.

You're the one who needs to learn the difference between a right and a privilige.

A driver's license is a privilige, not a right. That does not mean you can say "black people are not allowed to have driver's licenses". It means that you have to meet certain requirements for the 'privilege' to get one, such as passing tests and consenting to be tested for alchohol while driving, but you have the same *RIGHT* to get a driver's license as others if you meet the same legitimate requirements. And skin color is not a legitimate requirement.

Marriage may be a 'privilige' and not a 'right', but that can only mean legitimate requirements, not that classes are not given the same right to meet those requirements because of nothing more than bigotry - and gender is not a legitimate requirement any more than skin color.

The fact that you can't see the same issue in denying gays equal rights to marry, and blacks equal rights to be free from slavery, is your own lack of understanding.

 

[LunarRay]

A person once wrote...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

Awhile later some other person(s) wrote...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

In Loving v Virginia we find an interesting notion that ought to end our wonderment regarding Prop 8's actual purpose... IMO, the purpose of Prop 8 was to allow the citizens of the State of California to exercise their freedom to be a bigot or not in the voting booth.



Edit: I should add for clarity and edification

Lockyer v. San Francisco resulting from Baker v Nelson will control.. or should control regarding Prop 8... or rather, the constitutionality of what Prop 8 deals with.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Hope and Change indeed. Gay marriage looks to be defeated in Florida, Arizona, and California. Guess some liberals are not so liberal eh?

A few. It was reported tonight that the bigots went to minority churches where, ironically, the same people who benefit from civil rights and celebrate Obama, are anti-gay.

We had a mixed night with the historic election of Obsma not only as a non-white President but a Democrat shifting direction for the nation, and the bigotry against gays winning.

Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

No, it makes you a bigot and anti-gay b/c you are against a gay couple from marrying.

I completely disagree. But have fun sulking.

You are quite flippant in your bigotry. You are an immoral person, Corbett.

Don't cast your judgemental and bigoted eyes on me! [/Craig234]

Oh, the ironing! Craig is calling me immoral and judging me for the decisions I make. The very things he accuses me of doing to gays.

Quick, someone dig up those "polls" that Craig was throwing in our face for so long as justification as to why the measure from 2000 should have been overturned. I believe his justification for it was that the polls showed that "so many people had overwhelmingly changed their minds on this issue". Turns out, once again, Craig was wrong. No surprise!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JD50
A question for the "YOU'RE A BIGOT, BIGOT" crowd. Do you consider Barrack Obama and Joe Biden bigots?

Disclaimer - I have no problem with gay marriage.

No, and Obama sponsored a "no on 8" ad.

There's a difference between holding a personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and voting for a constitutional amendment which discriminates against a group of people.

When it comes to things like bigotry and racism, there really isn't a difference. So I guess there really aren't any racists here because no one is voting to re-enact slavery or bring back segregation?

People here that disagree with gay marriage are being called bigots.Since Obama and Biden both hold that view, why wouldn't they be considered bigots as well?

No, people that voted to legally ban gay marriage are being called bigots. There is a big difference between disagree with something and actively trying to legally ban it. I disagree with many evangelical beliefs, but do you see me actively trying to ban their religion? Hell no because I believe they should be given the liberty to make that choice for themselves as long as it is not forcing anything upon others.

That is not true, just go back to the beginning of this thread and you'll see Craig calling everyone that he disagrees with a bigot. I know you're not new to P&N, anytime this issue comes up, EVERYONE that disagrees with gay marriage for any reason is called a bigot.

You're a liar, JD50. I don't call everyone, or even most, or even many people I disagree with bigots. I call bigots I disagree with bigots.

Because you are too much the idiot, you are too much the liar, to deal with the issue of bigotry, you attack the use of the word which accurately describes the issue.

Here's a clue for you, which will do about as much good as singing lessons for a pig. The way bigotry works is that it affects people's views, and then they try to rationalize their views, often unaware of their own bigotry - they fit the justification to fit the prejudice. I'll give you an exmample of two.

When gay marriage comes up, many opponents first lead with "marriage is all about the children, and THAT'S the only reason I'm against calling gay couples married."

The thing is, they speak too soon, because then it's pointed out that elderly and other straight people unable to conceive are allowed to marry, and that many gay couples raise children, whether from a surrogate or adopted. Then they have to say 'oops' and instead of syaing 'good point, gay marriage is ok', they scramble for the next excuse why it's not ok, because *they aren't being fair in their judgement, they are rationalizing their pre-existing prejudice against gays by looking for an 'acceptable' reason'*.

You see countless such examples - we saw one recently where someone tried to discuss that the 'quality' of gay marriages is lacking in some measurements, and that's a reason to oppose gay marriage, while the've never oppposed straight marriages for any such reasons, and presumably would not.

It's why "states' rights" was such a popular political cause in the South - not because the public has a great interest in the theories of federalism's boundaries, but because it was an acceptable name for hiding behind in calling for the continuation of discrimination that was actually based in bigotry.

Bigotry is a serious, real, specific issue, and it should not be thrown around reclessly where it's inaccurate.

The thing is, I don't. I've spent years giving the 'other side' every chance to make any rational case for their position, and they can't.

My use of the word bigotry is very careful, and it's the posters like you who are the reckless attackers against the careful use of the word, to try to deny the facts.

Craig, you once PM'd me asking me to change one of my posts where I called you a dumbass for jumping to a conclusion and misreading a post, crying about me "personally attacking" you. I changed my post because I felt bad for your whiny ass. You also claimed that you never personally attack anyone. Looks like you're a lying douchebag.

Back OT, looks like its your beloved liberals and minorities in CA that voted for what you refer to as bigotry. Using your definition of bigotry, even Barack Obama and Joe Biden are bigots. Why don't you call Barack Obama out on his bigotry? Why did you vote a bigot into office. Hypocrite.

Edit - Since you can't have a rational discussion, and resort to personal attacks and non stop partisan rhetoric, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from reading and responding to any of my posts. You've made this request of several posters here (Vic in particular) and you get your panties in a bunch any time they read and respond to any of your posts, so lets see if you can play by your own rules.

 

[tealk]

Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

I 100% agree with this statement

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: zoiks
I voted for it.

What gave you the moral right to discrimnate against gay people's equality? What gives you the right not to have people vote against your right to marry?

What gave him the right?
How about the US government? See the US is a republic based on democratic principles such as a citizen?s RIGHT to vote.
zoiks used his RIGHT to vote on who gets to partake in a PRIVILAGE known as marriage.

There is nothing stopping the electorate to bring up a ban on heterosexual marriage but I don't think a ban on heterosexual marriage would pass. Just a hunch.

You ignored the word moral when I said moral right. DOn't post an idiotic post based on misrepresenting the issue as his right to vote.

The issue is his right to vote to deny others' equal rights. It's the same question as "what gives you the right to vote for bringing slavery back?"

An answer to that question deals with why it's wrong to support slavery, not that it's his mechanical right to vote for slavery.

Clearly you ignored the importance of the capitalized words: marriage isn't a right it is a privilage. If you can't realize the difference between a right and a privilage, then we will cease to be able to debate this issue.

Where do you have the moral right to equate gay marriage with enslavement and abuse of african americans? One can't get a slip of paper that says your married while slavery was the depravement and denial of rights of a human being by another based on the color of skin. I just don't see a moral equivalance.

I'd argue that denying someone the same government-granted benefits as another based on nothing more than his/her gender is discrimination. Being able to use the same water fountain as someone of a different race is more a "privilege" than a "right," per your definition, but that's just blurring the issue. This is about government-sanctioned discrimination.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: net

prop 8 passed

Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.

I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.

There's nothing wrong with kids growing up in a loving, gay family. There are plenty of kids growing up in really bad homes that has nothing to do with gay marriage, that should be our focus.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett
IS anyone really surprised? This is what they did 4 years ago when they lost too. Of course, between then and now they tried to tell us that the majority of people in California had changed their minds on the issue and that is why it should be reversed. Well, we now know they were wrong about that.

The reason why prop 8 should be overturned in court is because it is a disgrace to America and an affront to the 14th amendment. It doesn't matter what the majority of Californians think, we're Americans first, and America doesn't stand for shit like this.

Then why is it on the ballot in the first place?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: tealk
Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

I 100% agree with this statement

Wrong. I'll repeat it slowly for you: it depends why you are against it. In the thousands of posts here, among other sources, I've seen nothing but bigotry - no reason, just excuses.

You don't appear to understand bigotry much. You come here denying the reason is bigotry, but not offering the 'real reason' that's not bigotry, sort of an obvious omission.

'Religious reasons'? The religion that calls for discriminating against gays is - wait for it - bigoted. What's *their* reason for such a view? I won't hold my breath for a rational post.

 

[JD50]

While I may disagree with those opposed to gay marriage, that doesn't make them bigots, no more than those of you that are against polygamy. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, some think it's between a man and a woman, some think it should be no more than 2 people. Yes, every argument that is made against gay marriage was probably made against interracial marriage, but every argument that is made FOR gay marriage, could also be made for polygamy.

Now, if those against gay marriage start making anti gay comments (like thy guy saying how horrible it would be for a kid to grow up with gay parents) then yes, they are obviously bigots.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong. I'll repeat it slowly for you: it depends why you are against it. In the thousands of posts here, among other sources, I've seen nothing but bigotry - no reason, just excuses.

Ok, then please tell us under what circumstances would you consider being against gay marriage NOT bigoted.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong. I'll repeat it slowly for you: it depends why you are against it. In the thousands of posts here, among other sources, I've seen nothing but bigotry - no reason, just excuses.

Ok, then please tell us under what circumstances would you consider being against gay marriage NOT bigoted.

I don't know why you bother. Barack Obama was against (or doesn't support) gay marriage, he's also very religious. Gee, I wonder why Obama doesn't support gay marriage? Yet the "ZOMG BIGOT" crowd refuse to call him a bigot.

My point is, you're not going to get a straight answer, so the argument is pointless.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50
Craig, you once PM'd me asking me to change one of my posts where I called you a dumbass for jumping to a conclusion and misreading a post, crying about me "personally attacking" you. I changed my post because I felt bad for your whiny ass. You also claimed that you never personally attack anyone. Looks like you're a lying douchebag.

Your logic is that if you cross a line of civility and make a false personal attack, then all attacks on your posts are also excessive and false. Not very good logic there.

It's to your credit to have done the right thing in the other situation, credit you partly forfeit for the childish attempt to use the 'cry' 'whiny' 'ass' type language here.

I've never said I never personally attack anyone. I say that I tried to avoid excessive attacks and to attack the post rather than the person. In this case I reacted to your post falsely claiming that I 'call everyone I disagree with a bigot'. My reaction was harsher from my not noticing in that reading that you limited you comment to this thread.

I'll retract the broader statement based on that and apologize for the excessive attack.

I've elsewhere explained why the word bigotry is the right word, and why some people are attacking the word because they have to silence the truth to defend their wrongdoing.

Back OT, looks like its your beloved liberals and minorities in CA that voted for what you refer to as bigotry. Using your definition of bigotry, even Barack Obama and Joe Biden are bigots. Why don't you call Barack Obama out on his bigotry? Why did you vote a bigot into office. Hypocrite.

Why the sarcasm about 'beloved minorities'? Because I believe in humanitarianism, in global brotherhood, and oppose injustices and unfair inequalities disproportionately affecting minorities, that deserves your sarcasm? How ridiculous. As for beloved liberals, they were not, as I explained in a previous post, the voters against gay marriage, with 86% of them opposing the measure.

Edit - Since you can't have a rational discussion, and resort to personal attacks and non stop partisan rhetoric, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from reading and responding to any of my posts. You've made this request of several posters here (Vic in particular) and you get your panties in a bunch any time they read and respond to any of your posts, so lets see if you can play by your own rules.

Unless I hear differently from you, I'll respect your request not to answer your posts, if you avoid responding to mine with something demanding a response.

I'm not asking you not to respond to my posts - if you post a reasonable response, fine. If you respond to my posts with a false attack or some such, that's hardly ok.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong. I'll repeat it slowly for you: it depends why you are against it. In the thousands of posts here, among other sources, I've seen nothing but bigotry - no reason, just excuses.

Ok, then please tell us under what circumstances would you consider being against gay marriage NOT bigoted.

I don't know why you bother. Barack Obama was against (or doesn't support) gay marriage, he's also very religious. Gee, I wonder why Obama doesn't support gay marriage? Yet the "ZOMG BIGOT" crowd refuse to call him a bigot.

My point is, you're not going to get a straight answer, so the argument is pointless.

Psssst JD50, posting a BS comment about me to someone that they can't expect a straight answer when they ask me a question is not the way to respect your own request for us not to interact here. That request means keeping yorur own mouth shut from such false attacks, not just expecting them not to get a response.

Corbett:

Let's say I support restoring the law allowing white only restaurants, and after you ask for my reasons, you respond that you think the policy reflects bigotry.

I then object, and demand that you provide me with reasons that are *not* bigoted for restoring white-only restaurants.

How much sense does that make? You are the one who needs to provide your actual reasons, and then we discuss whether they are bigoted.

Part of what I have said about bigotry is how the bigots tend to search for 'acceptable' reasons that fit their prejudice - that's exacly what you are doing in asking for reasons.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong. I'll repeat it slowly for you: it depends why you are against it. In the thousands of posts here, among other sources, I've seen nothing but bigotry - no reason, just excuses.

Ok, then please tell us under what circumstances would you consider being against gay marriage NOT bigoted.

I don't know why you bother. Barack Obama was against (or doesn't support) gay marriage, he's also very religious. Gee, I wonder why Obama doesn't support gay marriage? Yet the "ZOMG BIGOT" crowd refuse to call him a bigot.

My point is, you're not going to get a straight answer, so the argument is pointless.

Psssst JD50, posting a BS comment about me to someone that they can't expect a straight answer when they ask me a question is not the way to respect your own request for us not to interact here. That request means keeping yorur own mouth shut from such false attacks, not just expecting them not to get a response.

Corbett:

Let's say I support restoring the law allowing white only restaurants, and after you ask for my reasons, you respond that you think the policy reflects bigotry.

I then object, and demand that you provide me with reasons that are *not* bigoted for restoring white-only restaurants.

How much sense does that make? You are the one who needs to provide your actual reasons, and then we discuss whether they are bigoted.

Part of what I have said about bigotry is how the bigots tend to search for 'acceptable' reasons that fit their prejudice - that's exacly what you are doing in asking for reasons.

You are the one who suggested there may be certain situations where opposing gay marriage would be "not bigoted", so please, just tell them what those situations would be so we can all know.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Sinsear
Hope and Change indeed. Gay marriage looks to be defeated in Florida, Arizona, and California. Guess some liberals are not so liberal eh?

A few. It was reported tonight that the bigots went to minority churches where, ironically, the same people who benefit from civil rights and celebrate Obama, are anti-gay.

We had a mixed night with the historic election of Obsma not only as a non-white President but a Democrat shifting direction for the nation, and the bigotry against gays winning.

Seriously Craig. Get over it. Voting against gay marriage does not make you a bigot or anti-gay. It makes you anti-gay marriage.

No, it makes you a bigot and anti-gay b/c you are against a gay couple from marrying.

I completely disagree. But have fun sulking.

You are quite flippant in your bigotry. You are an immoral person, Corbett.

Don't cast your judgemental and bigoted eyes on me! [/Craig234]

Oh, the ironing! Craig is calling me immoral and judging me for the decisions I make. The very things he accuses me of doing to gays.

Quick, someone dig up those "polls" that Craig was throwing in our face for so long as justification as to why the measure from 2000 should have been overturned. I believe his justification for it was that the polls showed that "so many people had overwhelmingly changed their minds on this issue". Turns out, once again, Craig was wrong. No surprise!

Bump for no response from Craig.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50
While I may disagree with those opposed to gay marriage, that doesn't make them bigots, no more than those of you that are against polygamy. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, some think it's between a man and a woman, some think it should be no more than 2 people. Yes, every argument that is made against gay marriage was probably made against interracial marriage, but every argument that is made FOR gay marriage, could also be made for polygamy.

Now, if those against gay marriage start making anti gay comments (like thy guy saying how horrible it would be for a kid to grow up with gay parents) then yes, they are obviously bigots.

The line does indeed have to be drawn somewhere, so the real question is why people draw it one place and not another. And I'm having a little trouble coming up with a reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't anti-gay in some way or another. There is no way to argue against gay marriage without saying that gay love is somehow less "real" than straight love, and while that might not be as bad as your example of bigoted behavior, I still think it fits the bill. I think most people opposed to gay marriage would be quite offended if you suggested that their relationship with their husband or wife isn't good enough to call it a marriage. How is opposition to gay marriage any different?

And you're right when you say that you could use a similar argument for polygamy, and you're right. Opposition to polygamous marriage (between consenting adults) similarly requires you to take the position that polygamous love is somehow less than monogamous love. I personally think whatever you want to do with other consenting adults is fine by me, even if it sure as hell isn't my choice, but I can see how some people might think polygamous love isn't "real", so they'd oppose polygamous marriage. But you can't have no problem with polygamous relationships and still oppose polygamous marriage, at least not if you're being honest with yourself.

Bigot is a loaded word, so I'm going to try to not use it any more, and I'd encourage everyone in this discussion to try to do the same. But opposition to gay marriage IS anti-gay, unless there is a really excellent argument for gay marriage that I haven't heard yet.

 

[Genx87]

This whole topic is so dumb anyways. Why is govt involved with marriage in the first place? Another example of the govt overstepping its bounds. And in doing so denying portions of a population something that is granted to the majority of people.

I find it mildly amusing democrats are talking about tossing out the will of the people because they dont agree with their decision. Then they complain democrats get labeled as legislating from the bench.

When govt gets involved with granting legal distinction to a religious ceremony a line has to be drawn. In this case, the people of California drew the line at "between a man and a women". Dont like it? Work on an amendment that will overturn it or convince people otherwise and have it overturned.

afaik the federal govt was never granted permission to regulate marriage via the constitution. If you want it to be given that right then work on a consitutional amendment that will define its role.

All of these rights that are granted to married couples minus the tax situation can easily be handled without the need for govt to recognize a marriage. The biggest complaints seems to revolve around death benefits and hospital rights. One should be able to define who has these roles and it been seen as legal regardless of marriage status.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I find it mildly amusing democrats are talking about tossing out the will of the people because they dont agree with their decision.

Then they complain democrats get labeled as legislating from the bench.

It's not the will of the people.

It is the will of religious haters.

Discrimination has no business being on a ballot, period.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it mildly amusing democrats are talking about tossing out the will of the people because they dont agree with their decision. Then they complain democrats get labeled as legislating from the bench.

I'm no democrat, however I believe the only reason anyone is suggesting the will of the people get tossed is because it's a constitutional issue. I think everyone is on the same page with regards to the democratic process, however when a majority of people try to codify irrational discrimination into a state's constitution, it's quite a different story all together.

Live and let live would be a great concept to keep in mind. The libertarians get it. For the most part, the democrats get it. And maybe even some in the GOP get it.

And while I think the state initiative system is a great way for the people's will to be heard, it would seem there's a large group of people who just can't resist the urge to force others how to live and ram their brand of puritanical beliefs down everyone's throat.

 

[Net]

Originally posted by: loki8481
prop 8 passed Many young boys were just denied a bunch of rights.
fixed

apparently you missed the point.

and yes you can quote me and start some other random argument that i won't respond to. infact i won't even look at the thread

to refresh your memory

prop 8 passed

Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.

I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.

don't let your thoughts wonder, just think about what it would be like if you were that kid growing up.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This whole topic is so dumb anyways. Why is govt involved with marriage in the first place? Another example of the govt overstepping its bounds. And in doing so denying portions of a population something that is granted to the majority of people.

I find it mildly amusing democrats are talking about tossing out the will of the people because they dont agree with their decision. Then they complain democrats get labeled as legislating from the bench.

When govt gets involved with granting legal distinction to a religious ceremony a line has to be drawn. In this case, the people of California drew the line at "between a man and a women". Dont like it? Work on an amendment that will overturn it or convince people otherwise and have it overturned.

afaik the federal govt was never granted permission to regulate marriage via the constitution. If you want it to be given that right then work on a consitutional amendment that will define its role.

All of these rights that are granted to married couples minus the tax situation can easily be handled without the need for govt to recognize a marriage. The biggest complaints seems to revolve around death benefits and hospital rights. One should be able to define who has these roles and it been seen as legal regardless of marriage status.

I think if people thought they had a reasonable chance of victory, they would try to totally remove the government from the position of granting legal authority to a religious ceremony. The problem is that such a measure would NEVER pass, so the only alternative is to grant the same legal authority to gay marriage as well.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: net

Originally posted by: loki8481
prop 8 passed Many young boys were just denied a bunch of rights.
fixed

apparently you missed the point.

and yes you can quote me and start some other random argument that i won't respond to. infact i won't even look at the thread

to refresh your memory

prop 8 passed

Many young boys were just spared a bad childhood.

I knew a guy with a last name wiener who had a rough time growing up. Kids making fun of him. I can't imagine what it would be like if your parents were two gay dudes.

think hard, real hard about what that means.

"Gay dudes" can't biologically reproduce, married or otherwise, and nothing in prop 8 bans gay adoption or surrogate child bearing...so I'm not sure what banning gay marriage has to do with a kid being raised by gay parents.

And in any case, in your example, doesn't the fault lie with the stupid kids making fun of people who are different, and their crappy parents for failing to raise them properly?