Three lawsuits filed claiming prop 8 is an illegal amendment

[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree with the first, but not the second. The Vs. forum definitely needs tighter moderation to weed out the personal attacks, trolls etc. that make it hard to have decent, rational discussions on many topics.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm really not sure where I lean there. Fewer personal attacks would be great, but not knowing where exactly the line would be drawn makes me wary of asking for greater mod involvement. "This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum," after all, and I've been on forums where mods would edit people's posts and remove any "flames" whenever they saw them.

...

Should we have a thread on this?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Yeah, I'm really not sure where I lean there. Fewer personal attacks would be great, but not knowing where exactly the line would be drawn makes me wary of asking for greater mod involvement. "This is place for mature discussion and is NOT a flame forum," after all, and I've been on forums where mods would edit people's posts and remove any "flames" whenever they saw them.

...

Should we have a thread on this?[/QUOTE]

It would be tough because basically the whole entire conservative philosophy is based on trollish idiocy.

No seriously.
 
[quote name='camoor']Last I checked, the constitution didn't codify enforcement of principles and morals. America as a nation was not founded on the principle of protecting the principles and morals of each and every citizen.

If you want to live in a country ruled by the majority-held principles and morals then please move to one of the theocracies in Pan-Asia or the Middle East. I'm sure we'll both be happier.[/quote]

You're reading too much between the lines. I was making an observation, not a statement of fact. I think it goes without saying that not every citizen in America is protected which is why we have a majority rules, albeit with some checks. As far as my own personal stance on the matter, I have already stated that I am undecided, hence no fight to pick. I enjoy living in America, everyone's chip-on-the-shoulder attitude aside.

[quote name='camoor']By their admission the church paid for hotels and airfare (don't forget airfare) for an unspecified amount of "leaders" (and I'd like to see exactly what constitutes a leader - if I have a cardboard sign stapled to a wood pole am I a leader?). They also actively encouraged members to donate their own money to this cause - let's not forget that the business model of a church is getting church-goers to donate so this is in essence a marketing service they are providing.[/quote]

The LDS church is set up with a tiered level of leadership. All of the hotel/airfare that would have been footed would specifically have been to have several of these leaders come out to meet with local church and municipal leaders and speak to the various LDS congregations.

I'm sure the church would be the last group to become defensive on their stance - they know what they feel is right and they're out to fight for it. Back in June, a letter was sent to every congregation world wide, signed by the Church presidency asking members to donate their "means and time" to the various propositions around the country.

I don't have any qualms with holding the LDS folks responsible, but I think it's only fair to look at both sides of the argument from as neutral a position as possible.

Here's a question for everyone though: What exactly do the pro-gay crowd desire with gay marriage? Is it simply the ability to have a union sworn in front of friends/family and proclaimed by a piece of paper or is it more of an equality issue?

The reason I ask is that I'm still looking at this issue and thinking it all revolves around the definition of the word "marriage." I realize that the argument runs deeper than that, but I'm having a hard time dropping that particular line of thought. When I ask any of the pro-gay people I know, they get edgy and jump into a tirade of equal rights that never really answers the question.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']
The reason I ask is that I'm still looking at this issue and thinking it all revolves around the definition of the word "marriage." I realize that the argument runs deeper than that, but I'm having a hard time dropping that particular line of thought. When I ask any of the pro-gay people I know, they get edgy and jump into a tirade of equal rights that never really answers the question.[/QUOTE]

How much more can go someone go into "It's equal rights"? It just this whole concept is is so petty and really shouldn't be a situation; it just should be implied. 2 consenting adults shouldn't be fighting for a right to be married in "the land of the free".

Looking at your user title "New Dad (Again!)", let me ask you this: What happens if one of your kids turns out gay. Wouldn't you like for them to find that one person and be able to get married like everyone else?
 
Here's a question: why can't the gay community propose a new tradition that eventually will shoot for equal legal/financial rights similar to marriage, but call it something else? That would get the church off your back (or at least sabotage their case), allow you to make a commitment in the same vein as marriage, and give you the same benefits.

Some people want to keep the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean another new tradition can't be created.
 
But that would reify the church's power over something they have no power/dominion over.

It's be like the church telling you that only Episcopals can use the letter "Q."
 
Can someone clarify to me some of the major governmental benefits of marrying someone? I mean you never hear either Gay's OR Straights laying these points out at ALL. Especially Gay's should be listing it. I mean as far as I know the only two things are being able to visit your spouse in the hospital with NO ONE being able to impede you and receiving 50% of their income automatically when they die.
Any more ya'll can think of?

Also Hex I didn't know you were gay. I just figured with your horse fixation you liked to fuck them not humans.

Ruined how about this? Marriage in the governmental sense, the term is completely dissolved and changed to Civil Unions for everyone and if you want to get married it can only be done by a church. This would solve that purpose and it would finally allow us to truly say our government is secular instead of in any way religious.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Here's a question: why can't the gay community propose a new tradition that eventually will shoot for equal legal/financial rights similar to marriage, but call it something else? That would get the church off your back (or at least sabotage their case), allow you to make a commitment in the same vein as marriage, and give you the same benefits.

Some people want to keep the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean another new tradition can't be created.[/QUOTE]

I agree.
The thing is, it *HAS* to be absolutely completely recognized equal to a marriage. Especially in terms in legal and medical stuff. At the moment, Civil Unions do not work. We have them in NJ at the moment, however, a lot of couples are fighting over the fact that places still deny them rights because they aren't married. Hospitals being the number one offender with this and getting on their partner's health insurance is another..

[quote name='Sarang01']Can someone clarify to me some of the major governmental benefits of marrying someone? I mean you never hear either Gay's OR Straights laying these points out at ALL. Especially Gay's should be listing it. I mean as far as I know the only two things are being able to visit your spouse in the hospital with NO ONE being able to impede you and receiving 50% of their income automatically when they die.
Any more ya'll can think of?
[/QUOTE]

We do use that argument. The problem is that we get accused of only wanting to be married so we can take our partner's money :roll:
 
[quote name='lilboo']
We do use that argument. The problem is that we get accused of only wanting to be married so we can take our partner's money :roll:[/quote]

My grandfather was a millionaire many times over. Later in his life, he revealed to everyone he was gay. When he passed, his partner took all of his money.

Gay people make God fearing Christians like myself suffer by stealing our grandfathers and our inheritances.

 
How did his partner get the money? :whistle2:s

See, what happened to my Uncle's brother (Uncle by marriage, btw) is that he was gay. Him and his partner were together foreeeeever. When he died (the BF of my uncles brother)..the family gave him SHIT. They FOUGHT and said he didn't deserve any of his assets. :roll: Even though they lived together for like 20 or 30 some years.

This is where marriage comes in. This is where we need to have these legal protections. You build a life together, and sometimes you financially can't do it alone. If some husband dies, his wife gets pension and insurance to help HER get by alone---Why aren't gays entitled to this?
 
[quote name='lilboo']How did his partner get the money? :whistle2:s[/quote]

I was trying to go with the conventional "extreme Christian crazies ignore facts and make shit up" route.

[quote name='lilboo']
See, what happened to my Uncle's brother (Uncle by marriage, btw) is that he was gay. Him and his partner were together foreeeeever. When he died (the BF of my uncles brother)..the family gave him SHIT. They FOUGHT and said he didn't deserve any of his assets. :roll: Even though they lived together for like 20 or 30 some years.

This is where marriage comes in. This is where we need to have these legal protections. You build a life together, and sometimes you financially can't do it alone. If some husband dies, his wife gets pension and insurance to help HER get by alone---Why aren't gays entitled to this?[/quote]

I completely agree. My wife's uncle is gay, and has had the same partner for over a decade now. His mother refuses to tell her friends he's gay, and makes him be quiet about it at functions with friends. I definitely see something similar to what you've just mentioned happening to either one of them if the other dies.

Very sad, indeed. I share this guy's sentiments :

prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg
 
Well it's like this. Straight people can't stand gay peoples hair, dress or mannerisms but that dead gay money is just as good as straights. Let those straight mothers have their straight funeral where their Gay spouse is kept out.
"Straight homophobic mothers, keeping Gay sons and daughters in the closet till the grave!". ;-P

All of this I'm being a bit bitterly sarcastic about. Frankly it amazes me what complete cunts or selfish cows these people can be. These assholes try to fucking photoshop the funeral like their cousin or brother was never Gay. Yeah keep dreaming. It's just like parents when they have Trans kids almost, only with Trans it's worse. Parents try to even more see their kids as something different there. They think their kid is so happy because they have their fucking heads in the clouds.
There's a reason kids, Gay or Straight, committ suicide. It's for taking a few too many just "I'm ok" answers and assuming "Hey they're ok." and they don't make any noise, therefore everything must be perfect.
 
Myke just to clear things up you're a Bear or a Bi Bear right? I just figured your avatar somewhat resembled how you look or pretty close to it.
 
[quote name='lilboo']How much more can go someone go into "It's equal rights"? It just this whole concept is is so petty and really shouldn't be a situation; it just should be implied. 2 consenting adults shouldn't be fighting for a right to be married in "the land of the free".

Looking at your user title "New Dad (Again!)", let me ask you this: What happens if one of your kids turns out gay. Wouldn't you like for them to find that one person and be able to get married like everyone else?[/quote]

See, that'd be a tough one for me. I'm one of those Christian moderates that just happens to believe that homosexuality is a sin. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the golden rule and see no reason why homosexuals should be treated any differently than the rest of the world. In other words, I wouldn't approve, but it wouldn't make me love my kid any less.

As far as the equal rights, often times the argument gets pushed too far. Minority groups push so hard and everyone is so up in arms about offending them that in the end they have more rights and protections than the regular class.

Also, the more I ponder the argument, I don't think it has so much to do with the word marriage and more to do with what defines a family.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']See, that'd be a tough one for me. I'm one of those Christian moderates that just happens to believe that homosexuality is a sin. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the golden rule and see no reason why homosexuals should be treated any differently than the rest of the world. In other words, I wouldn't approve, but it wouldn't make me love my kid any less.

As far as the equal rights, often times the argument gets pushed too far. Minority groups push so hard and everyone is so up in arms about offending them that in the end they have more rights and protections than the regular class.

Also, the more I ponder the argument, I don't think it has so much to do with the word marriage and more to do with what defines a family.[/QUOTE]

So when you recognize homosexuality as a sin, do you also recognize everything else that's considered a sin?

When you say you wouldn't approve, but it wouldn't make you love your kids any less---how far would you go? Would you be ashamed? Would you introduce your son/daughter AND their partner? (and recognize it).

When you say that homosexuals shouldn't be treated any different (and I thank you for that), then what's the problem with granting couples licenses that are marriage (or exactly equal)?

Also, about defining what a family is--Well, what IS a family? A mom, dad, 2 kids and an ugly dog? What about single parents? What about families that are like.. a single parent AND live with a relative (Think Full House :lol:). We can't define a family as "Mom, Dad, 2 kids + pet" anymore. Look around you. Maybe people in YOUR 'hood are like that..but a lot of families are not like.

Hell, they teach this on Sesame Streets that all families are different.
 
[quote name='lilboo']So when you recognize homosexuality as a sin, do you also recognize everything else that's considered a sin?

When you say you wouldn't approve, but it wouldn't make you love your kids any less---how far would you go? Would you be ashamed? Would you introduce your son/daughter AND their partner? (and recognize it).

When you say that homosexuals shouldn't be treated any different (and I thank you for that), then what's the problem with granting couples licenses that are marriage (or exactly equal)?

Also, about defining what a family is--Well, what IS a family? A mom, dad, 2 kids and an ugly dog? What about single parents? What about families that are like.. a single parent AND live with a relative (Think Full House :lol:). We can't define a family as "Mom, Dad, 2 kids + pet" anymore. Look around you. Maybe people in YOUR 'hood are like that..but a lot of families are not like.

Hell, they teach this on Sesame Streets that all families are different.[/quote]

Everyone knows Sesame street is filled with liberals.. except Oscar the Grouch that is.
 
[quote name='lilboo']I agree.
The thing is, it *HAS* to be absolutely completely recognized equal to a marriage. Especially in terms in legal and medical stuff. At the moment, Civil Unions do not work. We have them in NJ at the moment, however, a lot of couples are fighting over the fact that places still deny them rights because they aren't married. Hospitals being the number one offender with this and getting on their partner's health insurance is another..
[/quote]

How do hospitals deny rights? I've never seen issues with visitation at the hospitals at which I've worked. I've taken care of many homosexual people, and their partners are easily able to visit... in fact mostly anyone the patient wants to visit them can show up. Also you can designate anyone you want as a decision maker through an Advance Directive.

As a civilian, I've easily been able to visit friends/family who are patients in hospitals. Most hospitals don't have guards! If you know where someone is, you can pretty much just go there on your own. Exceptions being the psych wards, ICU, and isolation beds (don't forget to gown and glove up!)

So please clarify how hosptials deny rights. I'd like to know so that we could make changes.

Insurance companies are a different issue; they make any excuse to deny coverage to someone!
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']What is moral you homophobe is that I'm tired and fed up with you shoving what YOU think is right down my throat and making me sit in the back of the bus. Its funny how you say this is nothing like interacial marriage yet you keep bringing up the black vote. Seriously, who the fuck do you think you are when the only difference between us is who I share a bed with? I bleed the same blood as you. I bet you didn't even campaign for your precious McCain as hard as you did for this. I swear, you're a miserable excuse for a human being.

And is the reason why you have an angry blond haired guy in your avatar because you align with Aryan race views? Would be befitting for a bigot and homophobe such as you. Which also fits in with you wanting a near race riot against blacks. Way to go racist fascist prick.[/quote]

I'm not a big fan of McCain.

The guy in my avatar is not an Aryan nation guy... it's Wally George, a UHF phenomenon of the 1980s...

But he did have a good segment on Gay Marriage back in the late 80s. On his show, he would bring on "lunatics" to debate and the whole thing would soon escalate into a whole bunch of yelling and name calling. This video involves Larry Rice who was also great in his appearances; they "debate" the topic of gay marriage and I couldn't stop laughing throughout the whole thing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmupejKsVrg
 
[quote name='lilboo']So when you recognize homosexuality as a sin, do you also recognize everything else that's considered a sin?

When you say you wouldn't approve, but it wouldn't make you love your kids any less---how far would you go? Would you be ashamed? Would you introduce your son/daughter AND their partner? (and recognize it).

When you say that homosexuals shouldn't be treated any different (and I thank you for that), then what's the problem with granting couples licenses that are marriage (or exactly equal)?

Also, about defining what a family is--Well, what IS a family? A mom, dad, 2 kids and an ugly dog? What about single parents? What about families that are like.. a single parent AND live with a relative (Think Full House :lol:). We can't define a family as "Mom, Dad, 2 kids + pet" anymore. Look around you. Maybe people in YOUR 'hood are like that..but a lot of families are not like.

Hell, they teach this on Sesame Streets that all families are different.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm aware that families, like people, come in all shapes and sizes. I know people that are anti-gay marriage that specifically state that if gay couples are allowed to adopt or in other ways have children then the children will be gay. It's an odd argument considering that straight people have kids that become gay.

It's really too bad that the issue isn't something cut-and-dry like allowing domestic partners the same benefits as a spouse. What it comes down to - and this is what a lot of religious folk like myself need to realize - is that marriage is less a religious symbol of union and more a publicly accepted demonstration of love.

One concern I have - and I know it's out there due to people I've spoken with - is that if/when gay marriage is an option, will gay couples sue churches/pastors that refuse to marry them? Both sides certainly have their left-field (or right-field) nutcases though. I've heard everything from "all heterosexuals should be forced to watch gay kissing and sex scenes in hollywood movies" to "gay marriage is a sign of the second coming of Jesus."

It sure makes things more complicated than they ought to be.

BTW, did anyone see South Park last night? Obama won and the various citizens of South Park started going nuts in the streets singing about change. Hilarious.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']

One concern I have - and I know it's out there due to people I've spoken with - is that if/when gay marriage is an option, will gay couples sue churches/pastors that refuse to marry them? Both sides certainly have their left-field (or right-field) nutcases though. I've heard everything from "all heterosexuals should be forced to watch gay kissing and sex scenes in hollywood movies" to "gay marriage is a sign of the second coming of Jesus."

.[/quote]


Thats is just ridiculous.. How many times have you heard the Catholic church being sued because they would not marry a non-catholic couple?
 
There's something I read once that keeps nagging at me. It goes something like, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The common arguments against gay marriage are:

  • The Bible is against it - This renders the argument immediately dead, as this is a religious stance and unable to be enforced by the government.
  • Kids would learn that being gay is ok - Why is it not ok? This usually falls back to the Bible, rendering the argument dead again.
  • It strips the sanctity of marriage - Considering the word "sanctity" means holiness or sacredness, words that have religious connotations, the government cannot make a decree on it. You don't want the feds telling you what is and isn't holy, do you?
I would contend that there is not one truly valid reason that does not fall back on religious underpinnings. Since this is the case, any law banning gay marriage is by default unconstitutional as it would represent the views of a religious segment. There is no complication here. It is black and white. Any ban on gay marriage IS unconstitutional and should be overturned by any judge with a shred of respect for The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Umm...The Hot Seat with Wally George was a total work, dude. I thought it was funny, but I took it as seriously as I do professional wrestling.

EDIT: Woah. Wally George was involved with RollerGames!

[/quote]

Dude, I know it was over the top, but it was pretty entertaining... especially the call in shows, where people would crank call him all the time just to see his reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqGirbVm1eQ

He put a lot of whack jobs on his show... and in the pre-internet era, it was one of the few ways to take a peak into the crazy side of society. It was a work to some extent, but he put a lot of random people on his show and the dialog was not scripted... plus Wally was a conservative in real life as well...
 
Sure. Well, the WWE wrestler JBL plays a 'conservative' of sorts on WWE programming. He had a feud with Eddie Guerrero where he sought to "get heat" (establish and reinforce his standing as a bad guy with the crowd) via sketches where he went down to the border and "rounded up illegal aliens." He also cuts promos (talking to the crowd for the purpose of character development, and more of the "getting heat" sort of stuff) where he talks finances (at a very, very, very rudimentary level) and laughs at the blue-collar plebes in the crowd (my words, not his).

But he's also married to FOX News personality (if I can use that phrase for not wanting to use "newsanchor" ;) Meridith Whitney (sp?), and is also a frequent guest (out of his WWE character) on FOX News programming.

With that in mind, though, with both JBL and Wally George, you can't really buy into anything they say when they're "on the clock" (in character). George and JBL were both conservatives, but I'll believe George truly believed what he said on The Hot Seat as much as I believe in the authenticity of JBL on WWE programming.

Though, to be fair, I think that most radio shows are works as well. The hosts are characters who play roles and "read from scripts" (not that the show is scripted, but "controlled" to use more wrestling parlance, and that the hosts rarely, if ever, deviate from what their characters would not do). I think Michael Savage is the most transparent worker of the bunch, but Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and others are much more "entertainers" than they are, say, "seekers of truth."
 
[quote name='thelonepig']See, that'd be a tough one for me. I'm one of those Christian moderates that just happens to believe that homosexuality is a sin.[/QUOTE]

I find it hard to consider ANYONE who considers Homosexuality a sin a moderate. Seriously Homosexuality being a sin is one of the most bullshit one's and out of center if it is one. I mean let's look at all these others. Theft-Disrespect of another's property. Murder-Disrespect of another's RIGHT to life. Adultry-Disrespect to your marital vows with your partner.
Nowhere here is there an express disrespect in here in terms of Homosexuality.

I mean if Homosexuality is truly a sin that makes God a giant asshole I never wanna know. I'll take Hell or consign myself to Oblivion rather then speak a word to that being. This is why I don't believe Homosexuality is a sin. If you want me to dress it up, it undermines the very idea of Jesus being about love for one. I mean the very fact there are Gay men and women wanting to get married validates the idea of love for them. Wasn't the sin on sex in Christianity always about being in lust and thrusting your dick anywhere you got hot or your pussy got wet if you're a girl?
I remember my friend telling me about a passage in the Bible where two men are going at it and there's no badmouthing about it in the verse. Frankly I believe her. She usually knows her shit about stuff like this.

Oh and lone weren't the Mormons the same one's who believed Blacks and Whites shouldn't get married? I've also heard when the women in the Mormon faith die they have to push or tug a planet for so long. If this is the truth then that, coupled with the Polygamy that started the Mormon religion, tends to hint that they're sexist towards women.
I mean I'll be blunt. Polygamy is only for the benefit of MEN! How often do you hear about two men sharing a woman in marriage? Doesn't happen because men don't want to share their woman.
 
[quote name='BigT']Dude, I know it was over the top, but it was pretty entertaining... especially the call in shows, where people would crank call him all the time just to see his reaction:
[/quote]

I have to agree that Wally George is absolutely hilarious. The guy kills me.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm one of those agnostic moderates that just happens to believe that wearing a garment with two types of thread is a sin.[/quote]

I'd like to point out this nifty passage from the bible :
“…If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Click to expand...
Why aren't we still stoning women to death if they aren't virgins before marrage? Are some things in the bible "more equal than others"?
 
They'll just tell you that Deuteronomy is all old school rules and with Jesus's sacrifice/reform, they don't apply anymore, and only the New Testament does.
 
[quote name='VioletArrows']They'll just tell you that Deuteronomy is all old school rules and with Jesus's sacrifice/reform, they don't apply anymore, and only the New Testament does.[/quote]

That's all fine until "Christians" go back and reference the Old Testament to support their world views, which is pretty standard practice in various lines of bigotry that can spawn from Christianity.
 
[quote name='BigT']Dude, I know it was over the top, but it was pretty entertaining... especially the call in shows, where people would crank call him all the time just to see his reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqGirbVm1eQ

He put a lot of whack jobs on his show... and in the pre-internet era, it was one of the few ways to take a peak into the crazy side of society. It was a work to some extent, but he put a lot of random people on his show and the dialog was not scripted... plus Wally was a conservative in real life as well...[/quote]


Wow that reminds me of O'reilly if he was on public access in the early 90's.
 
[quote name='nathansu']That's all fine until "Christians" go back and reference the Old Testament to support their world views, which is pretty standard practice in various lines of bigotry that can spawn from Christianity.[/quote]

I didn't say it wasn't hypocritical. But really, EVERYONE, not just your most hated group is going to find ways to justify why they are right and everyone else is wrong and none of them are really good reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top