Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[nathansu]

Unless I'm mistaken, it becomes part of the state Constitution.

It's still unconstitutional at the Federal level. State judges can rule on constitutionality of laws that are at the federal level, applied locally.

You can't put something in the state constitution that tramples on the federal one, it is not teh legalz.

Hence, overturn incoming.

[lilboo]

Then you can't call anyone ignorant that thinks all gays are flaunty in-your-face cross-dressing Rupaul like queens.

Sure I can. After hearing the results in CA and listening to some of the people here...yeah, pretty much "right" and "wrong" don't really matter.

[Dead of Knight]

Just noticed the video in lilboo's sig. Epic.

[thrustbucket]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9893/gay000306marriageed01darl3.jpg

I'm still waiting for someone to show me evidence of any *major religion ever saying inter-racial marriage was a sin, taking disciplinary action for it, or in any way taking it as serious as they do homosexuality.

Until then, it's a leftist myth.

*Major religion will be defined by a congregation of several million members. Backwoods so-called Christian sects of 50 people don't count. If you want to equate the two issues, then it needs to be proven that the same major religions against gay marriage now were against inter-racial marriage then.

[mykevermin]

According to the Latter-Day Saints, you couldn't marry a black woman.

...for your first wife!

[botticus]

Sure I can. After hearing the results in CA and listening to some of the people here...yeah, pretty much "right" and "wrong" don't really matter.I guess if you really want me to change my mind and be happy 8 passed to join the rest of the crazed religious people, I'll see what I can do.

[Hex]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me evidence of any *major religion ever saying inter-racial marriage was a sin, taking disciplinary action for it, or in any way taking it as serious as they do homosexuality.

Until then, it's a leftist myth.

*Major religion will be defined by a congregation of several million members. Backwoods so-called Christian sects of 50 people don't count. If you want to equate the two issues, then it needs to be proven that the same major religions against gay marriage now were against inter-racial marriage then.

I personally don't know Judge Leon Bazile's denomination, but he proclaimed thus, "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." Huh, how about that.


Furthermore, the Supreme court said, "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. There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Now, having posted that, substitute gender for race, heteronormativity for white supremacy and we're all set. Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel the same way about equal marriage in today's society.

[mykevermin]

Prop. 8 helped settle an internal debate I had about this nation of ours.

Freedom OF Religion is *not* the same thing as Freedom FROM Religion.

We have the former, and lack the latter.

[The Crotch]

Eh. What was that thing that Newsom (?) was saying that bugged BigT so much? "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not?"

Yeah. That's the one. I like that quote.

[Snake2715]

Prop. 8 helped settle an internal debate I had about this nation of ours.

Freedom OF Religion is *not* the same thing as Freedom FROM Religion.

We have the former, and lack the latter.

People are passionate about this and for good reason.

i know this has flip flopped back and forth and I really have not followed it, I dont live or vote in Califronia and it doesnt directly effect me. I was curious as to how it would turn out.

Given that and your remarks Myke. Am I mistaken in thinking the "gays" want to be religiously linked (married) to each other, or was it truely a proposition that allowed them the same rights without the religion aspect?

[mykevermin]

The latter. Nobody was going to force a church's hands to marry gays.

Then again, nobody ever forced any church's hands onto little boys' dicks, and we know how well that turned out.

[BlueSwim]

Yeah... Because that's exactly how all religious people are....

Could you quote the part earlier where I said "all religious people are like that"?........Exactly, I never said that. =;
Awww dont hate! You have to respect spirtual wars like her, Palin and nintendokid!

I'm not hating on religion or religious people as a whole. I believe in God myself, too. But that woman was the perfect example of being too religious. Look at how happy her family was before she walked in screaming "SHE'S NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!". She absolutely ruined her family's evening with her outburst.

[SpazX]

Given that and your remarks Myke. Am I mistaken in thinking the "gays" want to be religiously linked (married) to each other, or was it truely a proposition that allowed them the same rights without the religion aspect?

Marriage certificates from the state do not require any religious aspect. If you want one, cool, you can, but it's not required for straight people, I don't see why it's suddenly all about religion when gay people do it.

[MSI Magus]

Could you quote the part earlier where I said "all religious people are like that"?........Exactly, I never said that. =;


I'm not hating on religion or religious people as a whole. I believe in God myself, too. But that woman was the perfect example of being too religious. Look at how happy her family was before she walked in screaming "SHE'S NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!". She absolutely ruined her family's evening with her outburst.

My post was sarcastic.

[BlueSwim]

My post was sarcastic.

:lol: Sorry about that. 8-)

[GuilewasNK]

Sulu: Okay, yeah.. I fucking love that guy. He's awesome, and open. Didn't he go on some show and told some anti-gay asshole to suck it?


Yeah, he told that to Tim Hardaway if I'm not mistaken. George Takei does indeed rule. :)

[Hex]

Eh. What was that thing that Newsom (?) was saying that bugged BigT so much? "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not?"

Yeah. That's the one. I like that quote.

BigoT just doesn't like being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I sort of want Gavin. He's hot. <3

[ph33r m3]

Prop 8 looks like it's passing in Cali....

Sounds good to me....think gay's are bad enough? Imagine your gay friend bitchin' to you about HIS/HER divorce...coddamn....just coddamn...

[nathansu]

Prop 8 looks like it's passing in Cali....

Sounds good to me....think gay's are bad enough? Imagine your gay friend bitchin' to you about HIS/HER divorce...coddamn....just coddamn...

I sincerely hope that is /sarc.

[The Crotch]

Looks to me like he was being facetious.

[judyjudyjudy]

Eh. What was that thing that Newsom (?) was saying that bugged BigT so much? "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not?"

Yeah. That's the one. I like that quote.You wouldn't like if you had to hear it during every commercial break during the last two months. Ugh. The good thing about this being over is that I don't have to hear all those damn "Yes on Prop 8" commercials 20 times an hour. I swear I've got those things memorized.

"Mommy! Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today!"

[GuilewasNK]

...coddamn....just coddamn...

Fish damn?

[The Crotch]

You wouldn't like if you had to hear it during every commercial break during the last two months. Ugh. The good thing about this being over is that I don't have to hear all those damn "Yes on Prop 8" commercials 20 times an hour. I swear I've got those things memorized.

"Mommy! Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today!"
Hah! No television!

[mykevermin]

You wouldn't like if you had to hear it during every commercial break during the last two months. Ugh. The good thing about this being over is that I don't have to hear all those damn "Yes on Prop 8" commercials 20 times an hour. I swear I've got those things memorized.

"Mommy! Mommy! Guess what I learned in school today!"

SYCLICKS! GAR-GOLES!

[lilboo]

DORK SIDED!! :whee:

[Hex]

EEN JEEZUSS NAYME AH PREH! :o

[RAMSTORIA]

alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk and we were watching the election. i was telling my friend that were going to see 3 major parties in the next 10 years. the reason why? the republican party will split first because traditional conservatives and neocons just dont get along. so youll have the conservative party, the neocons, and the democrats. but it wont stay 50% dems, 25% neocons and 25% conservatives. the democratic party will split as a result too. many people will go to the neocon party, my backing for this is huge amount of people that voted for obama but for prop 8. obama received 6.2 million votes in california, but only 4.8 million people voted against prop 8. thats roughly 15% difference. so in the end well end up with the 3 parties roughly split evenly is my guess. now i just have to figure out what to the call the 3 parties, democrats will stay the same. not sure if the neocons or conservatives would want to keep the name republican, but one of them will. so yeah, there you have it, by the 2020 election well have 3 major parties.

[Snake2715]

Marriage certificates from the state do not require any religious aspect. If you want one, cool, you can, but it's not required for straight people, I don't see why it's suddenly all about religion when gay people do it.

I am with you 100% then. I really had not dug into that proposition too much at all.

And thanks Myke for the answer.

[Reality's Fringe]

I'm going to sound ignorant, but I have to ask: What is it EXACTLY that people are against when it comes to gay marriage? From what I've seen, the controversy surrounds the word "marriage" itself. Is it seriously nothing more than a semantics argument?

[Strell]

I'm going to sound ignorant, but I have to ask: What is it EXACTLY that people are against when it comes to gay marriage? From what I've seen, the controversy surrounds the word "marriage" itself. Is it seriously nothing more than a semantics argument?

It's for a few reasons that I can name. But I need everyone to understand I DO NOT SUPPORT THESE. This is a "don't kill the messenger" moment.

1) Because of religious overtones. Which I pointed out earlier in this thread is total bullshit because marriage was originally a business transaction. It had no basis in religion at all, until there came a day when the priests literally decided they were bored and didn't have enough to do.

2) Because gay marriage is argued as being a gateway toward all kinds of scurry marriages. First it's the gays, then it's incest, then it's pedophilia, then it's object-o-philia (whatever that is actually called), then it's beastiality, etc etc etc.

Alternatively this is called a slippery slope, but the religious types won't be stopped by that, no sir.

3) Probably a jealousy thing. Let's face it - I wish I could have all the sex I wanted without fear of the possibility of having children. Endless off-getting without any of the consequences! It's like a chocolate cake that actually makes your thighs look nice instead of like flubbery rubbery tubbery blubbery. This has to seriously piss off that Puritan twinge of America, who already is suffering from immense frustration and repression.

There's probably more but I'll leave it to others.

[Hex]

alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk and we were watching the election. i was telling my friend that were going to see 3 major parties in the next 10 years. the reason why? the republican party will split first because traditional conservatives and neocons just dont get along. so youll have the conservative party, the neocons, and the democrats. but it wont stay 50% dems, 25% neocons and 25% conservatives. the democratic party will split as a result too. many people will go to the neocon party, my backing for this is huge amount of people that voted for obama but for prop 8. obama received 6.2 million votes in california, but only 4.8 million people voted against prop 8. thats roughly 15% difference. so in the end well end up with the 3 parties roughly split evenly is my guess. now i just have to figure out what to the call the 3 parties, democrats will stay the same. not sure if the neocons or conservatives would want to keep the name republican, but one of them will. so yeah, there you have it, by the 2020 election well have 3 major parties.

alright here is another wacky theory i had last night while i was drunk

i was drunk

Yep.

:D

[thrustbucket]

According to the Latter-Day Saints, you couldn't marry a black woman.

...for your first wife!

Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.

[RAMSTORIA]

Yep.

:D

mmmmm jagermeister... ITS STILL GOING TO HAPPEN!

[The Crotch]

There's probably more but I'll leave it to others.
Ahem. (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5071567&postcount=950)

Though I left out the slippery slope argument.

[Strell]

Somehow I missed that big ass chains post of yours.

[thespamofpower]

Looks like the lawsuits have started

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.145446.html

[The Crotch]

Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.Take this as you will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_race#Interracial_marriages).

On the against-you side, however, there's Jerry Falwell.

[Strell]

Again I ask - isn't Cali considered extrememly liberal? What with Hollywood and all those homo-cities?

Or was that all just the rabid usual bullshit from conservatives who have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about shit they don't like?

Falwell was pretty sure 9/11 was caused by Feminists. If that isn't proof the man was psychotic, I don't know what else is.

[RAMSTORIA]

Again I ask - isn't Cali considered extrememly liberal?

didnt you read my 3 party theory! theyre going to join with the neocons!

Looks like the lawsuits have started

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.145446.html

first drunken wacky theory is starting to happen.

[judyjudyjudy]

Again I ask - isn't Cali considered extrememly liberal? What with Hollywood and all those homo-cities?All the homo-cities in NorCal did their part (SF was like 77% no). As for SoCal, apparently there's quite a few church-going folk down there. At least that's my impression. The exit polls are somewhat telling:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#CAI01map

Honestly, I'm surprised myself. I don't have a single friend who voted Yes. But I do know several parents who did. The young people rocked the vote, but I think the older folks rocked harder.

[BlueLobstah]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me evidence of any *major religion ever saying inter-racial marriage was a sin, taking disciplinary action for it, or in any way taking it as serious as they do homosexuality.

Until then, it's a leftist myth.

*Major religion will be defined by a congregation of several million members. Backwoods so-called Christian sects of 50 people don't count. If you want to equate the two issues, then it needs to be proven that the same major religions against gay marriage now were against inter-racial marriage then.


It boils down to people taking the protestant bible to the extreme or twisting what is actually said. The bible clearly forbids "inter-racial" marriage on religious grounds and nationality, not based on race. It would be akin to forbidding marriage of a Christian to Buddhist. The language is stronger due to nations having strong religious ties back in those days so a nation was usually associated with a particular religion.

I doubt any real church who legitimately follows the bible would outlaw inter-racial marriage, but that's beside the point...

[lilboo]

Looks like the lawsuits have started

http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.145446.html

:applause:

[XxFuRy2Xx]

Florida banned it, too. It was already illegal, the vote yesterday was just to officially put it in the state constitution.

[thrustbucket]

It boils down to people taking the protestant bible to the extreme or twisting what is actually said. The bible clearly forbids "inter-racial" marriage on religious grounds and nationality, not based on race. It would be akin to forbidding marriage of a Christian to Buddhist. The language is stronger due to nations having strong religious ties back in those days so a nation was usually associated with a particular religion.

I doubt any real church who legitimately follows the bible would outlaw inter-racial marriage, but that's beside the point...

Thanks for adding something thought provoking to the subject.

Lucky for us, most Christian denominations have matured over the years, and don't take a lot of the bible so literal.

I think you are right for the most part. I just don't think any major modern religious sect of the past 200 years has made nearly as big a deal out of inter-racial marriage as they do/have gay marriage.

[JJSP]

California is STILL granting same-sex marriage licenses, and there are groups protesting at the courthouse in Santa Ana. This thing is going to go through a lengthy appeal process and will likely be recounted. I've heard talks about the ACLU getting involved.

[MSI Magus]

California is STILL granting same-sex marriage licenses, and there are groups protesting at the courthouse in Santa Ana. This thing is going to go through a lengthy appeal process and will likely be recounted. I've heard talks about the ACLU getting involved.

Good I just wish I was in California so I could do something.

[gaxur]

Well, there's always the option of travel. Plenty of Obama supporters (and probably McCain, though I've heard nothing of them) traveled around the country to do work in battleground states.

[mykevermin]

Proof?
As far as I know, they advised against it on the grounds that marriage is hard enough without inserting vastly different cultures into the mix. But they never forbade it, nor did they discipline mormons that did it.

Well, I was being sarcastic (did you read the spoiler?).

[JJSP]

We got a notice from the National Notary Association that the issue lies with the amendment itself. At this point, California wants to still recognize the 18,000 gay marriages that were performed since June (when it was overturned). In doing so, California has painted itself into a corner in that creating an amendment that would recognize certain gay marriages and not others is potentially federally unconstitutional. This is why the ACLU has lawyers ready to fight for the potential 18,000 couples who could potentially have their licenses revoked.

[Hex]

This.. this is turning out to be pretty fukken fascinating. I can't wait to see what happens, JJSP.

Nice job opening up a can of worms with this proposition, California. :D

[The Crotch]

Mmm. I love a good clusterfuck in the morning.

[gaxur]

One benefit of having a very litigious society, you don't wind up in situations where there are laws against things officially, but they're ignored in practice. I mean, that would be nice for other things, but in terms of unequal treatment tending to make things unconstitutional, it's kinda useful.

[nathansu]

We got a notice from the National Notary Association that the issue lies with the amendment itself. At this point, California wants to still recognize the 18,000 gay marriages that were performed since June (when it was overturned). In doing so, California has painted itself into a corner in that creating an amendment that would recognize certain gay marriages and not others is potentially federally unconstitutional. This is why the ACLU has lawyers ready to fight for the potential 18,000 couples who could potentially have their licenses revoked.

Wow, I didn't know things actually could look decent after prop 8 passed.

Sounds like licenses will still be granted during appeals, fucking score one for the good guys/gals.

[nathansu]

Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. Fucking win.

[Hex]

Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. Fucking win.

Exactly. I would personally kiss the loser who introduced prop 8 if this goes Federal and the entire country allows equal marriage.

[bmulligan]

I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.

[mykevermin]

I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.

I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."

Maybe we can get a federal amendment to the constitution to freely spend every other Saturday morning kicking Michigan assholes in their nutsacks? Hey, if the majority of the people will it, right?

Better buy a cup, hombre. I'm enlisting the LDS on this 'un.

[spmahn]

Oh man the irony would be so delicious if this gets thrown at the supreme court and prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional.

Gay marriages for everyone, everywhere. Fucking win.

Wouldn't happen in a million years. This is a very conservative court, with what is it now, 3 Bush Appointees? Not happening.

[lilboo]

I'm really enjoying the fact that most of you think you believe in 'majorty rule' or the 'voice of the people' until something happens that you don't like.

When it's a civil right, well, yeah.

Ya know on this subject I was talking to some girl today at work about this. She was black (yes, theres a reason why I said this). I was saying how it sucks and it's pretty crappy, however, seeing the USA bring in a black dude as president gives ME hope that one day I too will have rights. We agreed. I said, "Ya know, I don't see what the big deal is. A Civil Union is the same thing AS marriage, just not so much in a religious aspect.." and she said "No they aren't. Civil Unions mean shit and it's just a way of 'separate but equal' bullshit they pulled on blacks back in the day."

I ask "What do you mean?"
(I am gonna bold this, because this really opened up my eyes and I do truly see a difference now, IMO)

"A good example is this: Blacks were allowed to take the bus like any white person--they were even allowed on the same bus as white people. The problem is that, and I know you know this, we had to sit in the back of the bus. Their reasoning behind this is so that they can say 'Oh well we ARE allowing blacks on the bus...just, in the back rows'. See what I mean boo?"

I'm kinda pissed, because I never really thought about it like that. And fuck you if you don't agree with it--it makes sense and you're just dumb & ugly if you disagree [-(

[von551]

1) Because of religious overtones. Which I pointed out earlier in this thread is total bullshit because marriage was originally a business transaction. It had no basis in religion at all, until there came a day when the priests literally decided they were bored and didn't have enough to do.


Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.

[bmulligan]

I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."

Maybe we can get a federal amendment to the constitution to freely spend every other Saturday morning kicking Michigan assholes in their nutsacks? Hey, if the majority of the people will it, right?


Is your thinking device securely fastened? Constitutionally protected, individual freedom was the point of my comment. It's much too late to start pretending you believe in that, myke.

[gaxur]

I like the fact that you think "voice of the people" trumps "liberty" and "individual freedoms."

This, a million times.

This is why we had to send military troops to escort nine black students to school.

This is one of the reasons the constitution is as it is-- to prevent minorities from being at the mercy of the majority.

Majority rule can never overrule civil liberties. Frankly, this is pretty much exactly the same as if people passed an amendment in their state constitution making atheism illegal. It's in direct violation of the first amendment of the United States constitution, namely the separation of church and state. This is effectively using religion to define the state's constitution.

Alternatively, you can think of it as a majority vote to make it so you can't voice your opinion. I'm going to assume you're talking about democrats when you talk about when you say 'most of you'-- in any case, you are talking about the majority of people. How would you like it if those people decided they didn't like your criticism, and they passed a majority vote saying that you no longer get free speech? It's a direct violation of the first amendment.

[spmahn]

]
I'm kinda pissed, because I never really thought about it like that. And fuck you if you don't agree with it--it makes sense and you're just dumb & ugly if you disagree [-(

If you're not willing to have a reasonable discussion and just continue with the outlandish statements and ad hominem attacks, please leave this thread.

[lilboo]

:rofl: Please. I actually make sense. I don't spew hate and ignorance. Therefore, +1 for me, honey.

[mykevermin]

Is your thinking device securely fastened? Constitutionally protected, individual freedom was the point of my comment. It's much too late to start pretending you believe in that, myke.

That's right, komrade.

If you want to be taken seriously, give up the red-baiting. You're fucking boring. And lazy, too.

But no, seriously. Get a cup. I'm emailing Sherrod Brown as we speak. We're going to give it one of those clever black-is-white-and-up-is-down Bush proposal names, like "No Child Left Behind," the "Clean Air Act," or the "Healthy Forests Initiative."

I think we'll call it the "Isn't Michigan Great? Act."

[gaxur]

Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.

Ok, then! Let's have gay marriage legalized. God will continue to ignore them, and back in reality humans who love each other can be happy.

The state can recognize them, the people who think god hates it don't have to get gay marriages for themselves, the people who think that the government shouldn't go around deciding what god the people should follow and what that god thinks can legalize it and things'll be just peachy.

[von551]

Our founding fathers clearly said separation of CHURCH and STATE. What part of that do you not understand. Overlooking that...you might as well throw the constitution and articles in the trash.

have you ever READ the constitution? do you know the true meaning of "seperation of church and state"? It was created to protect the people from the government telling them they couldn't publicly express their faith. It kept the government from controlling what the people could and couldn't do. It's not protecting the state from the church. In 1947 the constitution was re-interpreted to take the church out of the state (schools, courts, etc.) We're the only generation that's know seperation of church and state as protecting the state. kinda weird, right? And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?

[Hex]

Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests? Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'. Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.

God hates you.

:D

[spmahn]

:rofl: Please. I actually make sense. I don't spew hate and ignorance. Therefore, +1 for me, honey.

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.

[lilboo]

Ok, then! Let's have gay marriage legalized. God will continue to ignore them, and back in reality humans who love each other can be happy.

The state can recognize them, the people who think god hates it don't have to get gay marriages for themselves, the people who think that the government shouldn't go around deciding what god the people should follow and what that god thinks can legalize it and things'll be just peachy.

-YEAH, but that that means MORE and MORE people WILL be gay!! :whee:
-HIV rates will go sky high! 1 out of every 1 person WILL. HAVE. AIDS. :whee:
-Children of gay parents will be MOLESTERED----EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. They will ALSO turn out gay!!! :whee:
-WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?! :whee:
-My Dad might leave my mom and marry the PEPPER GARDEN :whee:

WE CAN NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!

[spmahn]

-YEAH, but that that means MORE and MORE people WILL be gay!! :whee:
-HIV rates will go sky high! 1 out of every 1 person WILL. HAVE. AIDS. :whee:
-Children of gay parents will be MOLESTERED----EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. They will ALSO turn out gay!!! :whee:
-WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE?! :whee:
-My Dad might leave my mom and marry the PEPPER GARDEN :whee:

WE CAN NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!!

Yeah....if I was gay, I would feel the same way about people like you the same way people like me feel about Fred Phelps and David Duke. You're not helping the cause, you're making it worse.

[Hex]

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.

Traditional values like blacks being slaves, women not voting and child labour?

[mykevermin]

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.

You never read "The Way We Never Were," did you?

[spmahn]

Traditional values like blacks being slaves, women not voting and child labour?

Straw Man Argument

[lilboo]

Yeah....if I was gay, I would feel the same way about people like you the same way people like me feel about Fred Phelps and David Duke. You're not helping the cause, you're making it worse.

http://toppun.com/Gay-Lesbian-Pride/Every-Single-Gay-Man-Fabulous.gif

[Hex]

Straw Man Argument

:rofl::rofl:

what are traditional family values then? service to ye olde king?

[spmahn]

:rofl::rofl:

what are traditional family values then? service to ye olde king?

You're trying to refute the argument by narrowing it down to two extreme examples that everyone agrees are wrong, trying to prove the entire argument as invalid by association.

[nathansu]

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.

Right, this is like saying "we're equal, except if you're gay".

Here's the definition of hate, if you've forgotten.

Hatred is a word to describe immense feelings of dislike toward someone or something, as well as prejudice or bigotry against a class of people, racism being a prominent example of this. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense.

The statement mentioned above, and what you're alluding to fits the definition quite well.

Facts, the real world, and apparently everything else relevant to the planet earth have quite the liberal bias.

[Hex]

And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

The Founding Fathers weren't christian.

America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.

""What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Good ol' Jimmy Madison.

[The Crotch]

And if you ever do read the constitution you'll find numerous references to the Bible and it's guidelines of life, where do you think they derived the constitution from?Good golly, Miss Molly! Where... what... man. Okay, gimme a second. This is a long ways from the most original argument I've ever made - mostly just stealing it from another guy - but hey, I don't wanna reinvent the delicious cheese wheel here. I make no claims to be either a Biblical or constitutional scholar, so feel free to correct me here as needs be.

America is a Republican Democracy. Or republican democracy. I'm not too clear on how you capitalize it. And that bugs me. Anyway, there's not a lot of... okay, there's no real equivalent to that in the Bible. Lots and lots of monarchy, though!

The separation of powers is important in the United States. This is not the case in Biblical nations.

The constitution (Constitution?) can be amended. Contrast with Leviticus 23:41 and Galatians 1:8-9.

There is religious freedom - including, yes, protection of religion from the state. You think that killing people for blasphemy in Deuteronomy 13 and Leviticus 24:16 - hell, especially Leviticus 24:16 - is in any way similar?

There is freedom of speech in the United States. In Numbers 16, criticizing a leader results results in not only your death, but the death of your entire family.

There is no protection from cruel and unusual punishment (stoning), nothing remotely resembling the warrants for arrest/search/seizure, and Deuteronomy 19:15 is a helluva long way from a trial by jury.

And as for equality under the law? Leviticus 27:1-7, Leviticus 21:17-23, and hell, even Mark 7:27.

...

Fuck, I hope I got those numbers right. I better not have posted something that turns into, "And the LORD smote them on the backside," or, "Behold, I am against your pillows," or some shit.

[gaxur]

No, you're definitely spewing hate and ignorance, it's just a different kind of hate and ignorance than what most people are used to. Being against same sex marriage doesn't have to be about hate, or religion, or bigotry, it can also be about the desire to preserve traditional societal values.
No, you have an immense hate and ignorance. You might hide it with a veil of love and care, even to yourself, but they are there.

On traditional societal values, see http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry . Watch it to the end. There's really no such thing, the only standard is what you accept.

Traditional societal values, even if they were real, is no reason to oppose civil liberties. Your argument could just as easily be used as reason why women and blacks shouldn't vote, why interracial marriage should be outlawed, or why people should be married off by their parents instead of by their own choice. Heck, 'tradition' could be used as an excuse to send ourselves all back to the dark ages. The Amish do it.

[Hex]

You're trying to refute the argument by narrowing it down to two extreme examples that everyone agrees are wrong, trying to prove the entire argument as invalid by association.

You have yet to explain to me what you mean by traditional societal values. Considering that societal values change like the seasons, that term is pretty fucking nebulous. Considering you're all for making me a second class citizen, I assumed you're also down with making separate fountains for the coloureds, putting them uppity wimminz back in the kitchen and making your misbehaving kids go work in a factory. :)

[lilboo]

:lol: This always cracks me the fuck up

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q314/honewatson/anti-gay-protesters.jpg

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

[The Crotch]

Excerrent picture.

Dammit, I hate how I always get the last post on a fucking page...

[Hex]

I think spmahn is cool with discriminating against us 'cause he's a fifty year old virgin, and he knows even the ugliest queer can get some hot action. 8-)

[nathansu]

:lol: This always cracks me the fuck up

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q314/honewatson/anti-gay-protesters.jpg

LMAO, I haven't seen that pic in a while.

[spmahn]

Look, I'm done with this thread, it's a circular argument, you guys have your opinions, and I have mine, no one wins, it's a tie. All I can say is that if you want equality you're not going to find it until you distance yourself from some of the extremists like I have seen here. I hope you guys find whatever happiness it is you're looking for. Good luck, and god bless.

[Hex]

:baby:

[HumanSnatcher]

:baby:

You read my mind!

[nathansu]

Look, I'm done with this thread, it's a circular argument, you guys have your opinions, and I have mine, no one wins, it's a tie. All I can say is that if you want equality you're not going to find it until you distance yourself from some of the extremists like I have seen here. I hope you guys find whatever happiness it is you're looking for. Good luck, and god bless.

Don't you love how when you throw facts (facts are facts, there is no bias involved) on the table in an argument with a religious extremist, they throw a fit and run away?

This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the best fucking things in the world.

[lilboo]

Ok, to be serious now.
What do you mean if we want equality, we won't find it until we distance ourselves from some of the extremists?
What do ya mean? We need to physically be away from these people? I am actually not sure what you mean--not attacking.

[gaxur]

Oh, while we're on the subject of traditional values, let's be real simple and define them as what our parents accept.

My grandmother could really not have dreamed of a world where women would commonly hold careers of substance. My mother was smart, hardworking, and lucky enough to go to college, and get her own career, beyond McJobs. She married my father, had me, and so on. The values of my grandmother's generation would've assumed the woman would stay with the man, who would hold the job.

Bit of a problem with that formula: my father was abusive, practically unemployable, and had no expertise or qualifications.

So would you have had her stay with me in a household where we'd be abused, and struggle to afford basic costs like food and shelter, for the sake of preserving 'traditional values'?

Because her getting a divorce, raising a young child on her own, and working hard in her own career to give a good life to her child certainly doesn't fit into traditional values, however you define them. Yet it's clearly the superior option. My guess is you'll say you don't have a problem with that, and in fact probably don't even find a single mother non-traditional, BECAUSE YOU ARE ACCUSTOMED TO IT. You would never say that it should be illegal. And yet you say that gay marriage should be illegal. You simply don't see single mothers and gay persons as equal humans.

[The Crotch]

Ok, to be serious now.
What do you mean if we want equality, we won't find it until we distance ourselves from some of the extremists?
What do ya mean? We need to physically be away from these people? I am actually not sure what you mean--not attacking.
I believe he means "no threatening to masturbate with the Bible".

Or whatever the hell you were talking about last night.

[mykevermin]

This thread needs some levity, and some levity in poor taste at that:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o12/exitbilly/debate.jpg

[spmahn]

Don't you love how when you throw facts (facts are facts, there is no bias involved) on the table in an argument with a religious extremist, they throw a fit and run away?

This is the single reason I read the old and new testament many times. Contradicting a bigot's point with verses from their own text they claim to be defending is one of the best fucking things in the world.

I haven't seen any facts at all here, just differing opinions. There aren't that many facts to be had in this debate, and even the facts that there are, are up for debate. I'm not throwing a fit, I'm bowing out gracefully, this argument will never end, it'll go on and on forever.

Ok, to be serious now.
What do you mean if we want equality, we won't find it until we distance ourselves from some of the extremists?
What do ya mean? We need to physically be away from these people? I am actually not sure what you mean--not attacking.

What I mean by this is that you need to change public perception of what homosexuality is. For the majority of Americans, when you ask them to describe a homosexual, they usually associate the term with the guys out in the streets in San Francisco marching in parades wearing their speedo's and such. The movement needs to change this opinion and convince mainstream America that homosexuals are just normal people, they just happen to dig the same sex.

It would also help if you would at least be more respectful towards people with opposing views. Not everyone who disagrees with you is Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you treat everyone that does as though they are, then you're never going to change the minds of anyone. No one is going to listen to people they see as antagonists.

[Hex]

I believe he means "no threatening to masturbate with the Bible".

Or whatever the hell you were talking about last night.


I think he said he was gonna drag his balls over it. I was turned on.

[nathansu]

I haven't seen any facts at all here, just differing opinions. There aren't that many facts to be had in this debate, and even the facts that there are, are up for debate. I'm not throwing a fit, I'm bowing out gracefully, this argument will never end, it'll go on and on forever.


Hey tard - it is a FACT that everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The amendment to the CA constitution is illegal due to this FACT.

Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.

[nathansu]

I believe he means "no threatening to masturbate with the Bible".

Or whatever the hell you were talking about last night.

Is masturbating on the bible OK then?

/fapfap

[spmahn]

Hey tard - it is a FACT that everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The amendment to the CA constitution is illegal due to this FACT.

Multiple other posters have thrown out FACTS like this, and you've yet to respond to any of them.

But it's an OPINION that they are not guaranteed equal protection under the law.

[nathansu]

But it's an OPINION that they are not guaranteed equal protection under the law.

No, that is a FALSE STATEMENT. It's equivalent to saying "murder is OK if you are of the opinion that it is justified even though it is illegal".

Try again.

[thrustbucket]

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

The Founding Fathers weren't christian.

America was not founded on christian principles, as much as you want to stamp your cute little feet like a two year old and scream that it was.

""What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Good ol' Jimmy Madison.


You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.

I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.

[spmahn]

No, that is a FALSE STATEMENT. It's equivalent to saying "murder is OK if you are of the opinion that it is justified even though it is illegal".

Try again.

Well, some people actually might find murder to be ok on some sort of personal level. It's still illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a person can be ok with it.

[Hex]

You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.

I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.

Except it wasn't originally a religious institution. Strellington made a post about that a while back.

And no. I'm good with everyone getting married. Fuck this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.

Kindergarten logic.

[gaxur]

You know since marriage was originally a religious institution, posts like that only fortify the argument that marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the government.

I hope that's what you are going for, because I agree with it.

I agree with it as well, and I'd be surprised if a majority of the pro-gay marriage people aren't of the opinion that government has no business getting involved with the mating practices of citizens. However, it'd be basically impossible to abolish government endorsed marriage, so it's far better to provide those legal rights to everyone.

[blandstalker]

Hahaha. Wasn't marriage mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before priests?

What? How old do you think the Christian Bible is?


Before it "was about making a buck"? You, my friend, are blind. Nice try, but keep fishin'.No, seriously. Marriage was about property and inheritance rights.

There's this thing called history. You might want to give it a look.


Marriage was created by God, the state is the one trying to take ownership now. Even if gay marriages are recognized by the state, they're not by God.Who said they were? Where, exactly, is California trying to make God recognize gay marriage? It must be that damned Gavin Newsom.

For that matter, where in the Bible does it say that marriage was "created by God"?

For that matter, what, exactly, was marriage before the Bible. The Bible has only been around for less than two thousand years (New Testament -- Old Testament is older, but not that much older.). Marriage is older than the Bible.

It's bad enough you don't know history, but you don't even know the book you're thumping.

Oh, and one more question: Can Buddhists get married?

[thrustbucket]

Except it wasn't originally a religious institution. Strellington made a post about that a while back.

And no. I'm good with everyone getting married. Fuck this mentality of IF THEM $$$S GET MARRIAGE THEN NOBODY DOES.

Kindergarten logic.

I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.

But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.

After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.

[Strell]

I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.


You don't think that we - as a species - couldn't figure out fuckin', and thus that keeping around a person for fuckin' to prolong our species and increase our familial power might be a good idea, before thinking about deities?

Really?

'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.

Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.

[thrustbucket]

I agree with it as well, and I'd be surprised if a majority of the pro-gay marriage people aren't of the opinion that government has no business getting involved with the mating practices of citizens. However, it'd be basically impossible to abolish government endorsed marriage, so it's far better to provide those legal rights to everyone.

The way around that is -

You first abolish government recognition of marriage. Which should have been done in 1776, but nobody questioned the definition of marriage then so nobody bothered.

You then require anyone and every adult that wants legal inheritance, paternal, visitation rights to fill out a government form cementing a legal union. This can be ANY two or more people.

Leave marriage to churches, clubs, bbq's, and cruise ships - as a novelty.

Lilboo is actually ok with this (last time I explained it to him anyway). So I think it's very fair. Everyone wins. Everyone is happy. But it will never happen.

[mykevermin]

Everyone is happy.

Nope. Not when you have the "we don't want to have to treat homosexuals like normal people/we don't want our children to think homosexuality is ok" crowd.

The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.

[thrustbucket]

You don't think that we - as a species - couldn't figure out fuckin', and thus that keeping around a person for fuckin' to prolong our species and increase our familial power, before thinking about deities?

Really?

'Cuz you know, I think I probably had a boner as a young man before I could conceive of a god, and this is being brought up in a house where I was assuredly told about such beliefs before sex.

Shit. I bet the doctors didn't want me in the nursery too long because I was givin' those women the what for from mah crib.

You struck at the very core of my argument, thank you.

Of course people naturally group up into little tribes (families) and stuck together. Anyone can do that still today, but that isn't legally binding, nor can it be.

But at some point people started inserting religion into their bonds and created ceremonies to "seal" everything. Marriage is a CEREMONY.

If marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, why is there a ceremony? Even getting married by a judge requires one. Because it's a distant ancestor of a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.

I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.

[lilboo]

Well Thrust I have a SOMEWHAT issue with Civil Unions. There have bee reports here in NJ about places such as hospitals STILL not allowing 1 partner to visit there other partner in the hospital because they weren't MARRIED.

Now, I am totally cool with Civil Unions IF the following 2 reasons apply:
1) It IS everything that a marriage consists of in every legal aspect AND it is recognized EVERYWHERE like hospitals, insurance companies, employment, ETC.

2) Straight people get these also. In the event civil unions where MAINLY had by gays (and I'm talking about a large difference)..then I am against it. It is only creating the 'separate, but equal' mentality. I know that sounds picky on my behalf, but it isn't. I just want to be equal and that's all.

[Strell]

Marriage is a CEREMONY.


No. IT BECAME ONE. There is a difference.


If marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, why is there a ceremony? Even getting married by a judge requires one. Because it's a distant ancestor of a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.

Not if you go back beyond whatever arbitrary point in history you are thinking of. I've already touched on this a few times in this thread. Go look it up - marriage was a business transaction originally. I'll let your daughter marry my son if you give me three head of cattle. Priests got bored and took it over. This is historical content.

What about the notion of prima nocta? That's not very Christian, but it's born in the Middle Ages when people were fearful of God. However, that didn't extend to the king, who got to fuck virgins left and right if he simply called shotgun.


I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.

Oh this is just ridiculous. So now you want to say that atheists wouldn't think to mark any kind of occasion with ceremony?

Why in the fuck are you acting like ceremony is some magical word that can only be infused with religious intent and tone? There's all sorts of ceremonies that aren't like that.

[Hex]

I still believe it's nigh impossible to prove that the institution of marriage didn't form out of socio-religious beliefs several thousand years ago.

But I'm ok with your above stated position as long as there are no exceptions. That means you're ok with polygamy too.

After all, you have to admit that attempting to define marriage as "two people that love each other" is being just as oppressive to those that believe in polygamy.

I've know several people in polyamourous relationships; I'm fine with polygamy. Hell, several of my friends would be happy marrying their horses, but that's another matter entirely.

[Hex]

If marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, why is there a ceremony?

Because people were happy, and wanted a bitchin' cake, lots of presents and booze?

[thrustbucket]

Nope. Not when you have the "we don't want to have to treat homosexuals like normal people/we don't want our children to think homosexuality is ok" crowd.

The same crowd that thinks intelligent design should be taught in science classes, mind. That same crowd and then some.

I'm against that crowd.

But I honestly believe my idea is the only real "compromise".

I think you are up against two big issues here, that you have to find a way around:

1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.

2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.

So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?

[lilboo]

Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?

It is about the word! :(
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.

That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.

[nathansu]

Well, some people actually might find murder to be ok on some sort of personal level. It's still illegal, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a person can be ok with it.

...

My point still stands. Tons of facts here, which no "religious" person is addressing.

[Hex]

But I honestly believe my idea is the only real "compromise".

And yet somehow, in Canada, Britain, Spain and other civilized nations marriage is equal between all and manages to work. Guess that shows you how backwards conservative america is. :)

[thrustbucket]

It is about the word! :(
If Prop 8 was "Ban the term gay marriage, but allow civil unions" I really do believe it would pass.

That's why this whole thing gets me hot. People are getting HYPE over the definition of a word.

I absolutely agree with you.

[nathansu]

I guess you can believe that the atheistic secular mind, at some point in history, would have wanted to perform a CEREMONY for a marriage, but that's quite a stretch.

My wife and I are agnostics and we had a ceremony. It's the celebration of two people's love for each other, nothing more, nothing less.

[Hex]

My wife and I are agnostics and we had a ceremony. It's the celebration of two people's love for each other, nothing more, nothing less.

Some people I used to know were going to have a wedding that was a pagan celebration. One was pagan, one was agnostic.

And yet, pagan celebrations aren't christian, yet I'm pretty sure they're recognized. Along with common law marriage.

How
about
that.

[thrustbucket]

I guess I think of ceremonies and celebrations as two different things. But I get your point.

[thrustbucket]

Some people I used to know were going to have a wedding that was a pagan celebration. One was pagan, one was agnostic.

And yet, pagan celebrations aren't christian, yet I'm pretty sure they're recognized. Along with common law marriage.

How
about
that.

That's kind of interesting....

Y'all do realize that marriage is the ONLY legally binding institution/ceremony that the government actually has guidelines for who can preform that includes religious authorities? If it were secular, anyone could perform the ceremony.

Kind of strange.... the little bit of mixing going on between church and state marriage entails and most are ok with.

[Hex]

That's kind of interesting....

Y'all do realize that marriage is the ONLY legally binding institution/ceremony that the government actually has guidelines for who can preform that includes religious authorities? If it were secular, anyone could perform the ceremony.

Kind of strange.... the little bit of mixing going on between church and state marriage entails and most are ok with.

That's basically the point I've been making. You don't hear people rallying against common law marriages (despite the name marriage being in the title, yet the occurrence is seular) or non-judeochristian ceremonies.

So, basically, it's not about religion. It's about whether or not your partner is the same gender as you are. Then it matters whether you use the term marriage or not. But then again I think we established that fact a dozen pages back. ;)

[blandstalker]

1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.

But he's a politician. And that's his stated belief because it has to be. Obama can't say he's for universal health care, either.

Would he like to be? No idea. Doesn't really matter, does it?


2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.

This is true for some people, maybe even most, but is not true about the people trying to get these laws and amendments passed. The evidence is pretty clear about this:

The Florida amendment, passed yesterday, says "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid." This covers everything that is like marriage that is not called marriage. So, not just the word there.

I'll remind you of Michigan, where the marriage ban did exactly the same thing. It removed marriage. And civil unions. And domestic partnerships. And all forms of legal recognition, past and future. Not just the word there, either.

Of course that was intentional.

Or Arkansas, yesterday. Now in Arkansas, you can't adopt if you're not married. And, of course, gay people can't get married. What a coincidence!


So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?

It's about the legal rights that go with the word, and probably will never be truly equal across the United States without the word, barring a complete (and therefore unlikely) overhaul of marriage law.

[mykevermin]

I think you are up against two big issues here, that you have to find a way around:

1- The vast majority believes that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Even the Obamasiah believes so.

Most all cultures (not all, but most) have forms of monogamous relationships, beginning as early as some of the first post-hunter/gatherer agrarian societies. To say that one group has dominion over the "usage rights" (as if life had its own "EULA") is folly. It's akin to saying that one group has control over the appropriation of gender roles. Those have similar consistencies from culture to culture - even those who did not come into contact with each other, even indirectly, for thousands of years.

I don't buy the "christians own marriage" concept. It's narcissistic and incorrect. They have "Christmas," too, don't they? Well, the origins of even that holiday aren't purely Biblical in origin - like Halloween, another Christian holy day. Hell, Jesus wasn't even born in December, let alone the 25th (though I know a handsome and smart CAG who is). So its revisionist history to act like marriage as an institution would have never happened if Christianity never did.

None of that even gets into the fact that marriage for love is an invention of the recent past (relatively recent compared to the entire history of mankind). As Strell points out, marriage was a way of passing down wealth and ownership, or acquiring wealth. We weren't marrying our high school crushes in the days that predated high schools. ;)

2- Almost all those same people have nothing against gay couples having all the legal rights a straight married couples have. THEY WANT them to have all the same rights. They just don't want it called marriage.

So what's the solution?
Is this issue about legal rights or is it about a word?

If you feel that compromise is necessary. I don't. Moreover, I'd like someone who is a biblical scholar to show me that the word "marriage" was a Christian invention. That the ancient texts used the word marriage, untranslated. If that can be proven, fine. Let them have their semantic win. But if that can't be proven, then I refuse to permit them dominion over a word they have no dominion over. Moreover, I still feel this is a fallacious argument overall. If people agree with the principle of same-sex marriages, then they shouldn't be so selfish so as to align with bigots and hatemongers, hoping that they'll be able to vote on a "civil union" ballot issue in the future. That's not the proper technique.

I have no time for toying with the civil rights of American citizens for the purpose of a slight semantic shift. I have more respect for individual liberties than that.

[Hex]

I have more respect for individual liberties than that.

Bullshit. You're a commie.

AND you have a liberal bias.

Bmulls told me so. :oops:

Everyone knows you're a champion of freedom and liberty when you let capitalisms run rampant!

[mykevermin]

individual liberties has a liberal bias.

Proposition 8 told me so.

[Smallville123]

Sadly it passed and now they are taking away basic rights to gay people. We can elect a black man as president, but because its not what you believe marriage should be voters took away the benefits of people? The only reason it passes is because they lied and said it would be taught in schools(which is absolute bullshit) and scarred parents into voting yes. This is just as bad as telling people blacks cant marry whites and such. The same shit just with a new mask. I myself am not gay. Im trying to understand the backwards minds of some people though but there is no understanding intolerance.

[Hex]

Proposition 8 has a liberal bias.

Oh jesus. I need to get off of CAG.. except radiology is boring as a motherfucker.

[slickkill77]

Unfortuantly this dumba$$ law passed everywhere

[ToadallyAwesome]

I am late to the discussion but I really don't get why so much time and money is wasted on this. I may be missing something completely but no matter how I look at it I cannot see how this is different from banning race/interracial/favorite food preference marriages. It not like the previous law forced priests/whatever to do the marriage.

I don't care if other states already have this in place. This reaks of equal but separate and it seems the majority still have the mindset from 50 years ago.


On the other side of things, I am wondering why homosexuals would want... say marriage in a religion that says you cannot be gay. By definition, you cannot be that religion and gay unless you are aiming to go to that religion's hell. Belief in god/certain ideals does not have to be tied to any specific religion.

I am going to go out on a limb and say everyone is just confused. I wonder how this would go over in MA.

[JJSP]

Before the election some California county clerks announced that because it usually takes a month for election results to be certified as final, they did not plan to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they were directed by the state health department, which oversees marriage records.[141] However, many counties, including Los Angeles, Yolo, Kern, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Tuolumne, stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on November 5, 2008, the day after the election. [142][143][144][145]

On the day after the election, the results remain uncertified, and with 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes.[146] However, as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted.[147] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued an e-mail about 20 hours after the polls closed which stated, "we will not issue the ultimate call on this election until we have more information (24-48 hours)."[148]

Three lawsuits were filed the day after the election, challenging the validity of Proposition 8, on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature. Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the county of Santa Clara.[20][31] Claims made on similar grounds with respect to other constitutional changes have in some cases taken years to be adjudicated, and all have failed.[20]
Another pending issue is whether approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already in effect would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change, or whether they would be preserved. The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he would defend the measure against challenges, but also took the position that existing same-sex marriages were unaffected.
It's from Wikipedia, but it pretty much explains what's going on in CA right now.

[Hex]

Clusterfuck. Thanks, BigoT. :)

So when will we know about these fucking THREE MILLION other votes?!

[JJSP]

Clusterfuck. Thanks, BigoT. :)

So when will we know about these fucking THREE MILLION other votes?!
Who knows. Possibly in the next few days.

Just a little something for BigT about his buddy Gavin Newsom. For as much shit as the guy gets as Mayor of San Francisco and for legalizing and supporting gay rights, Mayor Newsom is a born, baptized, raised, and practicing Catholic.

[mykevermin]

California Attorney General Jerry Brown

Wait. Like "I am Governor Gerry Brown/I always smile and never frown/soon I'll be your Pres-uh-DENT/" Jerry Brown? Like the Governor from 1980?

[JJSP]

Wait. Like "I am Governor Gerry Brown/I always smile and never frown/soon I'll be your Pres-uh-DENT/" Jerry Brown? Like the Governor from 1980?
Yessir.

[BigT]

The day after the election California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he would defend the measure against challengesOh great, we have Former "Governor Moonbeam" on our side... I'm sure he'll do a great job protecting Prop 8 :roll:


Oh and that thing about Gavin Newsom. As a fellow Catholic, I would like to congratulate him on being the MVP and most influential Catholic in the Yes on 8 campaign. Without his obnoxious sound bite and without him marrying a gay couple in front of 1st graders, I seriously believe that Prop 8 would have easily been defeated. Maybe he's working undercover for our Pope after all! :applause:

[The Crotch]

Holy fucking shit, myke, I didn't see that.

MELLOW OUT OR YOU WILL PAY!

[HumanSnatcher]

Wait. Like "I am Governor Gerry Brown/I always smile and never frown/soon I'll be your Pres-uh-DENT/" Jerry Brown? Like the Governor from 1980?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quLqEu4mUOU


...sorry had to do it...Dead Kennedys rule!

[The Crotch]

Do not apologize, HS.

[Hex]

:rofl:s all around.

[MSI Magus]

Sadly it passed and now they are taking away basic rights to gay people. We can elect a black man as president, but because its not what you believe marriage should be voters took away the benefits of people? The only reason it passes is because they lied and said it would be taught in schools(which is absolute bullshit) and scarred parents into voting yes. This is just as bad as telling people blacks cant marry whites and such. The same shit just with a new mask. I myself am not gay. Im trying to understand the backwards minds of some people though but there is no understanding intolerance.

I said the same thing to my fiancee yesterday. It is fitting that the same night obama became President gays had their rights stripped from them. It shows that while America has come far we are not the nation we like to think we are yet.

[nathansu]

Holy fucking shit, myke, I didn't see that.

MELLOW OUT OR YOU WILL PAY!

This is completely off topic, but DK fucking rule.

I saw Jello with the Melvins a few years back and it was fucking insane.

[The Crotch]

I'd kill to see Jello with DOA some time.

Wall Street or Crack Dealer Avenue - only one road leads to this neighbourhood! Little kids wanna sell drugs when they grow up!

[Hex]

To put the religious chicanery in perspective, I got a comment from a friend on Facebook this morning, who's Christian friend said thus:

""Depriving two people who truly love each other of the right to engage in the sacrament and covenant of marriage before the eyes of the Lord their God, simply because they have the same sexual organs, is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG AND AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT GOD STANDS FOR.
Forbidding people to engage in this amazing holy union, to love this person and no other, is anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-love, and just plain evil."

:|

Knowing that there are Christians out there that aren't like nintendokid or spmahn gives me hope that the world will be okay.

[The Crotch]

Holy shit.

PROPOSITION 8 IS THE ANTICHRIST!

[Hex]

I could have told you that.

[nathansu]

To put the religious chicanery in perspective, I got a comment from a friend on Facebook this morning, who's Christian friend said thus:

""Depriving two people who truly love each other of the right to engage in the sacrament and covenant of marriage before the eyes of the Lord their God, simply because they have the same sexual organs, is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG AND AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT GOD STANDS FOR.
Forbidding people to engage in this amazing holy union, to love this person and no other, is anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-love, and just plain evil."

:|

Knowing that there are Christians out there that aren't like nintendokid or spmahn gives me hope that the world will be okay.

This.

Some people actually understand the bible. Some people have read certain excerpts, and are mostly ignorant about the books send.

Besides that, why are Christians getting uppity about Old Testament material? Jesus' whole point was that "shit guys - we've been doing it wrong up till this point, ignore all that other shit".

Meh, facts distorting the truth again I guess.

[depascal22]

Jesus also said that churches and clergy aren't needed to receive God's Word but it's not like Christians are following that either.

Some of these megachurches are expensive enough to feed a city for a month but hey, don't ask no questions.

[Hex]

The same exfriend who was okay with telling me he's okay with designating me a second-class citizen also said he liked his church because it "has a starbucks, projection TVs and a band".

Big-church evangelists make me laugh, especially the ones with coffee shops. As I recall, their boi Jeebus originally threw the merchants out of the church. Oopsies. :oops:

[nathansu]

sThe same exfriend who was okay with telling me he's okay with designating me a second-class citizen also said he liked his church because it "has a starbucks, projection TVs and a band".

Big-church evangelists make me laugh, especially the ones with coffee shops. As I recall, their boi Jeebus originally threw the merchants out of the church. Oopsies. :oops:

Here's what I like to tell uninformed extremists : "Every time you mischaracterize Jesus' message, he takes one in the butt".

[Strell]

Besides that, why are Christians getting uppity about Old Testament material? Jesus' whole point was that "shit guys - we've been doing it wrong up till this point, ignore all that other shit".


A few comments on this, again filed under the "don't kill the messenger" header.

1) The NT supercedes the OT to an extent, and yes, technically it should be considered a total replacement, but most people don't think that. Yeah you can joke about how God changes immensely in the NT and becomes more like Buddy Christ and so on, but the point is that most religious persons consider the entire book as a unified structure. This is why you get the "you can't pick and choose what you want to follow" mantra, which is why most would have problems with, say, gay churchgoers, since "How could they not know they are sinning in the House of Our Most Holy Father?"

2) The OT - I believe Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy...I think just Leviticus but I'm trying to cover all the bases here - is where you find a lot of the really bizarre laws that God said would send a person to hell. This includes all those wacky things when people say "Technically, we can't even go to the bathroom." And yes, that's where you'll find a bevy of sexual deviances listed as sins, including homosexuality. I do want to point out, though, that the NT does contain a few passages on the subject of homosexuality, but I couldn't tell you where they are found. I really want to say it was 1st Corinthians, but I can't prove that and I'm not in any mood to look it up. This was a letter written by Paul, who - as we all know - actually suggests at some point that no one should marry, since he thought that would impede one's Christian path. Oddly enough right that he does mention that a wife could help bring one closer to Christ, but again, some of this stuff was personal opinion.

The whole point is that homosexuality is mentioned in the NT, but it's from the words of another mortal man. I don't think Jesus or God actually comments about it in the NT. But it is there - clearly not as expounded upon with quite the intensity of the OT.

3) As Lewis Black famously says, the OT was written by his people, who are the Jews. So if you want clarification on that, you should go ask them. I know he's a comedian and all but he's pretty strong on this point, and it might be worth it to track down a rabbi and ask them all about such things.

4) @Hex/depascal: Megachurches make me want to puke. There's at least two bigguns 'round here, and I simply can't imagine how much cash was involved.

[Hex]

http://thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg

Republican Jeebus is the only true jeebus.

[nathansu]

The whole point is that homosexuality is mentioned in the NT, but it's from the words of another man. I don't think Jesus or God actually comments about it in the NT.

Yeah, that was basically my point.

It's funny to ask a Christian (who is opposed to all things homosexual) to point out where Jesus comments on the issue of homosexuality.

[Strell]

http://thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg

Republican Jeebus is the only true jeebus.

Hmmmm.

Won't really raise any objections there, but I will say that having a lot of money isn't a sin - it's more a call to not idolizing it, and then having it replace any kind of spirituality in one's life.

This is one of the most bastardized ideas out of Christianity, both by believers and those against it.

Still doesn't make me like megachurches though. Those monstrosities are like some kind of weird idolatry in and of themselves if I really think about it hard enough.

Yeah, that was basically my point.

It's funny to ask a Christian (who is opposed to all things homosexual) to point out where Jesus comments on the issue of homosexuality.

Technically they'd argue about 1) the sanctity of the Bible as a whole, and 2) that Jesus' prophets were essentially mouthpieces for him, and thus their interpretations are "mostly" words from Jesus himself.

But again, that doesn't make me feel better about anything either way.

Let's make it really easy - most Christians want sex to be defined as nothing more than something used for procreation. And that's nonsense because even the Bible says otherwise. But I know that this misguided ideal is easily the most widely accepted by the religious community.

[depascal22]

Jesus would've been just as happy for people to set up benches in a circle. That way, normal people can share stories and give each other moral support. No pastor, priest, deacon, padre, or bishop in between to tell us what the Word is. We all have the book, why do we need a translator? He set everything up and didn't really use double or hidden meaning with His sermons. Treat everyone fairly and take care of the meek. It's pretty simple.

[Strell]

Jesus would've been just as happy for people to set up benches in a circle. That way, normal people can share stories and give each other moral support. No pastor, priest, deacon, padre, or bishop in between to tell us what the Word is. We all have the book, why do we need a translator? He set everything up and didn't really use double or hidden meaning with His sermons. Treat everyone fairly and take care of the meek. It's pretty simple.

Hoo boy, you aint Catholic, or were at some point, eh?

[depascal22]

Former Catholic.

[Strell]

Former Catholic.

Heh. As I gathered.

[lilboo]

<-- former Catholic also.

[Strell]

<-- former Catholic also.

Choir boy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Einzell/300smiley.png

[lilboo]

Alter Boy 8-)

[Hex]

That explains everything.

What was it like to touch the Rod o' God? :o

[lilboo]

:rofl:
Nah, even I'm not gay enough to be an alter boy.
My friend, who I first started to fool around with 8-), was an alter boy and in choir.

He recently got engaged.
To a female. :rofl: :rofl:

Sanctity of marriage my ball hair. :wall:

[Hex]

My first m/m experience is engaged to a chick too. :lol:

A mormon girl. They live in Salt Lake.

I can only imagine how that fun we had weighs in on that mormon head of his. :rofl:

[BlueLobstah]

I'm going to take a step out here in the open.

I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act. The main ideology of "man and woman" comes from Genesis 2. Paul also repeats the same ideals several times in the NT. I can not follow the bible and state otherwise as it would be going against my very beliefs. However, it is not my place to call it out except it be done within the confines of the Church or against another Christian. The NT is pretty clear on this.

How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.

But you know what? I can still get along and be friends with a person even if I might disagree, and that is what I think is the most important thing.

[Hex]

I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act.

I'm going to be a tit and focus on this. What exactly is "the act"? The act of copulating with someone of the same gender?

'Cause if so, that's not what being non-hetero is about, it's just a fun perk.

[nathansu]

How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.

There are sane people who are religious, unfortunately the ones who are not ruin it for the rest.

Cheers to Blue for being a sane Christian.

[nathansu]

I'm going to take a step out here in the open.

I'll be honest, as a Christian I don't approve of the act. The main ideology of "man and woman" comes from Genesis 2. Paul also repeats the same ideals several times in the NT. I can not follow the bible and state otherwise as it would be going against my very beliefs. However, it is not my place to call it out except it be done within the confines of the Church or against another Christian. The NT is pretty clear on this.

How the government mandates things is another issue. My view on the government is their role it to serve and protect, not dictate how we are to live our lives. The same freedom that allows us as Christians to do our thing freely allows those who practice homosexuality to do their thing freely, even though I may not agree with it. But I'm pretty sure many of you probably don't agree with what I believe so I think we're even in that situation.

But you know what? I can still get along and be friends with a person even if I might disagree, and that is what I think is the most important thing.

I'd also like to mention that I do think that anyone who believes in a God described in the Old/New testament should be locked up in an insane asylum.

Does that permit me to try to pass laws against your beliefs and actions based upon your beliefs? Of course not!

[GuilewasNK]

Sanctity of marriage my ball hair. :wall:


I can't remember who it was, but someone said, "If marriage is so sacred, why allow divorce?"

Also, Chris Rock said marriage isn't sacred in a country with "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "The Bachelor". Then he said even Michael Jackson got married, how sacred is that shit? :lol:

All kidding aside, anyone trying to used sanctity of marriage as an argument against gay marriage is silly.

[RAMSTORIA]

lets keep it the thread on the issue. not your guys first experience. thats what the blogs are for ;)

also, nathansu, the edit button is your friend.

[nathansu]

lets keep it the thread on the issue. not your guys first experience. thats what the blogs are for ;)

also, nathansu, the edit button is your friend.

Says the guy with no shift button XD?

Back to the topic...

[Hex]

This is the sanctity of heterosexual marriage: http://www.locationweddings.net/lasvegasdrivethruwedding.html

[depascal22]

There really isn't anything left. Prop 8 passed.

Maybe you guys should just call it a Jim Crow law or something like that. Attach the most negative thing you possibly can to it. Go all Karl Rove on this shit and maybe people will come to realize it's nothing but unconstitutional discrimination.

[lilboo]

lets keep it the thread on the issue. not your guys first experience. thats what the blogs are for ;)

also, nathansu, the edit button is your friend.

It was related to the topic. Idiots who believe marriage is THAT sacred and one of the reasonings behind the ban is to protect the sanctity of marriage, when of course, there really is no sanctity.

My friend is obviously gay.
He forces himself to live the "straight life", but lies to himself. Of course, lying to his GF who is also going to be his wife.

What kind of marriage is THAT?

And for the record, it wasn't like a one time thing where we fooled around. 1 time thing = experiment. 3 years, and lots of it? = sexual relationship.

[GuilewasNK]

And for the record, it wasn't like a one time thing where we fooled around. 1 time thing = experiment. 3 years, and lots of it? = sexual relationship.

I would agree with that.

Personally, I think everyone is at least bi-curious on a superficial level. How else could you explain masturbation?

[Kirin Lemon]

:rofl:
Nah, even I'm not gay enough to be an alter boy.
My friend, who I first started to fool around with 8-), was an alter boy and in choir.

He recently got engaged.
To a female. :rofl: :rofl:

Sanctity of marriage my ball hair. :wall:

My first m/m experience is engaged to a chick too. :lol:

A mormon girl. They live in Salt Lake.

I can only imagine how that fun we had weighs in on that mormon head of his. :rofl:

I can top both of you (pun intended)! My first boyfriend recently got married (the man-and-woman kind), and I was best man at the wedding.

[nathansu]

There really isn't anything left. Prop 8 passed.

Maybe you guys should just call it a Jim Crow law or something like that. Attach the most negative thing you possibly can to it. Go all Karl Rove on this shit and maybe people will come to realize it's nothing but unconstitutional discrimination.

It passed, but it's currently not being enforced due to the lawsuits.

[Hex]

I can top both of you (pun intended)!

You're such a tease. :cry:

[lilboo]

...:-s?

[nathansu]

When my partner Dominick (see avatar) gets his sex change next year, this whole Prop 8 fiasco won't be such a big deal.

That's some top notch trolling.

All : Don't feed the troll.

[Chuplayer]

There really isn't anything left. Prop 8 passed.

fuck There really needs to be some sort of civil disobedience among gay people now. Like, the gay equivalent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Prop 8 is yet another "separate but equal" and we all know how that turned out last time.

*is a straight male*

[mykevermin]

Fill up all the LDS churches on Sunday mornings. Show up early, fill the pews, quietly and respectfully attend their services.

Stay and eat their food afterwards.

But quietly and respectfully.

Seriously.

[Ikohn4ever]

When my partner Dominick (see avatar) gets his sex change next year, this whole Prop 8 fiasco won't be such a big deal.


did u join CAG just to post in the VS. threads? Seems pretty pathetic to me. But with a clever name that is fuCk Barack oh I mean BuckFarack i shouldnt be expecting much

[homeland]

How dare you people make fun of my lifestyle choices!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!
I thought this was a Gay Rights forum.

I did a google search for: "Ass" "Proposition 8" "over 50 page thread" and found this place. I sincerely thought I could call this place my new home, but it looks like haven't been treated very nicely.


lilboo you are not sir.

[Hex]

Fill up all the LDS churches on Sunday mornings. Show up early, fill the pews, quietly and respectfully attend their services.

Stay and eat their food afterwards.

But quietly and respectfully.

Seriously.

Their heads will explode.

I wonder if they would throw people out.. if they do throw someone out for just going, quietly and respectfully, it'd reflect even more negatively on the mormon church.

[mykevermin]

Their heads will explode.

I wonder if they would throw people out.. if they do throw someone out for just going, quietly and respectfully, it'd reflect even more negatively on the mormon church.

Bingo. Do it Rosa Parks style.

Fill up their pews. Dress nice. Be quiet (this means leave the ball gag home, HumanSnatcher). Don't give them a reason to use force.

Let them know that you'll get out of their house when they get out of yours.

[Hex]

Myke/Strell 2012.

I wonder if anyone would do something like that. I'd love to see what happens.

[mykevermin]

Depends. How bad do the Californians want it?

In this day and age, people are content with supplanting good ol' protest with blogs, paypal donations, and commenting on "Free Republic" or "Daily Kos."

That ain't gonna cut it. How bad do the Californians want it?

[HumanSnatcher]

Bingo. Do it Rosa Parks style.

Fill up their pews. Dress nice. Be quiet (this means leave the ball gag home, HumanSnatcher). Don't give them a reason to use force.

Let them know that you'll get out of their house when they get out of yours.

Actually the ball gag is more for my partner ;-)

[Hex]

If I lived in California, I'd do it if someone organized it. I've tried organizing things, and that's just not my strong point. :lol:

[The Crotch]

If I lived in California, I think I would try to organize it.

[pacifickarma]

PS - Lesbians are awesome, just thought I'd float that out there.

Actually, no they're not... It seems like a cool idea at first, but then you realize that they want nothing to do with you, and it's just two more chicks you won't be able to get with. I'm totally supportive of gay men, but down on lesbians. (Thumbs up to two men out of the dating pool, thumbs down to two women out!) Seriously, though... I voted NO on 8 and was very upset to see it pass.

[JJSP]

There are constant gatherings in LA in protest of Prop 8. They've shut down several main streets in downtown LA (yesterday at rush hour) - nothing violent or outrageous, just some good ol' fashioned civil disobediance and protesting.

[BigT]

There are constant gatherings in LA in protest of Prop 8. They've shut down several main streets in downtown LA (yesterday at rush hour) - nothing violent or outrageous, just some good ol' fashioned civil disobediance and protesting.

Why didn't they organize this way before the election?

Now it's just pissing off people during rush hour!

[RAMSTORIA]

Why didn't they organize this way before the election?



its true.

but its just part of the gay conspiracy. they wanted to lose, so they could take it to the us supreme court so it becomes legal for the whole nation. duh. quit throwing such a fuss.

[nathansu]

fuck There really needs to be some sort of civil disobedience among gay people now. Like, the gay equivalent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. Prop 8 is yet another "separate but equal" and we all know how that turned out last time.

*is a straight male*

Mini-riots have broken out in West LA, Santa Monica, Hollywood areas. Protests are going on EVERYWHERE.

[nathansu]

Why didn't they organize this way before the election?

Now it's just pissing off people during rush hour!

Paraphrasing an article I read when Prop 8 was approved for the ballot, one of the judges said he approved it "with confidence it's legality would be challenged if it passed".

Even the people who legally placed it on the ballot knew there would be big trouble if it passed. Get over it.

[depascal22]

What a waste of money then. Let's put a propisition up that will divide the state and have no chance of being upheld in the courts. Political theater at it's worst.

[nathansu]

What a waste of money then. Let's put a propisition up that will divide the state and have no chance of being upheld in the courts. Political theater at it's worst.

OR, the people who decided it was a legal amendment knew it really wasn't and simply wanted the chance to raise the issue on the national stage. That's probably more likely.

Again, if this sees the supreme court I'm going to have to shake the hand of the people behind Yes on Prop 8.

[Hex]

Mini-riots have broken out in West LA, Santa Monica, Hollywood areas. Protests are going on EVERYWHERE.

I'm so proud of my California queers right now. <3

[MSI Magus]

What a waste of money then. Let's put a propisition up that will divide the state and have no chance of being upheld in the courts. Political theater at it's worst.

I am not happy with the lose of Gay rights.....however it is pleasing to watch Christians/Mormons squander millions and millions of dollars. And hey it provided some jobs for awhile!

[lilboo]

Nationwide Gay Marriage is soon. This is exciting 8-)

[GuilewasNK]

To the person named BuckFarack, if they are still a member...

That name is as absurd as the BuckFush things I have seen online. If you are going to come into a grown folks discussion do it with intelligence so that people might actually listen to you, and that is regardless of the subject matter or where you stand on it.

To the matter at hand, I hope the nothing turns too violent and that things change for the gay community in their favor.

[nathansu]

To the person named BuckFarack, if they are still a member...

That name is as absurd as the BuckFush things I have seen online. If you are going to come into a grown folks discussion do it with intelligence so that people might actually listen to you, and that is regardless of the subject matter or where you stand on it.

To the matter at hand, I hope the nothing turns too violent and that things change for the gay community in their favor.

He's clearly just trolling, ignore him.

[von551]

RELIGION has no place in making laws.
In other words: Fuck God

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do. that's what's happening here. seperation of church and state, right? God's will always prevails. You will see your day when you can get married though. It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come.

Why is it every story I hear about gays attacking members of the church seems very hypocritical to how you want to be treated? So aggressive, towards the elderly even, beating Yes on 8 supporters, stomping on crosses at Yes on 8 events, etc. Reminds me of KKK actions, how is that proving we should allow this group of people to get more "rights"?

[The Crotch]

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do.Sigh. Okay, not gonna get into too much here, but where exactly is the state telling the church what it can or can't do? NOWHERE! Okay, maybe it is somewhere, I ain't a fucking legal scholar, but on this particular issue, it sure as hell ain't

God's will always prevails.Quoting Sarah Palin is a poor way to win an argument.

[SpazX]

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do.

The law has no right to tell the church who it can and can't deny legal rights to?

You will see your day when you can get married though. It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come.

Isn't it hypocritical to try to stop the second coming?

[The Crotch]

Isn't it hypocritical to try to stop the second coming?
Something tells me he wanted to play as the Covenant in Halo 3...

[gareman]

Whoa...gay riots nice!

That really is so awesome its true.

I bet there is so many underhand throwing of bricks threw windows. And instead "damn the man", they are yelling "take that mr. man!!"

[Hex]

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do. that's what's happening here.

Wait, so the church has no grounds in law? Y'all can just go around killing people if you so choose?

:rofl:

I knew some of you were high and mighty, but shit, man.

It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come.

:rofl::rofl:

[MSI Magus]

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do. that's what's happening here. seperation of church and state, right? God's will always prevails. You will see your day when you can get married though. It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come.

Why is it every story I hear about gays attacking members of the church seems very hypocritical to how you want to be treated? So aggressive, towards the elderly even, beating Yes on 8 supporters, stomping on crosses at Yes on 8 events, etc. Reminds me of KKK actions, how is that proving we should allow this group of people to get more "rights"?

/yawns

We have heard the same for years and years from Christians. Anything you guys dont like you claim to be against Gods will while ignoring the dozens of other things in the bible that you dislike. Then you claim by not getting your way the world is going to end so you don't care if you don't get your way anyways. People did it with young kids listening to rock music, interracial marriage and all sorts of other crap. Realistically if the world doesn't implode on itself and its own stupidity over wars that you religious people start what will happen is we will continue to become more and more modern with religion continuing to play a smaller and smaller role. The world will become more peaceful, more interconnected and we will all have the right to do as we please as long as we dont hurt others. People like you will go from the majority to the minority in the next 50 years and within the next 100 you will hardly exist. The bible will have been right then of atleast 1 thing. We will be free of Christian ignorance.

And as I have said before. Even if there is a God and he ended the world. It kinda would just prove our points. That your God is a jealous petty God that doesnt deserve to be worshiped. I mean Jesus tap dancing Christ how can you call a God that creates people to have strong sexual desires towards the same sex but then punishes them for what he gave them a just or righteous God. He isn't he is a child that even many of us humans have surpassed.

[Strell]

The bible will have been right then of atleast 1 thing. We will be free of Christian ignorance.

You need to watch more South Park.

In essence, ignorance will always exist. It's a part of mankind. Pretending that religion is the only source is just naive.


That your God is a jealous petty God that doesnt deserve to be worshiped.

You know I've kept quiet on the religious premises for the most part in this forum, but I gotta say that you have a completely twisted and ignorant understanding of religion, as it rises to little more than "I hates religion, I hates religious nutjobs, yar yar yar and a bottle and rum." I'm not going to debate a lot of the things you've said, but your understanding of it is at least as incorrect as you so like to call out their understanding of your position.

Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point - you need to do some damn research on the matter before you spout off all this rhetoric.

[MSI Magus]

You need to watch more South Park.

In essence, ignorance will always exist. It's a part of mankind. Pretending that religion is the only source is just naive.



You know I've kept quiet on the religious premises for the most part in this forum, but I gotta say that you have a completely twisted and ignorant understanding of religion, as it rises to little more than "I hates religion, I hates religious nutjobs, yar yar yar and a bottle and rum." I'm not going to debate a lot of the things you've said, but your understanding of it is at least as incorrect as you so like to call out their understanding of your position.

Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point - you need to do some damn research on the matter before you spout off all this rhetoric.

1. Yes Ignorance will always exist, I am not saying it is just coming from Christian things. 99% of people are ignorant and refuse to see the need for change in their life. However.....I do feel Christians like to be ignorant much more often.

2. I could use more education on the subject true. However I grew up going to church with my parents in my early years, went to a Baptist school for 2 years and considered myself Christian for awhile there. I thought about becoming a minister of the Unitarian Universalism religion for a little while and even took classes on religion(not to mention my intial major in school was going to be philosophy). I know plenty on the subject.

There are religions like Buddhism which as far as I can see have not created wars and do not claim to be the be all end all of religions. I have also never meant a believer of Buddhism or certain others like Hindus which are violent or largely ignorant to their own beliefs. Christians, Muslims etc just are on a whole different level, they are either people that are very violent and act like they are in some righteous war with the world that they will ultimately loose....but God will descend and destroy us all so whats it matter. Or they are cherry picking hypocrites who pick and choose the bible they wish to believe in. Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so.....but O forget the verse in the bible that talks about tithing its outdated! And its wrong for a man to have 3 wives.....but forget the verse that talks about beating your wife its outdated!

I would love to educate myself more on the subject. I always love reading good books on religion and I would love to go back and take some more classes(sometimes I even still think about the UU Pastor thing but decide I couldnt be objective enough to teach Christian values when the time came)but sorry strell.....I am not 1/10th as bad as most religious nuts(and thats what they are).

[Strell]

I do feel Christians like to be ignorant much more often.

That's anecdotal, and further, can't be proven. You can find idiots everywhere. I know what you are saying, which is a spin on "they just like to have faith and rely on it and not ask questions and IF anything contradictory shows up they say 'that's how God wanted it' or 'my faith says otherwise,'" so I get it.


There are religions like Buddhism which as far as I can see have not created wars and do not claim to be the be all end all of religions. I have also never meant a believer of Buddhism or certain others like Hindus which are violent or largely ignorant to their own beliefs.

Fair enough, since I don't have any information on this either, but I'm willing to bet there's some dirt somewhere. I can't prove this either way and it's based on my poor outlook on humanity in general, so I guess that's bias.


Christians, Muslims etc just are on a whole different level, they are either people that are very violent and act like they are in some righteous war with the world that they will ultimately loose


I'm going to stop you there because that's a huge comment to make that you can't back up, except for wild accusations of "that's what goes on in the Middle East, and all those people who shoot up malls because God told them to do so." You'll have a little more credit talking about the Crusades, since that's the go-to for this idea, but even then you're making a claim about billions of people, the large percentage of which do not commit a lot of murder and war.

Saying all of everyone in those groups is "very violent" is just incorrect.


....but God will descend and destroy us all so whats it matter. Or they are cherry picking hypocrites who pick and choose the bible they wish to believe in. Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so.....but O forget the verse in the bible that talks about tithing its outdated! And its wrong for a man to have 3 wives.....but forget the verse that talks about beating your wife its outdated!

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd like proof on these. By which I want the actual verses and then practiced members of the church telling you that yes, indeed, we can beat our wives, oh glorious day!

Tithing is something suggested, but it's not a sin to not tithe. So that's out of the running. That's dangerously close to, say, Catholic thought, where they say things like "If you miss Sunday's sermon, yer goin' to Hayull unless you confess with a priest before you die." This is one of the reasons a lot of people have problems with Catholicism, and even turn away from it, because there's just so much that will land your ass in a lake of fire if you don't walk the tightrope with precision accuracy.


I am not 1/10th as bad as most religious nuts(and thats what they are).

I'm not saying you are, but I'm saying this overwhelming global dismissal of all of them and a complete refusal to learn anything more IS ignorance, and it's almost identical to the sort of thing you are so mad about.

Hell, I'm not saying to go out and learn exactly. I'm saying that you shouldn't talk about things you clearly don't know anything about, especially when there's that staunch refusal to get anything more on the subject.

A while ago you said "religion has no place in society." Depending on how I want to think about that, you may or may not have a point. It says in the Bible to not let your left hand know what your right hand does, as well as to practice in your own home instead of trying to acquire glory from men by being outwardly expressive and boisterous about your religious doings. I.e., don't donate to a charity and then run around with the receipt pinned to your forehead, forcing everyone to ask about it just so you can talk about how great a person you are. So in that sense, yes, it has no place "in" society.

But to dismiss it entirely is the problem I'm getting at. To the religious, it HAS a place in society, because it helps them through their everyday lives. And that's a total lifestyle thing that those outside-looking-in can't comprehend. And it's FINE that you can't comprehend it, but you have to recognize that you can't. It's an impossible task. And thus you either learn more on the subject or you don't. That's the deal there.

A religious person has their wife die, and religion helps them get through it (unless you are Mark Twain). A religious person hears about an atheist's mom dying, and they have no clue how that person copes. It's NOT an adversarial thing - it's simply how they handle those situations, and in both cases, neither can understand how the other does it.

[MSI Magus]

I'm going to stop you there because that's a huge comment to make that you can't back up, except for wild accusations of "that's what goes on in the Middle East, and all those people who shoot up malls because God told them to do so." You'll have a little more credit talking about the Crusades, since that's the go-to for this idea, but even then you're making a claim about billions of people, the large percentage of which do not commit a lot of murder and war.

Saying all of everyone in those groups is "very violent" is just incorrect.

Yes there are things like Muslims blowing themselves up. But then you can look as you said to the crusades, you can look to the Japanese during the world war and how they thought their emperor was God. You can look to the Christians and the lions, you can look to people who bomb abortion clinics or hell just put their kids in front of abortion clinics with horrid signs. You can look to the Irish Catholic/Protestant wars. Hell you can even just look to this board where we see the reason why I say Christians in general not just a handful. Because these wars of the past and stuff like what I have named in some cases were a hand full of stupid people or were in the past. However just at this board we have seen numerous Chrstians like von come in and say that they are essentially at war with us and when they loose the war their God is going to end the world and torture the non believers for eternity. Strell......when millions hold the belief that their god will send us to a lake of fire for all eternity just for not believing.....how can you not say that religion is violent.

You in the other quote ask for proof.......again just look at the posts here. I have had no less then 3 people on this damn board tell me now that I will burn or that God will destroy us all. Von did it just a few posts above. Christ visit any baptist church....its 90% of what they talk about.

Finally you say that its not your saying im ignorant.....but you just then follow it up saying dont talk about stuff I know nothing about. Again I have read plenty, was Chrsitian myself, went to alot of church including a school were I had to attend church 3 times a week etc etc. Where as you yourself seem to be missing that people in this topic are saying the stuff you say I am ignorant for claiming they say. Look around man...as I have said just look through this topic.

Sorry if my grammar was worse then even usual, was typing this extreamly fast since my fiancee just showed up sick from work and is sitting and staring over my shoulder.....very uncomfortable and ANNOYING!

[FloodsAreUponUS]

God's will always prevails.


This is how you lose an argument, and that has to be a joke post.

[Strell]

But then you can look as you said to the crusades, you can look to the Japanese during the world war and how they thought their emperor was God.

Who aren't Christians or Muslims. In fact, last I checked, the Japanese were largely polytheistic.

Further, it's shown that in both sides of war, usually each side thinks they are divinely led. The American Civil War is a good example.

Make up your mind if you're railing against them or religious people in general.


You can look to the Christians and the lions,


All I know about Christians and lions is that the former was fed to the latter.


you can look to people who bomb abortion clinics or hell just put their kids in front of abortion clinics with horrid signs.

You're veering waaaaaaaay off course by including all the crazy people who represent 0.0000000001% of any group.


You can look to the Irish Catholic/Protestant wars.

I don't know what this is - I'd have to research.


Hell you can even just look to this board where we see the reason why I say Christians in general not just a handful.

First off, there's little to no outwardly expressed Christians 'round here.

Second, the 'net at large is completely inhospitable to Christians, as this board does a good job upholding. So to act like there's some conspiracy out there where they are running around on the 'net trying to ruin it is laughable. They aren't, they aren't welcome around here. You can look to pretty much any forum in the world and you'll find that they aren't having a good time being accepted. And if you ever run across a Christian board, I'm sure it's being bombarded with flames and DoS attacks pretty regularly, especially if someone decides they want to ignite an anti-holy war on 'em.

Third, you are still generalizing. You claim that you aren't because you've got some outspoken members talking out against you. But this goes hand in hand with the whole inability-to-comprehend thing, as well as the idea that you're woefully unprepared to deal with them. This falls into the realm of anecdotal evidence - if I brought some members in here who aren't as mean-spirited as their fellow Christians, do I offset them and thus cancel everything out?


Because these wars of the past and stuff like what I have named in some cases were a hand full of stupid people or were in the past.

So? There's plenty of wars started by not religious means. World Wars, for example. Throwing up a few examples only marginally helps your side since there's still a huge contingent of bloodshed that are started out of imperialism, hatred, misunderstanding, border disputes, or just plain boredom.


However just at this board we have seen numerous Chrstians like von come in and say that they are essentially at war with us and when they loose the war their God is going to end the world and torture the non believers for eternity.

You don't help yourself when you readily confuse "lose" and "loose." Just a side note there.

This again shows ignorance. Christians don't think God is going to punish people for eternity - they think Satan will. Or, more accurately, that they'll go to Hell, which is a place of eternal damnation and suffering. But that's not God's doing. Again, you don't have to believe this, but you do have to understand you are saying incorrect things.

Most Christians also don't think they are at war with the world. They think the world is secular and is not their true calling/true conclusion/true home. Most of them are quite happy to live their lives quietly - have a job, go to church, pray, repeat. And really, most of them simply accept an idea that at some point in the future, their savior will indeed come down to finish an holy war started millenia ago - not start it. There's a huge difference in that subtly.

The big difference is that you either have faith in this idea or you don't. Christians choose to have faith in it and decide that they should live their lives according to it. You clearly don't so you don't have to. Christians tend to want to frame this as a "you are lost, why don't you come into the fold?" sort of thing, which pisses you off because it implies a sort of "you're an idiot and I'm not because my book tells me so."

But that's not the same as acting like they are violently trying to create war all the time. You're talking about the fringe crazies that have hijacked the popular conception in the last few years, and the isolated incidences that came out of the dark ages. I'm not saying that helps their image, but you're concentrating on a vastly tiny minority and holding it as an overgeneralized veneer.


Strell......when millions hold the belief that their god will send us to a lake of fire for all eternity just for not believing.....how can you not say that religion is violent.

Wait a minute. So on the one hand you say you don't believe in Hell/God/Satan/etc, but then you're afraid of it? That's playing both sides of the coin. You need to make up your mind.

Further, again, this is not a "God is sending you to Hell" thing. Christian belief says you make that choice yourself, since they believe we are born with evil natures that want to defy a holy path. You've got the instruction manual, and it's your choice to go by it or not. You don't? Then yes - next stop Hell after death.

Even further, this is all clearly an after-life thing. Post. Life. So all these examples you could bring up about violence here and now has absolutely zero to do with something that occurs after death.


You in the other quote ask for proof.......again just look at the posts here.

This is bullshit and you know it.


I have had no less then 3 people on this damn board tell me now that I will burn or that God will destroy us all. Von did it just a few posts above. Christ visit any baptist church....its 90% of what they talk about.

Then they should know they are sinning. Christians readily accept that the one true judge of all nature is God, and that humans judging others is a sin. I actually get annoyed when I hear people claiming that anyone is going to hell, or that anyone is going to heaven, because they have no say in the matter, and really have no grasp on the reasons for one conclusion or the other.

So really what you should do is just ignore it because you already don't believe in Hell, you already think all Christians are nuts, and because you could always tell them that men are not to judge other men, as this is sinful nature by definition.

And yet you choose to do none of those things and just argue for the sake of arguing.


Finally you say that its not your saying im ignorant.....but you just then follow it up saying dont talk about stuff I know nothing about.

Yes. I'm sorry but if you find fault between those two postulates then you need to look up a lot of things.


Again I have read plenty, was Chrsitian myself, went to alot of church including a school were I had to attend church 3 times a week etc etc. Where as you yourself seem to be missing that people in this topic are saying the stuff you say I am ignorant for claiming they say. Look around man...as I have said just look through this topic.

Sorry, but you are saying incredibly ignorant things, so you either don't remember anything from your early days or you've chosen to say incorrect things here.


Sorry if my grammar was worse then even usual, was typing this extreamly fast since my fiancee just showed up sick from work and is sitting and staring over my shoulder.....very uncomfortable and ANNOYING!

Heh.

[camoor]

you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do. that's what's happening here. seperation of church and state, right? God's will always prevails. You will see your day when you can get married though. It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come.

Hasn't the world already changed? I mean, this is what Nietzsche was saying 100 years ago. Death is probably hyperbole but the Christian God of the middle ages is weaker then any time other then before the Holy Roman Empire, the Christian right's new diety is Buddy Jesus with his troop of pro-life, anti-homosexual wrathful OT god warriors.

[MSI Magus]

Who aren't Christians or Muslims. In fact, last I checked, the Japanese were largely polytheistic.

Further, it's shown that in both sides of war, usually each side thinks they are divinely led. The American Civil War is a good example.

Make up your mind if you're railing against them or religious people in general.

My mind has always been made up. My annoyance is with organized religion in general, but my anger all goes towards organized religion that claim that they have some kind of answer that if you dont follow your not only wrong/flawed but going to suffer a horrible fate.

You're veering waaaaaaaay off course by including all the crazy people who represent 0.0000000001% of any group.

If this was all I named then you would have a point. But when you put them together with all the things I named like Crusades/Irish then you have far more then 1%. Forget about the fact that like 60% of America takes the bible from a literal or close to literal stand point which means most of the rest of the world is going to hell...... Again your arguing with parts of my argument vs looking at the argument as a whole.

[quote]
Second, the 'net at large is completely inhospitable to Christians, as this board does a good job upholding. So to act like there's some conspiracy out there where they are running around on the 'net trying to ruin it is laughable. They aren't, they aren't welcome around here.[/quote}

Strell not only are you picking parts of my argument apart vs looking at my argument as a whole with this you are now putting words in my mouth.......I dont claim any conspiracy theory. I just pointed out that we have had numerous jack asses like von come in here and proove my point by saying we are going to hell for not believing in what he does.

You really need to reread my posts and the others in this topic because your pretty off base with what you seem to think is being discussed/happening.

[mykevermin]

'the fuck is going on here?

[Strell]

My mind has always been made up. My annoyance is with organized religion in general, but my anger all goes towards organized religion that claim that they have some kind of answer that if you dont follow your not only wrong/flawed but going to suffer a horrible fate.

Then you're admitting you're not making up your damn mind, and are just popping in whatever fringe articles you can muster in order to make a point about something you can't even quantify into a single, solitary entity.


If this was all I named then you would have a point. But when you put them together with all the things I named like Crusades/Irish then you have far more then 1%.

Except I didn't say that - I said all these small isolated incidences aren't nearly the quantity you make them out to be.

Further, all the wars and whatnot I already said count, but that still doesn't make up a majority of billions of people over time.


Strell not only are you picking parts of my argument apart vs looking at my argument as a whole with this you are now putting words in my mouth

Bullshit. An argument is made up of postulates and premises. And if I can take apart those elements, I take down the structure as a whole. Weakest link situation.


.......I dont claim any conspiracy theory. I just pointed out that we have had numerous jack asses like von come in here and proove my point by saying we are going to hell for not believing in what he does.

And you're acting like a totally classless back at him and others. You do understand that means you're doing the EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ANNOYED ABOUT, right?


You really need to reread my posts and the others in this topic because your pretty off base with what you seem to think is being discussed/happening.

Now you're just throwing a pity party. Boo hoo.

[danito]

The government actually does have the right to tell the Church what to say; or what not to say, more specifically. Churches are exempted from taxation provided they stay out of partisan politics. I guess this isn't wholly relevant considering the direction this whole conversation/argument has steered, but I just thought I would bring it up. I respect religion, I just don't think it's fair or proper of a preacher to be getting involved in politics like they sometimes seem to do.

[von551]

Great Article:

Creators Syndicate – Before Election Day, national media handwringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The right was, in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by "insane rage." Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook with fear.
But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued; no nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis and self-autopsy.
In fact, in the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.
That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.
A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Out of fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.
Scott Eckern, the beleaguered artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. Rich Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.
Over the last two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website "JoeMyGod," are common across the left-wing blogosphere: "Burn their f—-ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."
Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting "Mormon scum." The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religion-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the "hate" at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper's car was keyed with the slogans "Gay sex is love" and "SEX." Another car's antenna and windshield wipers were broken.
In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, Calif., a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.
In San Francisco, Christians evangelizing in the Castro District needed police protection after the same-sex marriage mob got physical and hounded them off the streets. Enthusiastically shooting themselves in the foot, anti-Prop. 8 boycotters are now going after the left-wing Sundance Film Festival because it does business in Mormon-friendly Utah.
Also targeted: Cinemark Theaters across the country. The company's CEO, Alan Stock, donated just under $10,000 to the traditional marriage measure. Never mind that Cinemark theaters are hosting the new biopic about gay icon Harvey Milk. They must pay for the sins of the company head who dared to exercise his political free speech.
Corporate honchos, church leaders and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob's crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fide hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of "equal rights." One wonders where Barack Obama — himself an opponent of Proposition 8 — is as this insane rage rages on. Soul-Fixer, Nation-Healer, where art thou?
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[The Crotch]

I... that's not readable. Ya gotta be careful with your copy and pastes.

[Kirin Lemon]

Long-winded bullshit.

More proof that Michelle Malkin is a stupid whore.

[Hex]

Funny thing is that by voting Obama into office, Democrats didn't take any rights away from the republicans. :lol:

[gareman]

Allow me to try and tie this "religion sucks" and "gay people marrying" stuff going on here.

The politics of the Mormons and a large majority of people's reason that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin...should be a cold hard slap in the face to any rational person that says religion is not a bad thing.

Here we have hordes of people voting to take away a legal (not religious right) away from millions of people whom they have never meant and whose lifestyle most have not taken the time to understand. And why because their church leader (a fallible human being) told his followers (a room full of fallible human beings) that this book written by a human being says that what other people do (choice or not) is a sin and contribute to the down fall of our world (which I thought according to the Bible and other religious text--Left Behind is a good thing).

Does anyone not see how absurd that is?

One person who was taught (probably at a very young age) that this book written by 5 or 6 human beings over a course of about a 100 years about 1800 to 1900 years ago has a few vague sentences in it's 2000+ pages about how dudes shouldn't lay with other dudes. Never mind that is code for....sex and marriage is a merely a sacrament (which cannot be denied to anyone according to the Bible), so by that logic man on man action should be against the law and marriage shouldn't. Eh, but what do I know I have only read the Bible and numerous other books and text about it...they believe in it, so they win I guess.

But anyway the idea that an irrational and illogical belief (def. of Faith) can decide on a state level what other's cannot do and still be taken seriously is so mind boggling to me. I know that religion is not caused by or the only source of ignorance, but thats no reason to not hold someone's irrational--supernatural beliefs accountable in the real natural world. And leave them to scramble for another reason to justify their xenophobic and bigoted ideas about how the world should be.

Religion would be fine if our actions didn't affect other's but they do, and this a prime example of that happening. Two people that love each, and in many cases been together for decades, in healthy relationships can not even have a chance to have what we [as hetros have], because your book says that they can't? That is disgusting that people don't see the toxicity of that.

[thrustbucket]

gareman, I think you're missing the train here.

I know many religious people, and many mormons. None of them are interested in taking rights away from gay couples, or preventing rights. They are only interested in maintaining the definition of a word that everyone, for some reason, insists we still include in the halls of law. It's silly, but that's the truth, this is all about defining words at it's core.

This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.

[gareman]

gareman, I think you're missing the train here.

I know many religious people, and many mormons. None of them are interested in taking rights away from gay couples, or preventing rights. They are only interested in maintaining the definition of a word that everyone, for some reason, insists we still include in the halls of law. It's silly, but that's the truth, this is all about defining words at it's core.

This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.

Whether or not they are doing it intentionally doesn't matter, because thats what they are doing.

[lilboo]

Whether or not they are doing it intentionally doesn't matter, because thats what they are doing.

Exactly. Thank you!

[MSI Magus]

What a surprise that Von the crazy religious nut job quotes a malkin review. She is disgusting and has been shown to be a hypocrite and pretty damn stupid.

Let me ask you this? If this again shows the lack of class on liberals parts and how conservatives are well breed and upstanding classy people in a loss......then why did John McCain have people boo him and Obama both and chant for Palin at his defeat speech? And why when you look back and the Gore and Kerry defeats do you not find the same thing? Ya thought so, and that was after we liberals had already seen Bush in the white house and knew how he was happy to start unneeded wars, squander money and piss on our rights. What had Obama ever done to raise such hatred?

Now if Gays are "running wild in the streets"(more like 90% are civilly protesting)maybe you should stop and think about what has been done to them. Essentially the constitution has been set aside and they have been stripped of their rights, told they are second class citizens and the ads run against them were just disgusting and untrue. Ask yourself what you would be doing as a crazy religious person if we stood up and said thats it we are sick of you religious wackos so bam, thats it ban on Religion. How would you react if we took your right to worship the great talking head in the sky your magical book told you to? If we tried banning religion we would see an angry uprising in this nation that would make the gay protests look like hippies playing hacky sack for peace.

[lilboo]

What a surprise that Von the crazy religious nut job quotes a malkin review. She is disgusting and has been shown to be a hypocrite and pretty damn stupid.

Let me ask you this? If this again shows the lack of class on liberals parts and how conservatives are well breed and upstanding classy people in a loss......then why did John McCain have people boo him and Obama both and chant for Palin at his defeat speech? And why when you look back and the Gore and Kerry defeats do you not find the same thing? Ya thought so, and that was after we liberals had already seen Bush in the white house and knew how he was happy to start unneeded wars, squander money and piss on our rights. What had Obama ever done to raise such hatred?

Now if Gays are "running wild in the streets"(more like 90% are civilly protesting)maybe you should stop and think about what has been done to them. Essentially the constitution has been set aside and they have been stripped of their rights, told they are second class citizens and the ads run against them were just disgusting and untrue. Ask yourself what you would be doing as a crazy religious person if we stood up and said thats it we are sick of you religious wackos so bam, thats it ban on Religion. How would you react if we took your right to worship the great talking head in the sky your magical book told you to? If we tried banning religion we would see an angry uprising in this nation that would make the gay protests look like hippies playing hacky sack for peace.


:shock:
:drool:

...That.. That.. oh..that would be..amazing....

[georox]

:shock:
:drool:

...That.. That.. oh..that would be..amazing....

QFT.

Can I be in charge of burning all religious texts in the streets? I would like a position of power when we turn into a communist state/totalitarian society. :)

Honestly, I never figure out why religious people always felt that they owned religion, seeing it is determined by the state... and I never understood why it could be outlawed seeing most of the anti-gay marriage people wish it outlawed based on religious reasons, and then the separation of church and state kicks in...

[thrustbucket]

Sadly, what MSI says is pretty much exactly what most religious people feel is happening already, which is why they are getting more and more militant.

Hate to sound like O'rielly, but this is what is meant by the term "culture war". It's also why conservative talk radio does so incredibly well; most of it is getting the religious whipped into a frenzy about the coming secular sledgehammer and people like yourselves that are so rabidly openly anti-religous and proud of it.

Just an observation. I see it sad on both sides when people are so obtuse they refuse to meet in the middle, try to understand each other, or get a long. You three don't ever get to complain about the divisiveness of the country currently, because you're proud to be part of it.

[MSI Magus]

Sadly, what MSI says is pretty much exactly what most religious people feel is happening already, which is why they are getting more and more militant.

Hate to sound like O'rielly, but this is what is meant by the term "culture war". It's also why conservative talk radio does so incredibly well; most of it is getting the religious whipped into a frenzy about the coming secular sledgehammer and people like yourselves that are so rabidly openly anti-religous and proud of it.

Just an observation. I see it sad on both sides when people are so obtuse they refuse to meet in the middle, try to understand each other, or get a long. You three don't ever get to complain about the divisiveness of the country currently, because you're proud to be part of it.

Ermmmmmmm thrust once again your looking at the wrong people for extremes. You say that we all are the same but the truth is people like us don't seriously think religion should be banned(at least I don't)where you cant say the same for religious people who are against so many of non religious peoples rights. See I whole heartedly believe that organized religion is a cancer, but I dont think its a cancer I have any right to remove. They have every right to their own beliefs and if they choose to meet me in the middle I would be glad to meet them there.

My future mother in law is a great example of that. She is very religious, hell she even works for the church. However, she accepts that me and her daughter do not go to church, she isn't against gay marriage, she has never told us or anyone else we are going to hell, even if she is pro life she does not make it out to be the number 1 issue in the world and act like anyone that doesn't is a baby murderer. Nothing wrong with being religious......wearing it on your sleeve and trying to legislate the rights of others is when we have problems. You can sit all you want pretending your in the middle, but the truth is most of us that arnt religious ARE in the middle. Yes we joke about banning religion or say we hate organized religion(again organized is the key word)but we don't mean it and the only reason for saying stuff like this is because how far to the right and unreasonable most religious people in America are. We have tried talking civiliy and rarely I still meet a Christian I can talk to and have a serious philosophical/political disagreement with. And in general I can have this kind of discussion with someone like a buddisht which shows the problem isnt how anti religious we are but how most Christians have become loud mouthed know it all mini Sean Hannitys(also known as an asshole).

So how about getting down off your pedestal and stop pretending like your above the rest of us. Most issues you fall far to the right on(as you did with the stupid global warming thing)and then you use the three or four issues(generally marriage related)where you land in the middle to preach to the rest of us about finding the middle ground you think you walk.

To sum up - Until religious people can show we actually have passed legislation or amendments that take away their rights they are not allowed to claim or whine about it potentially happening since they have several times tried to force their ways on us(Christmas, religion in schools and now gay marriage). No whining about us meeting them in the middle because its simply not true.

[blandstalker]

This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.

I agree that lumping all religious people, or all Mormons together is wrong.

However, the assertion that this is just about the word "marriage" is equally wrong.

In Arkansas, no single person can now adopt. In Florida, the state cannot recognize gay marriage or anything offering the benefits of marriage.

That means no domestic partnerships, civil unions, anything. Same as in Michigan. Please tell me how this is not about taking rights away.

The idea that this just about defining words couldn't be more wrong.

[MSI Magus]

I agree that lumping all religious people, or all Mormons together is wrong.

However, the assertion that this is just about the word "marriage" is equally wrong.

In Arkansas, no single person can now adopt. In Florida, the state cannot recognize gay marriage or anything offering the benefits of marriage.

That means no domestic partnerships, civil unions, anything. Same as in Michigan. Please tell me how this is not about taking rights away.

The idea that this just about defining words couldn't be more wrong.

It is rather comical that thrust and many others have tried to present this as the left taking away the rights of the religious or at least the left doing things that could make the religious think so when there has not been one single step taken to legally do so. Where as again as I stated on the other side we have seen many many many times the opposite, the far religious right taking away the rights of everyone that doesnt agree exactly with them. No one on the left is so stupid as to think this is every religious person(hell most of the political left are still Christians, if they wernt they wouldn't get elected)but it has to be a majority otherwise stupid things like prop 8 wouldnt pass. As I said in my previous post, till props like these stop passing thrusts theories on the subject are as big of a joke as his sources debunking global warming.

[von551]

wow, i'm surprised to see so many of you are willing to become ignorant for a cause. you realize Obama is against same-sex marriage, right? Why aren't gays picketing his house, beating him up, boycotting anyone who supported his campaign, keying his car with expletives, calling him a hateful bigot? Weird, right? He's a lip-service politician that will say whatever people want to hear. "I support the gay community, but I vote Yes on 8". Hypocrite? I guess not.

so who's telling the facts? according to msi magnus the Yes on 8 ads were "disgusting and untrue." Really? How about the ad Jack O'connell, Superintendent of Public Education, blatantly lied to us about whether or not marriage is required to be taught in school. read this, and then tell me who's telling the truth. you should be furious as a citizen that top community leaders would lie to your face and not give you the facts just to get your vote. Whether you believe in Prop 8 or not, I think it's disgusting that anyone should use their power to lie to the public to lead the public astray. Now who's telling the truth?:

"(Jack) O'Connell's cleverly worded denials try to trick voters into thinking schools do not teach about marriage," said Chip White, press secretary for Yes on 8. "But for the 96% of public schools that teach sex education, state law requires them to teach about marriage."


The California Department of Education's own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) and every school that provides instruction under that Act must provide instruction and materials that teach about marriage. Additionally, the Department of Education's own checklist for instruction under the Act confirms that instruction about marriage is required for the school district to be in compliance with state law.


"There is no foundation for O'Connell's untruthful statements that nothing in California law requires teaching about marriage," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Yes on 8. "The voters deserve to hear the truth. While O'Connell may personally favor gay marriage, as a public official it is his obligation to tell the truth about California's education laws."


The Yes on 8 campaign sent a letter to O'Connell yesterday demanding that he retract his misstatements. The letter, which can be seen here: http://protectmarriage.com/news/press-releases, identifies Education Code sections that demonstrate public schools do teach about marriage, at a rate of 96%.
"Perhaps if O'Connell spent less time making false statements in TV ads," said White, "he'd have more time to read his own website."

[Kirin Lemon]

wow, i'm surprised to see so many of you are willing to become ignorant for a cause.

Oh, the irony.

[SpazX]

von551, they lie because they want all children to be gay. They just love the gays so much they want everybody to be gay.

[Friend of Sonic]

I wish Lilboo would finish the damn Gay Ray already. Oh, all of the endless sex I will have soon!

[Hex]

He's a lip-service politician that will say whatever people want to hear. "I support the gay community, but I vote Yes on 8". Hypocrite? I guess not.

:rofl:

Except that he openly opposed (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL&type=politics) Proposition 8. Wump-wump. Everyone knows that he is for civil unions, and not using the constitution to take away people's rights, even when he doesn't agree.

[MSI Magus]

:rofl:

Except that he openly opposed (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL&type=politics) Proposition 8. Wump-wump. Everyone knows that he is for civil unions, and not using the constitution to take away people's rights, even when he doesn't agree.

Using facts on someone that only understands stupidity. You might be a bigger time waster on the boards then me ;)

[blandstalker]

so who's telling the facts? according to msi magnus the Yes on 8 ads were "disgusting and untrue." Really? How about the ad Jack O'connell, Superintendent of Public Education, blatantly lied to us about whether or not marriage is required to be taught in school. read this, and then tell me who's telling the truth.

Will you please stop posting this bullshit?

Schools are required to teach about marriage. Parents in California can request their children be removed from any discussion they object to, including sex education and discussions about marriage.

The Yes on 8 campaign frequently repeated the lie that marriage is required to be taught to all California students. If parents object, you don't have to have your kid taught. It's that simple.

Furthermore, what they are required to teach about marriage is not defined.

According to the Yes on 8 people, the fact that gay marriage exists implies that gay people can get married and that is somehow "teaching gay marriage to kids."

Next, you'll be complaining that schools teach that gay people exist. Oh, the horror!


You should be furious as a citizen that top community leaders would lie to your face and not give you the facts just to get your vote. Whether you believe in Prop 8 or not, I think it's disgusting that anyone should use their power to lie to the public to lead the public astray. Now who's telling the truth?

You should be furious that your leaders, religious and otherwise, have to resort to misleading, obfuscation, and outright lies in order to get your way.

I don't see anywhere in your stream of bullshit that parents who want to put their heads in the sand and deny that gay marriage exists (after they dragged their kids to Yes on 8 demonstrations) can simply opt out.

Kind of takes the wind out of your bluster, doesn't it? And it's a lie of omission.

And then you go accusing the other side of lying.

What lies would Jesus tell?

[BigT]

Will you please stop posting this bullshit?

Schools are required to teach about marriage. Parents in California can request their children be removed from any discussion they object to, including sex education and discussions about marriage.

The Yes on 8 campaign frequently repeated the lie that marriage is required to be taught to all California students. If parents object, you don't have to have your kid taught. It's that simple.

Furthermore, what they are required to teach about marriage is not defined.

According to the Yes on 8 people, the fact that gay marriage exists implies that gay people can get married and that is somehow "teaching gay marriage to kids."

Next, you'll be complaining that schools teach that gay people exist. Oh, the horror!


Well, if schools do teach about marriage and omit gay marriage (once gay marriage is legalized), then people like you will be protesting that they are discriminating against gays and will want to force schools to teach gender neutral marriage just confusing the fuck out of most kids.

This is just another reason to avoid public schools and go to private ones, like I did... it's too bad that without vouchers they are not affordable for all people.

[Hex]

just confusing the fuck out of most kids.

You don't give kids enough credit. It's not a hard concept to understand. Using the retarded excuse that kids won't get it is like saying we shouldn't teach long division because some might have a hard time grasping it. :roll:

[SpazX]

Is it really confusing at all? Now it's a man and a woman can get married, but not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. If you taught kids that two adults get married if they love one another, that would actually be simpler.

It would only be confusing if the schools taught one thing and the parents another. But that's really no different than a kid of a racist being taught that all people are equal, is it?