# Not looking good for California Prop 8



## Splash Log (Nov 5, 2008)

California Votes for Prop 8 - WSJ.com



> Proposition 8, which would establish marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed with 52.1% of the vote, against 47.9% opposed, with 94.6% of precincts reporting. The approval marks a stunning upset in a $70 million campaign that just weeks ago looked to be running in favor of preserving gay marriage rights.



Gotta say I am kinda surprised, and feel bad that people will have their rights stripped from them that they gained 4.5 months ago.  No matter what your belief sucks to be jerked around.  

I do look forward to YouTube clips of Ellen and other celebrities crying on their TVs show though.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> No matter what your belief sucks to be jerked around.



Thank the judges who overturned it the first time.  The people voted twice now with the same result.  I personally don't give a shit who gets married, but the people as a whole apparently do.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Again, the judges should be kicked out. You should not overrule the vote of the people.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Again, the judges should be kicked out. You should not overrule the vote of the people.



I've always had a problem with judicial legislation. Judicial legislation is what causes these issues.


----------



## tallcall (Nov 5, 2008)

I hope people choke on this amendment and the one here in Florida. Ours is very vague and I hope it gets abused. It could disolve many non homosexual marriages as well. I just want to have the ability to share the things everyone else takes for granted with my future partner (insurance, health benefits, and the power of attorney are the big ones for me). Besides, it is still possible to try to bring this to the Supreme Court as maybe a civil rights issue or something (we also have good lawyers - and remember that it took several acts of congress to give African-Americans the ability to get a home loan in some areas, so I'd say this isn't over at all).

I still say we need a constitutional amendment to ban all divorce in order to make sure that children grow up in an appropriate environment (a mother and father). We could even make separations punishable by prision time (all in the name of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage - most of which don't seem to last - I think the number fluctuates around 50%).


----------



## KelJu (Nov 5, 2008)

tallcall said:


> I hope people choke on this amendment and the one here in Florida. Ours is very vague and I hope it gets abused. It could disolve many non homosexual marriages as well. I just want to have the ability to share the things everyone else takes for granted with my future partner (insurance, health benefits, and the power of attorney are the big ones for me). Besides, it is still possible to try to bring this to the Supreme Court as maybe a civil rights issue or something (we also have good lawyers - and remember that it took several acts of congress to give African-Americans the ability to get a home loan in some areas, so I'd say this isn't over at all).
> 
> I still say we need a constitutional amendment to ban all divorce in order to make sure that children grow up in an appropriate environment (a mother and father). We could even make separations punishable by prision time (all in the name of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage - most of which don't seem to last - I think the number fluctuates around 50%).





Be patient dude. You will have your right to marry a life partner soon. I predict this happen very soon. This country is making a cultural shift, and the religious right is on their way out.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

tallcall said:


> I hope people choke on this amendment and the one here in Florida. Ours is very vague and I hope it gets abused. It could disolve many non homosexual marriages as well. I just want to have the ability to share the things everyone else takes for granted with my future partner (insurance, health benefits, and the power of attorney are the big ones for me). Besides, it is still possible to try to bring this to the Supreme Court as maybe a civil rights issue or something (we also have good lawyers - and remember that it took several acts of congress to give African-Americans the ability to get a home loan in some areas, so I'd say this isn't over at all).
> 
> I still say we need a constitutional amendment to ban all divorce in order to make sure that children grow up in an appropriate environment (a mother and father). We could even make separations punishable by prision time (all in the name of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage - most of which don't seem to last - I think the number fluctuates around 50%).



I won't address the second part of your post. I recognize you are angry at the outcome. and maybe rightfully so.

I really don't see this as a civil rights issue. This is not blacks getting the right to vote. I don't think that this is a supreme court type of issue, or something that they would take. It is pretty well accepted that legally this is a state matter. I really don't have any problems with POA. If a man wants to give POA to another man I don't think his parents have any right to challenge that.  healthcare and insurance become a little more muddled in my mind. I'm still undecided. If we can agree on one thing however it is that this fight is far from over for either side. 52% is a majority, but what it really says is not yet. we are not ready.


----------



## tallcall (Nov 5, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Be patient dude. You will have your right to marry a life partner soon. I predict this happen very soon. This country is making a cultural shift, and the religious right is on their way out.



Guys like you and most everyone else on this board are really too kind to me! I'm just kind of angry right now. I do appreciate the opposing opinions presented here because they are more "matter of fact" and honest and not as caustic as they are in other arenas (political mailers for example). So thanks to everyone for making their respective arguements.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

i think it's fucking bullshit to say the church and state are separate but then say gays are for some reason not allowed the same rights straight people are..... the fucking argument _always_ goes to the bible which is supposed to have no place in our laws. too bad they separated church and state and forgot to separate BULLSHIT and state. i love my country but sometimes the shit is so deep i want to puke. politics have a way of making it so people can't see stupid.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i think it's fucking bullshit to say the church and state are separate but then say gays are for some reason not allowed the same rights straight people are..... the fucking argument _always_ goes to the bible which is supposed to have no place in our laws. too bad they separated church and state and forgot to separate BULLSHIT and state. i love my country but sometimes the shit is so deep i want to puke. politics have a way of making it so people can't see stupid.



I'm not sure your seeing the full ramifications of this. This also gets into the impact this is going to have on churches. This is not black and white. This is a very complicated issue


----------



## mcguin (Nov 5, 2008)

tallcall said:


> I hope people choke on this amendment and the one here in Florida. Ours is very vague and I hope it gets abused. It could disolve many non homosexual marriages as well. I just want to have the ability to share the things everyone else takes for granted with my future partner (insurance, health benefits, and the power of attorney are the big ones for me). Besides, it is still possible to try to bring this to the Supreme Court as maybe a civil rights issue or something (we also have good lawyers - and remember that it took several acts of congress to give African-Americans the ability to get a home loan in some areas, so I'd say this isn't over at all).
> 
> *I still say we need a constitutional amendment to ban all divorce in order to make sure that children grow up in an appropriate environment *(a mother and father). We could even make separations punishable by prision time (all in the name of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage - most of which don't seem to last - I think the number fluctuates around 50%).



although I do agree with yuo 100% with your first paragraph, i must say that banning the ability to divorce is not going to prevent inappropriate environments for children.  What you would be doing is forcing couple to either live together that dont get along, which will cause more problems for the children, or you will have an increase in marital affairs...divorce isn't a good thing, but without it, problems would increase.


----------



## mcguin (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I'm not sure your seeing the full ramifications of this. This also gets into the impact this is going to have on churches. This is not black and white. This is a very complicated issue



little wing, you are 100% correct, if you look back we had a simple post on prop 8 last week and it turned into world war 3 in here, i see this re-emerging, im finding a falloutshelter.


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2008)

KelJu said:


> This country is making a cultural shift, and the religious right is on their way out.



Obama handily won California: over 6 million votes.  Why do you blame this passage on the religious right? 

The far-right religious vote you're speaking of would not have gone for Obama.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Obama handily won California: over 6 million votes for Obama.  Why do you blame this passage on the religious right?
> 
> The far-right religious vote you're speaking of would not have gone for Obama.



because it is easy


----------



## lnvanry (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Again, the judges should be kicked out. You should not overrule the vote of the people.



right, I mean we those judges shouldn't have let coloreds into public schools in the south...after all, the will of the majority.



/sarcasm


----------



## busyLivin (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i think it's fucking bullshit to say the church and state are separate but then say gays are for some reason not allowed the same rights straight people are..... the fucking argument _always_ goes to the bible which is supposed to have no place in our laws. too bad they separated church and state and forgot to separate BULLSHIT and state. i love my country but sometimes the shit is so deep i want to puke. politics have a way of making it so people can't see stupid.



Again, you can't have it both ways.  You're saying religious people are to blame for the passage, but these same "religious right" gave Obama an easy victory in California.  


You need a new scapegoat, because the religious had an awful lot of help.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> right, I mean we those judges shouldn't have let coloreds into public schools in the south...after all, the will of the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> /sarcasm



these situations are nothing alike


----------



## KelJu (Nov 5, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Obama handily won California: over 6 million votes.  Why do you blame this passage on the religious right?
> 
> The far-right religious vote you're speaking of would not have gone for Obama.



I am confused. I didn't say the religious right had anything to do wit hthe outcome of the election.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I am confused. I didn't say the religious right had anything to do wit hthe outcome of the election.



no you were saying that the religious right was responsible for proposition 8 passing.

His point is that those who are not of the religious right who overwhelmingly voted for obama to be president in california also voted to pass prop 8


----------



## maniclion (Nov 5, 2008)

Dear Lord:

*SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS, For they know not what they do!!!!*


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 5, 2008)

I found it amusing that so many states banned gay marriage and the right for gay couples to adopt, but abortion was a-OK for lots of states.

Moral of the story: It's ok to kill babies, as long as we're not putting children in the loving arms of gay couples.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Again, you can't have it both ways.  You're saying religious people are to blame for the passage, but these same "religious right" gave Obama an easy victory in California.
> 
> 
> You need a new scapegoat, because the religious had an awful lot of help.




i just think people in general are nosy judgmental assholes that like to get their nose up about shit they have NO RIGHT sticking their noses in. i bet you dollars to donuts some dried up old cunt whose *successful* marriage was a result of ignoring the fact her husband fucked his secretary for 20 years or was molesting little girls voted not to let gay people get married so she could preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. puleeeassse 

people in this country want to tell other people whether they can use a vibrator, suck their husbands dick etc but it's perfectly legal to cut your cock in half and post pics of that online if it trips your trigger. 


my heart should decide whether i love bob or linda not some moral in his own mind law making dipshit with his nose up my ass.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> no you were saying that the religious right was responsible for proposition 8 passing.
> 
> His point is that those who are not of the religious right who overwhelmingly voted for obama to be president in california also voted to pass prop 8



I was saying that gay rights will be a big issue at the federal level in the following years.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

i wonder how many people who voted to pass prop 8 are cheating on their opposite sex spouses? beating their kids? beating their wives? been divorced? will be divorced? are plotting to kill their spouse? want to see their wife with another woman?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i just think people in general are nosy judgmental assholes that like to get their nose up about shit they have NO RIGHT sticking their noses in. i bet you dollars to donuts some dried up old cunt whose *successful* marriage was a result of ignoring the fact her husband fucked his secretary for 20 years or was molesting little girls voted not to let gay people get married so she could preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. puleeeassse
> 
> people in this country want to tell other people whether they can use a vibrator, suck their husbands dick etc but it's perfectly legal to cut your cock in half and post pics of that online if it trips your trigger.
> 
> ...


just curious, but did you read any of the links posted in the previous thread on this subject?


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

busyLivin said:


> Obama handily won California: over 6 million votes.  Why do you blame this passage on the religious right?
> 
> The far-right religious vote you're speaking of would not have gone for Obama.



I agree. The 6 million + liberal voters that elected Obama should have voted this down if that was the case. It clearly shows that even liberals, are still not ready and the country as a whole not ready to accept this.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I was saying that gay rights will be a big issue at the federal level in the following years.



I tend to disagree. This is a state matter. If this went to a federal level it would get crushed. If you put this up to a vote of the people nationally. then  overwhelmingly a prop 8 measure would pass. 52% voted for it in a liberal state. how many other states out there are as liberal overall as california? not many. If you put this measure to the federal level a higher percentage than 52% would vote for it. The united states is not ready for gay marriage. not yet


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I agree. The 6 million + liberal voters that elected Obama should have voted this down if that was the case. It clearly shows that even liberals, are still not ready and the country as a whole not ready to accept this.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> just curious, but did you read any of the links posted in the previous thread on this subject?



i saw it briefly when the thread started. so i'm prob repeating whats already been said. 

i'm just really good at putting myself in the other guys shoes. and i think to tell me i cannot love who i love, declare our bond and commitment to each other, raise some kids everyone seems to think its ok to murder in the first trimester instead, and be affordred the same legal and community support as other families and couples is an abomination.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I was saying that gay rights will be a big issue at the federal level in the following years.



The SC will never take that on IMO. It will be left to the states.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

holy crap that thread got huge.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> holy crap that thread got huge.



there is a world of possibilities for this post and I just can't come up with one.  I think I'm losing the source of all my powers


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i wonder how many people who voted to pass prop 8 are cheating on their opposite sex spouses? beating their kids? beating their wives? been divorced? will be divorced? are plotting to kill their spouse? want to see their wife with another woman?



What does this have to do with prop 8? I'm totally lost by your post. How is this relevent?


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

Crono1000 said:


> there is a world of possibilities for this post and I just can't come up with one.  I think I'm losing the source of all my powers




holy crap indeed.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> the fucking argument _always_ goes to the bible which is supposed to have no place in our laws.



Umm, our forefathers founded this country on God and the Bible. And most importantly MORALS.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Umm, our forefathers founded this country on God and the Bible. And most importantly MORALS.



One person may find it immoral for two men to marry.  The gay man finds it immoral that he can't be married to someone he loves.  Morals are like ideals, they're dependant on the individual.  And a person standing up for his ideals is a person standing alone.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Crono1000 said:


> One person may find it immoral for two men to marry.  The gay man finds it immoral that he can't be married to someone he loves.  Morals are like ideals, they're dependant on the individual.  And a person standing up for his ideals is a person standing alone.



I guess that is why the measure failed then huh? They stood alone.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Crono1000 said:


> One person may find it immoral for two men to marry.  The gay man finds it immoral that he can't be married to someone he loves.  Morals are like ideals, they're dependant on the individual.  And a person standing up for his ideals is a person standing alone.



no, morals come from a higher source. the people at large determine the morals of the community that they wish to live in.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I guess that is why the measure failed then huh? They stood alone.



I like what you did there.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> What does this have to do with prop 8? I'm totally lost by your post. How is this relevent?





do straight people want to keep the right to dishonor their unions all to themselves or what? marriage is between _a_ man and _a_ woman works out well what percentage of the time? it more often becomes a union between spouses and their illicit lovers doesn't it?

marriage makes people miserable most of the time as evidenced by the divorce rate. maybe we should ban all marriages.


----------



## Crono1000 (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> do straight people want to keep the right to dishonor their unions all to themselves or what? marriage is between _a_ man and _a_ woman works out well what percentage of the time? it more often becomes a union between spouses and their illicit lovers doesn't it?
> 
> marriage makes people miserable most of the time as evidenced by the divorce rate. *maybe we should ban all marriages.*



Little Wing for 2012


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> do straight people want to keep the right to dishonor their unions all to themselves or what? marriage is between _a_ man and _a_ woman works out well what percentage of the time? it more often becomes a union between spouses and their illicit lovers doesn't it?
> 
> marriage makes people miserable most of the time as evidenced by the divorce rate. maybe we should ban all marriages.



I agree with this.............I'm divorced, but I still don't see the idea that just because a large number of marriages don't work, that it should give a man/man or a woman/woman the right to get married. Apples to oranges IMO.
I could care less if gays want to marry. To each his own. Just don't bring it around me. What really bothers me though is that they want things such as insurance and entitlements meant for men and women. That drives up the cost of such things. It waay too high now that most americans don't have insurance.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Umm, our forefathers founded this country on God and the Bible. And most importantly MORALS.



if some snooty old broads morals say she can't have sex toys good for her. i don't want _her_ deciding _i_ can't have one. or more...  

morals are a good thing but freedom to decide for oneself is becoming too rare. our forefathers kept slaves and sired black children thru rape of said slaves. our forefathers tortured people believed to be witches. it is not immoral for a man to love another man, it is simply against the morals of some. and i think it's insane that a man who cheats on his wife can decide to deny others the right to marry. he is moral in the voting booth but not his actions. it's ridiculous.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Crono1000 said:


> I like what you did there.



They just didn't have as many stand with them as the other side did


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> if some snooty old broads morals say she can't have sex toys good for her. i don't want _her_ deciding _i_ can't have one. or more...
> 
> morals are a good thing but freedom to decide for oneself is becoming too rare. our forefathers kept slaves and sired black children thru rape of said slaves. our forefathers tortured people believed to be witches. it is not immoral for a man to love another man, it is simply against the morals of some. and i think it's insane that a man who cheats on his wife can decide to deny others the right to marry. he is moral in the voting booth but not his actions. it's ridiculous.



Prop 8 wasn't about anyones right to own sex toys was it?  I agree freedoms are becoming rare. That is why we need big government out of our lives.
Nobody is perfect, but we must have some sort of guidlines to live by. If we don't, this whole world is doomed.

Edit: If some ol broad doesn't want sex toys, that's her loss.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

sympathy is my strong suit and i just find it hard to believe that so many people can fail to see the gut wrenching cruelty of this decision. i think it is a civil rights issue. an all men are created equal and should be afforded the full protection of the law issue... i think it's fucking bullshit that in this country of supposed freedoms straights can draw a line in the sand and tell gays this is for only us not your kind.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> sympathy is my strong suit and i just find it hard to believe that so many people can fail to see the gut wrenching cruelty of this decision. i think it is a civil rights issue. an all men are created equal and should be afforded the full protection of the law issue... i think it's fucking bullshit that in this country of supposed freedoms straights can draw a line in the sand and tell gays this is for only us not your kind.


----------



## QuestionGuy (Nov 5, 2008)

Waht the fuck is next? Will the redneck farmer try to marry his goat??? Holly crap......We are drowning in our own bull shit...A man can not marry another man, same goes for women...I believe in "domestic parteners" and that fine, they should be treated with respect and should be able to share benefits and such but actual marige is bull shit..Marige is between a Man and a Woman and thats how it should stay!!  NO FREAKING Talk shit all you want but this is geting ridicoulous...


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> marriage makes people miserable most of the time as evidenced by the divorce rate. maybe we should ban all marriages.



the divorce rate is because of selfishness. the divorce rate is because one individual is putting themselves ahead of the union and marriage. just because there are current problems does not mean we get rid of it all together. I really do not believe that marriage makes people miserable most of the time. and i dont think you believe it either. im surprised to hear such a negative, defeatist attitude from you LW.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> the divorce rate is because of selfishness. the divorce rate is because one individual is putting themselves ahead of the union and marriage. just because there are current problems does not mean we get rid of it all together. I really do not believe that marriage makes people miserable most of the time. and i dont think you believe it either. im surprised to hear such a negative, defeatist attitude from you LW.




that part was a joke. but i do think it's selfish of straights to deny gays the right to marry, for straights to put themselves above their fellow man.


i do believe that MOST heterosexual marriage in this country are dishonored in one or multiple ways. i do believe that many people voted to protect the sanctity of an institution they themselves are guilty of dishonoring. straights are notoriously bad at marriage, look at the divorce rates. it's like a bunch of poachers denying others the right to hunt. 

can you even imagine the heartache this decision caused so many people? do they not bleed because they are different than you? is it moral to be blind to the suffering of others?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 5, 2008)

I got a way for them to get around it.  Two lesbians and two gay men could marry one another and then utilize benefits cross ways....everyone keeps saying it has to be man and woman but they mention nothing about being in love....


----------



## DOMS (Nov 5, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I got a way for them to get around it. Two lesbians and two gay men could marry one another and then utilize benefits cross ways....everyone keeps saying it has to be man and woman but they mention nothing about being in love....


 
That sounds like the basis for a very funny movie.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 5, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I agree. The 6 million + liberal voters that elected Obama should have voted this down if that was the case. It clearly shows that even liberals, are still not ready and the country as a whole not ready to accept this.


You think it was just liberals who voted for Obama, a whole hell of a lot of Republicans I know voted for Barrack, plus there are a lot of Bible thumping liberals out there.....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> that part was a joke. but i do think it's selfish of straights to deny gays the right to marry, for straights to put themselves above their fellow man.
> 
> 
> i do believe that MOST heterosexual marriage in this country are dishonored in one or multiple ways. i do believe that many people voted to protect the sanctity of an institution they themselves are guilty of dishonoring. straights are notoriously bad at marriage, look at the divorce rates. it's like a bunch of poachers denying others the right to hunt.
> ...



I have posted why I believe the way I do on this subject on the last thread. I feel it answers every one of the questions you brought up. I'm not willing to start that again. though. If you want to see the concerns of those who voted in favor of proposition 8. actual concerns, not just "we want marriage for ourselves so only we can be hypocrites" BS that isn't even a real argument. then go back and check it out. but I really dont think you have a true argument when everything is looked at.


----------



## powerbomb (Nov 5, 2008)

There are a lot of Bible thumpers out there but if you are going to make an argument at least try to see it both ways. Our society may be "progressive" and people can say that people with different morals are discriminating against them but to the "Bible thumper" the norm for a long time has been marriage is between a man and a woman. As part of my religion I also believe this. So just because there is a large group trying to change the standard at least try to see it from the side who has upheld the standard of the past. At least in this country to get to vote on it and we are not like Iran where you get hung for it.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 5, 2008)

maniclion said:


> You think it was just liberals who voted for Obama, a whole hell of a lot of Republicans I know voted for Barrack, plus there are a lot of Bible thumping liberals out there.....



not at all, you are right. But more liberls voted him in than conservatives.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I have posted why I believe the way I do on this subject on the last thread. I feel it answers every one of the questions you brought up. I'm not willing to start that again. though. If you want to see the concerns of those who voted in favor of proposition 8. actual concerns, not just "we want marriage for ourselves so only we can be hypocrites" BS that isn't even a real argument. then go back and check it out. but I really dont think you have a true argument when everything is looked at.



i did check out the thread and the links you provided. there is far too little respect on both sides. bottom line is the church needs to keep its fucking nose out of peoples bedrooms and the government needs to keep it's fucking nose out of the churches business.

god forbid some law takes away some poor child's right or reason to snicker and sneer at a homosexual by gasp educating them as to what a diverse world we live in.


----------



## tallcall (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, I think my job is done here!


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 5, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i did check out the thread and the links you provided. there is far too little respect on both sides. bottom line is the church needs to keep its fucking nose out of peoples bedrooms and the government needs to keep it's fucking nose out of the churches business.
> 
> god forbid some law takes away some poor child's right or reason to snicker and sneer at a homosexual by gasp educating them as to what a diverse world we live in.



The governments job is not to teach my child what is right/wrong or morally sensible. that is the sole possession of parents and if they choose churches. and nothing in that article said we should sneer or snicker at homosexuals. the opposite actually when it came to how we should treat others.

this is not about the church looking in someones bedroom. that article never said anything about outlawing homosexuality or about judgment of homosexuals. what we are talking about is taking what goes on in the bedroom and now making it public. I dont care what they do in the bedroom, it should stay there. I do not support any legislation or judicial ruling that forces an individual or church to accept a practice that they do not agree with.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 5, 2008)

tallcall said:


> Well, I think my job is done here!



And yet, here I sit, unfulfilled.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 5, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> The governments job is not to teach my child what is right/wrong or morally sensible. that is the sole possession of parents and if they choose churches. and nothing in that article said we should sneer or snicker at homosexuals. the opposite actually when it came to how we should treat others.
> 
> this is not about the church looking in someones bedroom. that article never said anything about outlawing homosexuality or about judgment of homosexuals. what we are talking about is taking what goes on in the bedroom and now making it public. I dont care what they do in the bedroom, it should stay there. I do not support any legislation or judicial ruling that forces an individual or church to accept a practice that they do not agree with.



you can say it's NOT about whatever you want but the mentality behind this is to deny certain people rights that are afforded to others because you believe you are more entitled to them because of some perceived moral or lifestyle what...  difference? superiority? tradition? 

female genital mutilation is a tradition should it never be challenged because it has merit simply because well that's how it's always been? yea yea i know it's NOT about FGM. 

we live in a different world than our forefathers did and laws need to grow and change to accommodate that. to put blinders on a child is not progress. in any school in the US a child will grow up alongside gay and lesbian peers welcome to the real world, it's not sunday school.

 do you want there to be _no_ sex education in schools at all? no discussion of the dynamics of any type of loving union hetero or otherwise? no frank discussion of how babies get here and that some people just don't have any interest in that particular equation... i don't really see any lesson in silence and exclusion besides giving kids a misguided sense of superiority. 

i don't see anyone being dragged kicking and screaming off a horse because it was the standard method of transportation in the good old days and all this new fangled automobile shit is ruining our society. 

i know it's not about horses but i still smell a lot of horseshit. 

well gays can have unions just not legally recognized ones. and you want the government that has no right teaching your kid about morals to back you up on that cuz it's not their job


----------



## powerbomb (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> you can say it's NOT about whatever you want but the mentality behind this is to deny certain people rights that are afforded to others because you believe you are more entitled to them because of some perceived moral or lifestyle what...  difference? superiority? tradition?
> 
> female genital mutilation is a tradition should it never be challenged because it has merit simply because well that's how it's always been? yea yea i know it's NOT about FGM.
> 
> ...




It's official Little Wing is gay.


----------



## tallcall (Nov 6, 2008)

DOMS said:


> And yet, here I sit, unfulfilled.



Get the lotion!


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> you can say it's NOT about whatever you want but the mentality behind this is to deny certain people rights that are afforded to others because you believe you are more entitled to them because of some perceived moral or lifestyle what...  difference? superiority? tradition?
> 
> female genital mutilation is a tradition should it never be challenged because it has merit simply because well that's how it's always been? yea yea i know it's NOT about FGM.
> 
> ...


Nice high horse, but its a load of crap.

This has nothing to do with me wanting to deny rights to people. or how i feel entitled to something. This is about protecting my religious beliefs. The threat to a church's religious doctrine was shown in those links. As gay and lesbian marriage becomes more main stream we are going to be having more gender confused children. tell me these children lead a happy life? 

as far as sex education goes. a teacher should not be placed in a position to teach children what the definition of a loving union is. period. there should not be a curriculum saying this is the definition that a teacher will present. as dictated by either churches, or the gay/lesbian alliance. Sex education should be rolled into biology and treated as such. 

The definition of a loving union should be taught in the home, by parent/s. either gay or strait. It is the parents responsibility to take control of their childs education and determine by what moral standards they wish their children to live. This should not be dictated by either side. The time is not to lower the bar. The time is not to throw open the flood gates because the previous generation did such a fucked up job in the past. The time is to raise the bar. 

are you going to tell me you left your childrens sex education to school? bull shit. you are a much more involved parent than that. there is no doubt in my mind that you have had open communication with your children on what you feel is appropriate and they need to know about sex. You have given them the example by your actions and words what you want for them as far as a healthy, loving, sexual relationship. That is what sex education should be for children.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Nice high horse, but its a load of crap.



touche.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> touche.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Nice high horse, but its a load of crap.
> 
> This has nothing to do with me wanting to deny rights to people. or how i feel entitled to something. This is about protecting my religious beliefs. The threat to a church's religious doctrine was shown in those links. As gay and lesbian marriage becomes more main stream we are going to be having more gender confused children. tell me these children lead a happy life?
> 
> ...



when you do have kids you will learn that they learn more at school from their peers than their teachers. no matter how much you try to shield them they are going to learn the facts of life in the real world. biology causes gender confusion not gay parents. how come so many straight parents have gay kids??? 

yes i taught my kids about sex, love, relationships but realistically life taught them more. seeing the struggle some of their peers faced for being a square peg in a round world taught them more. i think as far as sex education goes the most important thing they learned from me is i will love them from the bottom of my heart always and all i ask is for them to be true to their own hearts, to be UNASHAMEDLY who they are. 

you pose yourself as a person who has compassion for the gender confused all the while being one of the people who think sexuality has to be hammered into some righteous mold of biblically  correct proportions or it is WRONG and IMMORAL. all you will accomplish is to make it so if your child is gay they suffer hell on earth feeling they disappointed you and you won't love them if you find out. a child is going to be who they are inside no matter what. it's up to you to decide if you will accept it or try to teach them to be who you want them to be instead.


and MY kids are not the only kids in a classroom that matter to me. they _all_ do. some children _aren't_ being taught anything at home cuz mommy is a crack addicted whore and some of them have no one to say "hey, sometimes people have feelings and desires that don't fit what too many people consider NORMAL but that is an antiquated idea. the truth is it is diversity that is normal". the child with no one has a parent they know will not accept the truth that their child doesn't fit the parent's beliefs of what is acceptable. a child who's parents will try in vain to beat or preach the gay out of them, send them to therapy etc... who simply will not unconditionally love their child.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> when you do have kids you will learn that they learn more at school from their peers than their teachers. no matter how much you try to shield them they are going to learn the facts of life in the real world. biology causes gender confusion not gay parents. how come so many straight parents have gay kids???
> 
> yes i taught my kids about sex, love, relationships but realistically life taught them more. seeing the struggle some of their peers faced for being a square peg in a round world taught them more. i think as far as sex education goes the most important thing they learned from me is i will love them from the bottom of my heart always and all i ask is for them to be true to their own hearts, to be UNASHAMEDLY who they are.
> 
> ...



I think you are short changing the impact your teachings and example have on your children. I went through school and know exactly what was learned in the school yard, and what was taught in the class room and what was taught by my parents in my home. guess what? the teachings of my parents are what stuck. and you are right, not all home lifes are ideal. this does not mean we throw out morality all together. On the contrary it means we need it all the more.

If you had actually read the LDS position on homosexuality you would not be saying this crap. I have never once condemned anyone here to hell fire and damnation for homosexuality. dont just assume or lump me in with others.

We need more moral fortitude in this country not less. and im not saying this should be controlled or dictated by the government. but the opposite is also true. we should not allow our government to mandate something that we find against our beliefs.

and biology doesn't play the entire role in this equation. sure there are individuals that grow up in a seemingly great home and deal with these questions in their life. but what is the percentage of children from a home with divorce that grow up and get divorced compared to a home where the parents stayed together in a loving environment?  How is it so easy to overlook the statistics that show what the ideal opportunity for happiness and success are? will every situation be like that? no, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. 

If we recognize something as more effective we as a people should do all we can to attain/work toward that standard. not say "it is too difficult, we should change the standard so anyone can reach it"


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

powerbomb said:


> It's official Little Wing is gay.



no. but it makes me feel profoundly sad and literally nauseous that some people think it's ok to tell a child you are not entitled to the same privileges
as the rest of us because we don't approve of your sexual preference. 

and it certainly IS a civil rights issue.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I think you are short changing the impact your teachings and example have on your children. I went through school and know exactly what was learned in the school yard, and what was taught in the class room and what was taught by my parents in my home. guess what? the teachings of my parents are what stuck. and you are right, not all home lifes are ideal. this does not mean we throw out morality all together. On the contrary it means we need it all the more.
> 
> If you had actually read the LDS position on homosexuality you would not be saying this crap. I have never once condemned anyone here to hell fire and damnation for homosexuality. dont just assume or lump me in with others.
> 
> ...



homosexuality is not a lack of moral fortitude

every couple in this country that so desires to should have the right to marry for love. period.

_all_ the kids in a classroom deserve to be treated as equals and the things taught there should exclude no one nor make them feel in any way inferior to their peers.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> homosexuality is not a lack of moral fortitude
> 
> every couple in this country that so desires to should have the right to marry for love. period.



what about a plurality of couples who want to get married? polygamy anyone? 

There is a reason that 30 states have passed ammendments in favor of marriage, and it is not that the majority of americans are bigoted nazis who want to repress homosexuals.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> what about a plurality of couples who want to get married? polygamy anyone?
> 
> There is a reason that 30 states have passed ammendments in favor of marriage, and it is not that the majority of americans are bigoted nazis who want to repress homosexuals.



well do you want the government to set policies for churches or not? or only churches that disagree with yours?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> well do you want the government to set policies for churches or not? or only churches that disagree with yours?



you are going to have to explain what you are trying to say, im not seeing it. sorry.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

i believe in the rights of individuals. i believe in freedom of religion. i do not believe in forcing others to live by your faith or lack thereof.

if people are doing something that causes no harm to anyone let them alone. moral indignation that others are not following the dictates of your church is not harm.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

i honestly feel that a lot of society's crappy decline is due to mother's seeking work outside the home instead of staying home and actually _being_ mothers. that the American family would be better served if kids were raised by their parents and not day care centers, babysitters, and shitty school systems. in my mind it is a_ fact_ that children would be better off with her home, that society has been harmed by the trend of mothers working outside the home.... 

_but_ do i have the right to tell other women they cannot work for 18 years once they decide to have a child?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i believe in the rights of individuals. i believe in freedom of religion. i do not believe in forcing others to live by your faith or lack thereof.
> 
> if people are doing something that causes no harm to anyone let them alone. moral indignation that others are not following the dictates of your church is not harm.



thats not what this is about. im not going out to try and pass an anti-sodomy law here. I'm not doing anything to encroach on what they are doing in the bedroom.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 6, 2008)

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it again.

I've talked to some religious people about Prop 8.

The reason that it passed, even in the liberal heaven that is Cali, was due to the actions of some gays.

Gays that had the right to be married sued religious institutions that didn't want to perform the ceremony.  Causing some of them to lose their exempt status.

It wasn't enough that they could marry, they wanted to force people who didn't agree with them to perform the act.

So prop 8 passed.  A few assholes ruined it for the rest.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Gays that had the right to be married sued religious institutions that didn't want to perform the ceremony.  Causing some of them to lose their exempt status.
> 
> It wasn't enough that they could marry, they wanted to force people who didn't agree with them to perform the act.



but its the religious right that is trampling everyones rights? 

Good post DOMS. Despite the provided links that show this is what was going on, those fighting it have seemed to overlook it.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> but its the religious right that is trampling everyones rights?
> 
> Good post DOMS. Despite the provided links that show this is what was going on, those fighting it have seemed to overlook it.



It's like racism, they like to believe that only whites are capable of it.  They don't want to believe that gays would push their lifestyle on others.

I don't think that many gays do that.  After all, who wants to get married by someone that doesn't like you?  Like I said, a few assholes ruined it for rest.

On a side note, I just realized how much innuendo one can find that last statement.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

DOMS said:


> On a side note, I just realized how much innuendo one can find that last statement.



LOL


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> _thats not what this is about_. im not going out to try and pass an anti-sodomy law here. I'm not doing anything to encroach on what they are doing in the bedroom.




i meant gays_ marrying_ causes no real harm to anyone.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

DOMS said:


> who wants to get married by someone that doesn't like you?




good question. wouldn't be my choice for a happy memorable day.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i meant gays_ marrying_ causes no real harm to anyone.



whether you want to accept it or not. Gays marrying will have an impact.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i meant gays_ marrying_ causes no real harm to anyone.



Liar.

It causes harm to the gays.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> whether you want to accept it or not. Gays marrying will have an impact.




your perseverance in this thread is matched only by my tenacity in advocating for the civil rights of my fellow man.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 6, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> your perseverance in this thread is matched only by my tenacity in advocating for the civil rights of my fellow man.



You didn't answer his question (or I was too lazy to read it), so what's your take on plural marriage?  Yay or nay?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 6, 2008)

depends.... polygamy a choice.

Personally i don't think sexual preference is a choice.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 6, 2008)

Gender confusion? Come on, you can do better than that. That is a lame excuse. Again, what two people do doesn't matter to me. But when you say they have to have rights, does bother me.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 6, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> depends.... polygamy a choice.
> 
> Personally i don't think sexual preference is a choice.



Wait, are you implying that gay marriage should be okay but not polygamous marriage?

Hey, don't lay your conservative viewpoint down on me!


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 6, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You didn't answer his question (or I was too lazy to read it), so what's your take on plural marriage?  Yay or nay?




it wouldn't work for me but some families seem to function just fine this way. and honestly it doesn't have any impact on my life. growing up we lived by these two families...  everyone knew both rita and dot were richard's women, their houses were like 100 feet apart, both had kids by him, they all got along fine,  and he worked and supported both households.  it had _no_ impact on us at all, we all still chose monogamy and so did the kids they raised. was just this family that we knew that did things a different way. no big deal.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 6, 2008)

All of those against gays getting married are a bunch of fags and you don't want them to legalize gay marriage cause you're afraid your partners will start getting on your nerves asking when you both will Tie the Knot...


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

does anyone have the demographics on the vote.

Heard last night that it is basically a generational issue.  Older people voted yes, younger people voted no.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> does anyone have the demographics on the vote.
> 
> Heard last night that it is basically a generational issue.  Older people voted yes, younger people voted no.



My sister, who lives in LA, told me last night that 85% of all blacks voted yes on Prop 8.


----------



## brogers (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> sympathy is my strong suit and i just find it hard to believe that so many people can fail to see the gut wrenching cruelty of this decision. i think it is a civil rights issue. an all men are created equal and should be afforded the full protection of the law issue... i think it's fucking bullshit that in this country of supposed freedoms straights can draw a line in the sand and tell gays this is for only us not your kind.



People are afforded equal protection under the law.  You are deluded if you think otherwise.  I have the ability to marry a woman, so does a gay man.  A woman has the ability to marry a man, so does a gay woman.  There is absolutely no right being unequally applied.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> My sister, who lives in LA, told me last night that 85% of all blacks voted yes on Prop 8.



Yeah i heard about blacks in large support.  Blacks have historically been against gay marriage.  But really what percentage of blacks make up that vote, it ain't that much.


----------



## brogers (Nov 7, 2008)

Gays don't need any more coddling anyway.  I had to put up with a gay at olive garden "waiter/waitress."  300lbs, male, more make-up than my girlfriend, with fake "girly" voice.  I'm sure if the manager tried to fire him he'd have been branded a bigot and promptly sued.

They've also been trying to pass laws to allow those "gender confused" people to go into whatever bathroom they want.  In other words, you're going to have disgusting men going into the women's bathroom, because they feel they're really women.  This is insanity.


----------



## brogers (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Yeah i heard about blacks in large support.  Blacks have historically been against gay marriage.  But really what percentage of blacks make up that vote, it ain't that much.



Pretty sure (but not certain) the latinos are against gay marriage in general as well.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

so now you have 21% of the total registered voters?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> so now you have 21% of the total registered voters?



actually its about 52.5% in california. 57 in florida and 63 in arizona. and greater than 50% in 27 other states


----------



## brogers (Nov 7, 2008)

It passed with 62% support in Florida.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

brogers said:


> It passed with 62% support in Florida.



then i must have reversed florida and arizona. either way. the majority is not yet ready to abandon marriage.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> actually its about 52.5% in california. 57 in florida and 63 in arizona. and greater than 50% in 27 other states



my point was with reference to the minority vote for prop 8.  I don't understand why it is getting so much hype, when there influence isn't that great.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> The issue, you dumb mother fucker, isn't whether a gay man can marry a women. The issue, you dumb mother fucker, is whether the gay man can marry their gay male life partner and vice versa for gay women, YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER!!!!
> 
> Why do you keep bringing up this stupid fucking argument that only a moron would think is rational in any way.



LOL  I have just ignored him.  Some people constantly have blinders on to what is occuring around them.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> my point was with reference to the minority vote for prop 8.  I don't understand why it is getting so much hype, when there influence isn't that great.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> The issue, you dumb mother fucker, isn't whether a gay man can marry a women. The issue, you dumb mother fucker, is whether the gay man can marry their gay male life partner and vice versa for gay women, YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER!!!!
> 
> Why do you keep bringing up this stupid fucking argument that only a moron would think is rational in any way.



chill Kelju. dont let this get to you.

The gist of his argument (though very poorly stated) is that homosexuality is not a protected class. this isn't like passing a law against women, or blacks. How do you set up a protected class for a group of individuals that can change from day to day? a black person will always be black, for the most part a woman will always be a woman (excluding drastic surgery and hormone treatment). are you going to tell me Lindsay Lohan will always be gay?

has anyone hear actually studied the different court cases regarding marriage and why they were ruled the way they have been? this is not a new subject by any stretch.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> The issue, you dumb mother fucker, isn't whether a gay man can marry a women. The issue, you dumb mother fucker, is whether the gay man can marry their gay male life partner and vice versa for gay women, YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKER!!!!
> 
> Why do you keep bringing up this stupid fucking argument that only a moron would think is rational in any way.



When I read your post, I heard it as spoken by Samuel L. Jackson.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> When I read your post, I heard it as spoken by Samuel L. Jackson.



"No I can't stop yelling. Haven't you seen any of my MOO-VIES?"


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> When I read your post, I heard it as spoken by Samuel L. Jackson.




Hahaha. man so true.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> chill Kelju. dont let this get to you.
> 
> The gist of his argument (though very poorly stated) is that homosexuality is not a protected class. this isn't like passing a law against women, or blacks. How do you set up a protected class for a group of individuals that can change from day to day? a black person will always be black, for the most part a woman will always be a woman (excluding drastic surgery and hormone treatment). are you going to tell me Lindsay Lohan will always be gay?
> 
> has anyone hear actually studied the different court cases regarding marriage and why they were ruled the way they have been? this is not a new subject by any stretch.




So you believe being gay is a choice?


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> My sister, who lives in LA, told me last night that 85% of all blacks voted yes on Prop 8.



I saw this on tv. Most blacks are highly religious. Thus the vote.....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> So you believe being gay is a choice?



In some cases. perhaps. I really don't feel homosexuality is understood well enough to tell you the truth. I think a lot of factors go into it. perhaps some people are born with an attraction to the opposite sex. perhaps it is environmental, cultural. I don't know. With Lohan it is a momentary convenience.

To make this a civil rights case and argue that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as Race, sex, or religion is I think a stronger argument has to be made than has been previously done on this forum.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I saw this on tv. Most blacks are highly religious. Thus the vote.....



That was my thought, as well.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> chill Kelju. dont let this get to you.
> 
> The gist of his argument (though very poorly stated) is that homosexuality is not a protected class. this isn't like passing a law against women, or blacks. How do you set up a protected class for a group of individuals that can change from day to day? a black person will always be black, for the most part a woman will always be a woman (excluding drastic surgery and hormone treatment). are you going to tell me Lindsay Lohan will always be gay?
> 
> has anyone hear actually studied the different court cases regarding marriage and why they were ruled the way they have been? this is not a new subject by any stretch.



Thats fine and well. If you think gays shouldn't have the right to marry because of x y z reason is a valid. I don't agree wit hit, but it is valid. 

But, to say that you don't understand what the problem is and that there is no issue of rights being infringed upon because a gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex blows my mind. 

Really brogers? Really? That is your argument? Wow! Using that piece of deductive logic, I could shutdown any debate from now on. I have never heard of such. It is almost like straw man fallacy with a switch-o-roo twist. 

So you pick something that is already law, while avoiding the issue that is being debated, and then you pretend that nobody can claim that this is a civil rights issue.


So when blacks wanted the right to attend white schools, your argument would have been that there is no debate because blacks have the right to attend black schools. Am I understanding how this works?


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> So you believe being gay is a choice?



Show us proof that it isn't.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> So when blacks wanted the right to attend white schools, your argument would have been that there is no debate because blacks have the right to attend black schools. Am I understanding how this works?



I don't think his argument is valid. i'll just start off there.

as far as a black kid attending school. the difference is the black kid can't be black on tuesday and white on wednesday and still be a protected class. the black kid is always black and that is how it is.


----------



## brogers (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> chill Kelju. dont let this get to you.
> 
> The gist of his argument (though very poorly stated) is that homosexuality is not a protected class. this isn't like passing a law against women, or blacks. How do you set up a protected class for a group of individuals that can change from day to day? a black person will always be black, for the most part a woman will always be a woman (excluding drastic surgery and hormone treatment). are you going to tell me Lindsay Lohan will always be gay?
> 
> has anyone hear actually studied the different court cases regarding marriage and why they were ruled the way they have been? this is not a new subject by any stretch.



No, my argument is perfectly stated.  No right is being denied.  All are treated equally under the law with the same opportunities afforded to each.  I have yet to see anyone demonstrate otherwise.  Marriage is not "LIFE PARTNER TO LIFE PARTNER" or whatever euphemism you want to use for gays.  It has been, and is being enshrined in the state constitutions as man-woman.

Wills, power of attorney, and any other contractual agreements are open to all people, regardless of if someone is gay/straight/"CONFUSED."


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Show us proof that it isn't.



That is a poor ignorant rebuttal Dave.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

I still don't think everyone understands what can of worms this will open if passed nationally. Just like others stated, what about poligimy? Should we make that legal too? We are certainly obstructing rights of some that want multiple partners. Do we allow these men like in the result cults that were marrying young girls at 10 and 12 yrs old to marry? Certainly that can be argued as a right also. Where does this stop?


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

brogers said:


> It has been, and is being enshrined in the state constitutions as man-woman.
> 
> "




In time that will change. Gays will be the next protected class.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> That is a poor ignorant rebuttal Dave.



Why? As I may think it a choice and you may not, I doubt either of us can show proof either way.
I can remeber when my son was 5/6 and  was watching women at a beauty pageant with binoculars my daughter went to. To me that is natural and proves that homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> That is a poor ignorant rebuttal Dave.



I've never considered the though, but it's a valid one.

Consider how many anti-religious types tell the religious followers to prove that God exists.  It seems fair to pose the same question to something (a preference) that cannot be physically proven.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> In time that will change. Gays will be the next protected class.



They already are protected. I know a gay guy that is on a fire dept in my town. All the other straight guys were told not to harrass him and if they did they would be fired. Is that not protected?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> They already are protected. I know a gay guy that is on a fire dept in my town. All the other straight guys were told not to harrass him and if they did they would be fired. Is that not protected?



But there are still 30 states where they can get fired for there sexual orientation?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Why? As I may think it a choice and you may not, I doubt either of us can show proof either way.
> I can remeber when my son was 5/6 and  was watching women at a beauty pageant with binoculars my daughter went to. To me that is natural and proves that homosexuality is a choice.



there are other boys who have played with dolls and ended up being gay.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I've never considered the though, but it's a valid one.
> 
> Consider how many anti-religious types tell the religious followers to prove that God exists.  It seems fair to pose the same question to something (a preference) that cannot be physically proven.




I have never asked for a proof of god.  Religious people are free to believe what they want.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> I have never asked for a proof of god.  Religious people are free to believe what they want.



You may not have, but many others have.  

The point stands: what he asked was a valid question.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> But there are still 30 states where they can get fired for there sexual orientation?



adding a protection of marriage amendment to a state constitution has not changed the fact that you can not fire someone for sexual orientation.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> adding a protection of marriage amendment to a state constitution has not changed the fact that you can not fire someone for sexual orientation.


It wasnt a point to support that argument.  It was a counter to DG's point.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You may not have, but many others have.
> 
> The point stands: what he asked was a valid question.




Where is the biological proof for a man and woman?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Where is the biological proof for a man and woman?



Well, you see, there comes a time in a person life when...

It's between the knees.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's between the knees.



dude you are fucking hung. mine doesn't get anywhere near my knees.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Well, you see, there comes a time in a person life when...
> 
> It's between the knees.



still between the knees of a gay man.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> dude you are fucking hung. mine doesn't get anywhere near my knees.





I shouldn't try to post while talking on the phone.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> dude you are fucking hung. mine doesn't get anywhere near my knees.



lol


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> still between the knees of a gay man.



But prove to me it isn't a choice of where he sticks it.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

so being straight is a choice then?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> so being straight is a choice then?



Tab A into slot B makes a child.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Tab A into slot B makes a child.



and repeat.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Tab A into slot B makes a child.



So if they aren't going to procreate then they shouldn't be able to get married?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

Gay actions relationships are all through the animal kingdom.  Impressive for a choice


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> So if they aren't going to procreate then they shouldn't be able to get married?



You're dodging the point. Poorly.  

Where talking about proving sexual orientation, not marriage.  My point was that straight sex is how procreation happens and that gay sex doesn't.  The first being hardwired and the later being a choice.

Keep in mind that I'm not anti-gay.


----------



## tallcall (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Show us proof that it isn't.



Being black is a choice since you can change your skin color - just look at Michael Jackson.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

tallcall said:


> Being black is a choice since you can change your skin color - just look at Michael Jackson.








YouTube Video


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

to anyone out there that thinks being gay is a choice *really think about this* what if the government and your church decided there were too many people... only same sex partners will be accepted now. it's the best thing for your country... could you just DECIDE to be attracted to men now if you're a man women if you are a female??? i don't care what man made, god made, nature made, LAWS or REASONING is there i would think a hot guy is sexy whether i'm SUPPOSED to or not. you do not DECIDE that. if you think so TRY it ....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

tallcall said:


> Being black is a choice since you can change your skin color - just look at Michael Jackson.



then why havent all black men done it?




this was written in remembeance of DOMS former racism.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> to anyone out there that thinks being gay is a choice *really think about this* what if the government and your church decided there were too many people... only same sex partners will be accepted now. it's the best thing for your country... could you just DECIDE to be attracted to men now if you're a man women if you are a female??? i don't care what man made, god made, nature made, LAWS or REASONING is there i would think a hot guy is sexy whether i'm SUPPOSED to or not. you do not DECIDE that. if you think so TRY it ....



So lindsey lohan was born gay then?


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> So lindsey lohan was born gay then?



were you born straight? or did you really need to make a conscious decision to be?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> were you born straight? or did you really need to make a conscious decision to be?



That's kind of his point, we're hardwired to procreate.  It's the way we're built.  He's saying that to do otherwise is a choice.

I'm still not certain if being gay is also hardwired, but I know I've seen women go though really bad relationships with some shitty guys, get out, and then "discover" that they're gay.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> were you born straight? or did you really need to make a conscious decision to be?



you didn't answer my question.

For myself I don't ever remember being interested in the same sex. Then again as a small boy I wasn't attracted to girls either. 

so about Lindsey Lohan as an example?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You're dodging the point. Poorly.
> 
> Where talking about proving sexual orientation, not marriage.  My point was that straight sex is how procreation happens and that gay sex doesn't.  The first being hardwired and the later being a choice.
> 
> Keep in mind that I'm not anti-gay.



I know your not... and i ain't pro-gay.   just a way to kill a friday afternoon.

If it is a choice, then why does it occur through out the animal kingdom, since fuck knows when?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

Born Gay?






YouTube Video


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> That's kind of his point, we're hardwired to procreate.  It's the way we're built.  He's saying that to do otherwise is a choice.
> 
> I'm still not certain if being gay is also hardwired, but I know I've seen women go though really bad relationships with some shitty guys, get out, and then "discover" that they're gay.



ummmm, not sure why it's so hard to believe so many people saying they were born attracted to the same sex. i'm inclined to take their word for it cuz they should know. 

i have a friend that just went thru the whole discovered she's gay thing. she got _really_ pissed and stopped talking to me cuz i said it was hard for me to believe it because of the way she talked about different guys before. sure enough it was give up on men try women go right back to guys cuz that's what she really likes. i slept with women before but they don't turn me on, pull my heart strings or any of the things i really feel for the opposite sex. people know what comes natural to them.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm still not certain if being gay is also hardwired, but I know I've seen women go though really bad relationships with some shitty guys, get out, and then "discover" that they're gay.



Maybe because there is no distinguishing sexuality, and we lean towards  male-female relationships for procreation, and our environmental influences forbid a male-male or female-female relationship.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you didn't answer my question.
> 
> For myself I don't ever remember being interested in the same sex. Then again as a small boy I wasn't attracted to girls either.
> 
> so about Lindsey Lohan as an example?



i don't know anything about lindsey lohan or her life. i hope you teach your kids to ignore her type. mine couldn't give two shits for her or paris hilton either.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> I know your not... and i ain't pro-gay.   just a way to kill a friday afternoon.
> 
> If it is a choice, then why does it occur through out the animal kingdom, since fuck knows when?



If you're talking about animals like the bonobo monkey, it's doesn't make your case.  The bonobo exhibit gay behavior as a learned response.  Bonobos taken away from their troop and raised without that culture don't exhibit gay tendencies.

And, for the record, the bonobos aren't exclusively gay.  They're all bi-sexual.  No bonobo sticks to only having sex with its own gender.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Maybe because there is no distinguishing sexuality, and we lean towards  male-female relationships for procreation, and our environmental influences forbid a male-male or female-female relationship.



You've returned to the original question.  Prove that point.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> i slept with women before but they don't turn me on, pull my heart strings or any of the things i really feel for the opposite sex.



This seems to me to be a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> ummmm, not sure why it's so hard to believe so many people saying they were born attracted to the same sex. i'm inclined to take their word for it cuz they should know.
> 
> i have a friend that just went thru the whole discovered she's gay thing. she got _really_ pissed and stopped talking to me cuz i said it was hard for me to believe it because of the way she talked about different guys before. sure enough it was give up on men try women go right back to guys cuz that's what she really likes. i slept with women before but they don't turn me on, pull my heart strings or any of the things i really feel for the opposite sex. people know what comes natural to them.



When people need to justify a choice, they'll say (and think) anything they need to.  It's basic human psychology and a major problem for almost all people.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

*First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality*



Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> That's kind of his point, we're hardwired to procreate.  It's the way we're built.  He's saying that to do otherwise is a choice.
> 
> I'm still not certain if being gay is also hardwired, but I know I've seen women go though really bad relationships with some shitty guys, get out, and then "discover" that they're gay.



That is a good point that I can't explain. I have also seen this. However, someone once told me something that helped me understand it. It was a guy who said he use to have sex with men and women. I exclaimed that I didn't know he was bi-sexual. He said "I never said I was bi-sexual, I said I had sex with men and women".  



He later told me that he had a rough childhood where he didn't feel loved and wanted. He sought to find that love in the wrong places and didn't realize it until he was older and wiser. 

That might explain the situation with the women saying their are gay after a bad relationship with a guy. They may not truly be gay, however their fear of being mistreated and hurt again causes them to believe something that isn't true. 

However this opens up a backdoor for attack of my argument that sexual preference isn't a choice. I think most of the time it isn't a choice but, there are times where trauma can cause someone who isn't suppose to be a certain way turn out that way. In a sense that still isn't a choice exactly. 

Self defense mechanisms are a crazy damn thing. I don't pretend to understand what is goign on at that deep level of the mind.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> *First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality*
> 
> 
> 
> Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience



Animals also murder and cannibalize each other as well. I think we can all agree that those are not acceptable. I don't think a male monkey putting his pee pee in another male monkey's ass is a legit argument for allowing gay marriage. thats just me. i could be wrong.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> That is a good point that I can't explain. I have also seen this. However, someone once told me something that helped me understand it. It was a guy who said he use to have sex with men and women. I exclaimed that I didn't know he was bi-sexual. He said "I never said I was bi-sexual, I said I had sex with men and women".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That proves that, at least for some, that being gay is a choice.   Simple reasoning says it's possible that every gay person made such a choice.  But there's nothing to proves that it's not a choice for some.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> This seems to me to be a pretty strong argument that homosexuality is a choice.



there was a male there also. the stuff her n i did was for his amusement. it didn't really bother me but it really surprised me that touching her n being touched by her was "like touching cardboard... just not exciting". i don't see why it's so hard to understand some people feel that way toward the opposite sex. i can choose to sleep with a woman but i cannot choose to sexually respond to one. i wasn't adverse to responding i just felt nothing. i really doubt so many same sex lovers would do it without sexual feelings and responses being there. wth would be the point?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Animals also murder and cannibalize each other as well. I think we can all agree that those are not acceptable. I don't think a male monkey putting his pee pee in another male monkey's ass is a legit argument for allowing gay marriage. thats just me. i could be wrong.



Some animals also perform slavery.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

Has anybody ever considered homosexuality as nature's way of trying to help control the population. I juts made that up and have no scientific data, I just thought it was an amazing question.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Animals also murder and cannibalize each other as well.




uh. so do people.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> You've returned to the original question.  Prove that point.




I have no proof and really don't plan to gather any proof.  I am just of a position that is not bothered by unions of gay people, and see no reason that they shouldn't reap the same benefits as a straight couple.  I could see being upset with calling it marriage, but heck a civil union or whatever is fine.

I really don't have a problem with prop 8 being approved, this is a democracy, and the majority voted in favour, but slowly the generational gap is closing, and there will be a time in my lifetime where this will be struck down.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> That is a good point that I can't explain. I have also seen this. However, someone once told me something that helped me understand it. It was a guy who said he use to have sex with men and women. I exclaimed that I didn't know he was bi-sexual. He said "I never said I was bi-sexual, I said I had sex with men and women".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems to me that I agree with you. This is not an easy topic to pin down. the genesis for same gender attraction could have many potential starting points. I don't think we understand this enough to say with any certainty at least.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Has anybody ever considered homosexuality as nature's way of trying to help control the population. I juts made that up and have no scientific data, I just thought it was an amazing question.



Nature uses resources, predators and disease to control populations.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> I have no proof and really don't plan to gather any proof.  I am just of a position that is not bothered by unions of gay people, and see no reason that they shouldn't reap the same benefits as a straight couple.  I could see being upset with calling it marriage, but heck a civil union or whatever is fine.
> 
> I really don't have a problem with prop 8 being approved, this is a democracy, and the majority voted in favour, but slowly the generational gap is closing, and there will be a time in my lifetime where this will be struck down.



I wasn't really discussing gay marriage so much as just being gay in general.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Nature uses resources, predators and disease to control populations.



You speak in such absolutes, we haven't even scratched the surface on how our environment interacts with species, and species control.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> uh. so do people.



yup so do people. and we recognize this as being wrong and detrimental to society, and have made laws against it. my point being just because it happens in nature does not mean it is acceptable for humans.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> yup so do people. and we recognize this as being wrong and detrimental to society, and have made laws against it. my point being just because it happens in nature does not mean it is acceptable for humans.



and yet we execute murderers? sometimes killing people is ok with god even isn't it?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Has anybody ever considered homosexuality as nature's way of trying to help control the population. I juts made that up and have no scientific data, I just thought it was an amazing question.



its an interesting thought. Do we find a greater percentage of homosexuals in drought stricken areas where recourses are lowest and keeping the population down may be needed?

you are now stating that homosexuality is based on an external circumstance of environment. not really a good way to state that gays should be married.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> You speak in such absolutes, we haven't even scratched the surface on how our environment interacts with species, and species control.



I didn't say it was an all inclusive list.  But, yet again, you can't prove that sexual orientation is used in such a manner.

If we're going to make shit up, I think that aliens from other planets help to control human population on Earth.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

*Mom and Dad and Dad 
*Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I didn't say it was an all inclusive list.  But, yet again, you can't prove that sexual orientation is used in such a manner.
> 
> If we're going to make shit up, I think that aliens from other planets help to control human population on Earth.




Fuck Aliens....for real!!!!


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> *Mom and Dad and Dad
> *Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.



Two males raising a duckling doesn't constitute being gay.  Do they have sex?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> *Mom and Dad and Dad
> *Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.



yet more behavior exhibited in nature that I don't think is appropriate for humans.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> yet more behavior exhibited in nature that I don't think is appropriate for humans.



How is it detrimental?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Two males raising a duckling doesn't constitute being gay.  Do they have sex?



birds don't have penisis


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> How is it detrimental?



So if a guy had sex with your daughter for the purpose of later abducting the child and raising it with another man you would be ok with it?


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> So if a guy had sex with your daughter for the purpose of later abducting the child and raising it with another man you would be ok with it?



No question is more in reference of how a gay couple is detrimental


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> yet more behavior exhibited in nature that I don't think is appropriate for humans.




so the whole world should be run by what YOU think is appropriate but you do not have to accept what anyone else believes? 


sometimes the only way to open a closed mind is with dynamite.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> birds don't have penisis



swans do.

Among birds, only paleognathes (tinamous and ratites) and Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans) possess a penis. It is different in structure from mammal penes, being an erectile expansion of the cloacal wall and being erected by lymph, not blood. It is usually partially feathered and in some species features spines and brush-like filaments, and in flaccid state curled up inside the cloaca. The Argentine Blue-bill has the largest penis in relation to body size of all vertebrates; while usually about half the body size (20 cm), a specimen with a remarkable 42.5 cm-long penis is documented.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> so the whole world should be run by what YOU think is appropriate but you do not have to accept what anyone else believes?
> 
> 
> sometimes the only way to open a closed mind is with dynamite.



dont give that asinine shit.

show me anyone who would accept a man having a child with a woman for the purpose of driving her away and raising it with another man.

this isn't about me or me pushing my beliefs on anyone. you have yet to show that homosexuality is coming from birth, therefore natural and should be openly accepted. the argument that homosexuality happens in nature so should be accepted in human culture has so many holes in it to really just be a waste of time, space and energy that i can't believe it has been used yet again.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> there are other boys who have played with dolls and ended up being gay.



I'm sure both of us played with dolls as young boys. Neither of us are gay.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I'm sure both of us played with dolls as young boys. Neither of us are gay.



Hahaha you fag! You played with dolls. 


But seriously, Ninja turtles were the shit!


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> So if they aren't going to procreate then they shouldn't be able to get married?



At least in theory


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

dg806 said:


> I'm sure both of us played with dolls as young boys. Neither of us are gay.



Have you met Iain?


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> That is a good point that I can't explain. I have also seen this. However, someone once told me something that helped me understand it. It was a guy who said he use to have sex with men and women. I exclaimed that I didn't know he was bi-sexual. He said "I never said I was bi-sexual, I said I had sex with men and women".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good post. Makes arguments for both sides.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Hahaha you fag! You played with dolls.
> 
> 
> But seriously, Ninja turtles were the shit!



LMAO, cowabunga dude!


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> there was a male there also. the stuff her n i did was for his amusement. it didn't really bother me but it really surprised me that touching her n being touched by her was "like touching cardboard... just not exciting". i don't see why it's so hard to understand some people feel that way toward the opposite sex. i can choose to sleep with a woman but i cannot choose to sexually respond to one. i wasn't adverse to responding i just felt nothing. i really doubt so many same sex lovers would do it without sexual feelings and responses being there. wth would be the point?



What if the female was a shemale and had a big dick. Is she male or female? Would you feel different if she/he could have intercourse with you and you actually enjoyed it?? Food for thought.
And no I could never be attracted to another male no matter what. I would die first.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> dont give that asinine shit.
> 
> show me anyone who would accept a man having a child with a woman for the purpose of driving her away and raising it with another man.
> 
> this isn't about me or me pushing my beliefs on anyone. you have yet to show that homosexuality is coming from birth, therefore natural and should be openly accepted. the argument that homosexuality happens in nature so should be accepted in human culture has so many holes in it to really just be a waste of time, space and energy that i can't believe it has been used yet again.



numerous gay male couples have used surrogate mothers to have children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27surrogate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> numerous gay male couples have used surrogate mothers to have children.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27surrogate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



thats not what this is about is it? you're grasping at straws. you can not use something in the animal kingdom to prove that humans should follow suit. why would humans follow those lower down the proverbial evolutionary chain? 

LW you need to come back at this from a different angle. This line of argument does not hold water.

Swans, geese, baboons, monkeys, spiders, dogs, cats, whatever cant be used to ague in favor of prop 8.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> dont give that asinine shit.
> 
> show me anyone who would accept a man having a child with a woman for the purpose of driving her away and raising it with another man.
> 
> this isn't about me or me pushing my beliefs on anyone. you have yet to show that homosexuality is coming from birth, therefore natural and should be openly accepted. the argument that homosexuality happens in nature so should be accepted in human culture has so many holes in it to really just be a waste of time, space and energy that i can't believe it has been used yet again.



prove your god exists? prove your heterosexuality is the only moral union that will not erode society...


do you realize how many rapists, murderers, cannibals, child molesters, etc were raised in two parent straight homes? prove gays can do worse. 

mary got pregnant without getting fucked surrrreeeee. prove it. 


this isn't about proof it's about acceptance.  not everyone likes the same thing, in food, art or the bedroom. either you can accept it and let each man or woman choose what works best for them or you can't.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> thats not what this is about is it? you're grasping at straws. you can not use something in the animal kingdom to prove that humans should follow suit. why would humans follow those lower down the proverbial evolutionary chain?
> 
> LW you need to come back at this from a different angle. This line of argument does not hold water.
> 
> Swans, geese, baboons, monkeys, spiders, dogs, cats, whatever cant be used to ague in favor of prop 8.




to many god is a joke, a fairy tale, and should not be used to argue anything but part of your argument is that prop 8 threatens the doctrine of your church.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> this isn't about proof it's about acceptance.  not everyone likes the same thing, in food, art or the bedroom. either you can accept it and let each man or woman choose what works best for them or you can't.



This is one of the best sounding arguments I have heard. This isn't about proof or it would have been settled already. This is about acceptance.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> swans do.
> 
> Among birds, only paleognathes (tinamous and ratites) and Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans) possess a penis. It is different in structure from mammal penes, being an erectile expansion of the cloacal wall and being erected by lymph, not blood. It is usually partially feathered and in some species features spines and brush-like filaments, and in flaccid state curled up inside the cloaca. The Argentine Blue-bill has the largest penis in relation to body size of all vertebrates; while usually about half the body size (20 cm), a specimen with a remarkable 42.5 cm-long penis is documented.


So they have a "Lymph Dick" huh?


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)




----------



## maniclion (Nov 7, 2008)

Why is it so hard to reason that if we can have physically ambiguous birth defects like hermaphrodites or chimeras, that we can't have some with a mental mix up or even some that have all physical appearances of a male yet the mental make-up of a female?  I will agree that there are some homosexuals that may have chosen to be gay for reasons we don't understand but I have to give the benefit of the doubt to those who may have been born that way....  Judaism is a religion yet so many people treat it as though it were a race and you are just born a Jew....


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> to many god is a joke, a fairy tale, and should not be used to argue anything but part of your argument is that prop 8 threatens the doctrine of your church.



my argument simply states that my church can simply continue to teach it's doctrines because prop 8 passed. not that gay marriage threatens the doctrines of my church. if prop 8 had failed my church can now be brought in court for simply teaching it's doctrines. i think not. the government can't tell my church what doctrines to preach.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> to many god is a joke, a fairy tale, and should not be used to argue anything but part of your argument is that prop 8 threatens the doctrine of your church.



It's clear that you don't know the whole story.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> prove your god exists? prove your heterosexuality is the only moral union that will not erode society...
> 
> 
> do you realize how many rapists, murderers, cannibals, child molesters, etc were raised in two parent straight homes? prove gays can do worse.
> ...



statistics show that children raised in a home with a mother and father do better. thats proof enough. yea, there are exceptions, but that doesn't prove your point.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's clear that you don't know the whole story.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


>



I already explained it.  What more can I do?


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I already explained it.  What more can I do?



im not sure. i like how im the one blamed for being stubborn though


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> statistics show that children raised in a home with a mother and father do better. thats proof enough. yea, there are exceptions, but that doesn't prove your point.



What are the statistics for how well children fair being passed around foster homes as opposed to how well children fair growing up in a gay household?


----------



## Will Brink (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> dont give that asinine shit.
> 
> show me anyone who would accept a man having a child with a woman for the purpose of driving her away and raising it with another man.
> 
> this isn't about me or me pushing my beliefs on anyone. you have yet to show that homosexuality is coming from birth, therefore natural and should be openly accepted. the argument that homosexuality happens in nature so should be accepted in human culture has so many holes in it to really just be a waste of time, space and energy that i can't believe it has been used yet again.



Personally, I don't give a rats ass if it's from birth or not. Irrelevant. The state has no compelling reason to tell adults what they cando with their body or who they can marry. As long as it does not include animals or children, and or does not prevent others from their own persuit of life, liberty, and happiness, what others do is none of my business. And by "my" I mean the state, society, or moralizing Bible thumpers. There were laws not long ago that prevented people of different races from getting married. Most people would be disgusted by that today, but it was the social norm then, and a few of those laws are still being used against gay people.(1) Equal Rights is Equal Rights, not just rights for those you agree with or don't threaten your social norms (which change over time whether you and I like it or not) or go against your religion. 

A state altering it's own Const. to add bigotry to it, is a low point in our nations history and a big step backwards for Equal Rights as promised by the Bill of Rights and Const.

(1) IN 1913 a law was passed in Massachusetts to prevent interracial couples from other parts of the US marrying in the state.

At the time, 30 of 48 states had banned interracial marriage, and a number of states, including Massachusetts, then passed laws that would keep interracial couples from crossing borders to marry in their jurisdiction.
Relationships like this were once prohibited in many US states

Relationships like this were once prohibited in many US states

Thankfully, the archaic marriage law – a reminder of America’s disgraceful racist past - fell into disuse.
But it was then discovered that the law could be invoked to prevent gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

So the House of Representatives yesterday did the right thing and voted, by a huge majority, to scrap it.
The Catholic Church, of course, is outraged.

Cont:

The Freethinker ??? Massachusetts scraps archaic racist law â?????? and the archaic Catholic Church is, of course, furious


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Personally, I don't give a rats ass if it's from birth or not. Irrelevant. The state has no compelling reason to tell adults what they can do with their body or who they can marry. As long as it does not include animals or children, and or does not prevent others from their own persuit of life, liberty, and happiness, what others do is none of my business. And by "my" I mean the state, society, or moralizing Bible thumpers. There were laws not long ago that prevented people of different races from getting married. Most people would be disgusted by that today, but it was the social norm then, and a few of those laws are still being used against gay people. Equal Rights is Equal Rights, not just rights for those you agree with or don't threaten your social norms (which change over time whether you and I like it or not) or go against your religion.
> 
> A state altering it's own Const. to add bigotry to it, is a low point in our nations history and a big step backwards for Equal Rights as promised by the Bill of Rights and Const.




You are a true dickhead sometimes, but damn you make good points.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> the government can't tell my church what doctrines to preach.



nor should it. i absolutely agree with you there. i just think the line got drawn a lot further back than it needed to be. don't some churches refuse to marry people who have been divorced? that should be their right, they should not have to cow down to anything contrary to their beliefs. at the same time there are other people in the world with different beliefs and they should have the right to live as they desire to also. free from the restrictions placed on them by the beliefs of others just as you are asking that your church be allowed to do. if the lawsuits were the issue they should have been addressed but the easier thing to do was throw the baby out with the bath water i guess????

in the links you posted there was a lot of if it passes this "may" happen that "may" happen. maybe in the future a better understanding of both sides needs and fears will make it possible for people with opposing views and lifestyles to coexist in harmony... IF people are willing to even try.


----------



## Will Brink (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> You are a true dickhead sometimes, but damn you make good points.



Do I tell you to go fu^% yourself or do I say thanx? I'm confused.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 7, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Do I tell you to go fu^% yourself or do I say thanx? I'm confused.



Say both, and join my world of internal conflict.


----------



## Will Brink (Nov 7, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Say both, and join my world of internal conflict.



I got my own. I can't add your internal conflicts to mine, or I will end up with multiple personality syndrome.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 7, 2008)

Yeah Will's right there was a time when our next Presidents parents would have been thrown in jail for even being together.  Anti-miscegenation laws never prevented many of my ancestors from getting together thank God but I'm willing to bet it made things hard for them.....


----------



## Will Brink (Nov 7, 2008)

maniclion said:


> Yeah Will's right there was a time when our next Presidents parents would have been thrown in jail for even being together.  Anti-miscegenation laws never prevented many of my ancestors from getting together thank God but I'm willing to bet it made things hard for them.....



It's sad but predictable those that oppose same sex marriage try to pretend it's not an equal rights issue, because if they did, they would see a bigot looking back at them in the mirror.


----------



## bio-chem (Nov 7, 2008)

well I guess everyone can just go ahead and kiss my white bigoted ass.

calling me a bigot is a bunch of horse shit


----------



## Will Brink (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> well I guess everyone can just go ahead and kiss my white bigoted ass.
> 
> calling me a bigot is a bunch of horse shit



No bigot likes to be called a bigot. If the shoe fits:

"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind."(1)


(1) Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## maniclion (Nov 7, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> well I guess everyone can just go ahead and kiss my white bigoted ass.
> 
> calling me a bigot is a bunch of horse shit


What should we call you then?  Hateful?  Selfish?  Intolerant?  Persecutionist? Dogmatist?


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 10, 2008)

*We may just terminate Prop 8*

*Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8*
SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.
Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 10, 2008)




----------



## ZECH (Nov 10, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> *Calif. gov.: 'We will maybe undo' Prop 8*
> SACRAMENTO, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Sunday said "we will ... maybe undo" a measure passed by voters Tuesday stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry.
> Proposition 8 amends the state constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." It came in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the state constitution.
> 
> In an appearance Sunday on CNN, Schwarzenegger said the state Supreme Court might overturn Proposition 8, the Los Angeles Times reported. He also said it is likely Proposition 8 will have no effect on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages already recorded in California.



Why even vote if the court knows best? That is a crock of shit. Again, that is the second time the people have voted. I guess we need to let the liberal judges take over our country since they obviously know what we want.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 10, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> my argument simply states that my church can simply continue to teach it's doctrines because prop 8 passed. not that gay marriage threatens the doctrines of my church. if prop 8 had failed my church can now be brought in court for simply teaching it's doctrines. i think not. the government can't tell my church what doctrines to preach.



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe all that would happen is that they would lose their tax exempt status.  Sooooooo, they can choose to only marry heteros and pay taxes, or they can marry gays as well and keep their tax exempt status.  No fundamental right is being denied to your church.  Wow, that argument seems very familiar.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 10, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe all that would happen is that they would lose their tax exempt status.  Sooooooo, they can choose to only marry heteros and pay taxes, or they can marry gays as well and keep their tax exempt status.  No fundamental right is being denied to your church.  Wow, that argument seems very familiar.


I've seen a church refuse because they didn't want to wed couples who had children out of wedlock so I don't see an issue.  Most gay people wouldn't want a Church that preaches hate towards them to get their money for a ceremnoy anyhow I would think.....There are also churches who won't marry inter-racial couples....


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 10, 2008)

i think that the street needs to be two way. i don't see why it is so hard to respect the rights of people to embrace a certain faith and to not blatantly piss in their face for their differing beliefs. if a church doesn't want to marry certain couples, and their refusal is faith based, they shouldn't have to. there are plenty of others that will. however, a restaurant refusing to serve food etc would be a whole different thing.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> if a church doesn't want to marry certain couples, and their refusal is faith based, they shouldn't have to.



There in lies the problem.  A group of gays is using a given church's refusal to marry them as grounds to get them legally punished.

Which created the swell of support behind prop 8.


----------



## crazy_enough (Nov 10, 2008)

Cant you be married somewhere other than a church in the US? Like city hall or judge judy or whatever?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> Cant you be married somewhere other than a church in the US? Like city hall or judge judy or whatever?



Sure you can.  Plus, you can get married in any church that's willing to do it for you.

Unfortunately, a few people are screwing it up for the rest of the gays.


----------



## crazy_enough (Nov 10, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Sure you can. Plus, you can get married in any church that's willing to do it for you.
> 
> Unfortunately, a few people are screwing it up for the rest of the gays.


 

ok, thought so.... Then why oh why make such a big fuss out of being married at a specific church? Why the fawk would anyone want to be married by a church or organization which doesnt support their beliefs is beyond me...


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> ok, thought so.... Then why oh why make such a big fuss out of being married at a specific church? Why the fawk would anyone want to be married by a church or organization which doesnt support their beliefs is beyond me...



It's because gays (in the US, anyway) have moved beyond the "I wan't equal rights phase."  They're now on to the phase that blacks have been on for sometime.  That's the "equal rights means that I get to shit on you now" phase. 

This is only going to make enemies.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> ok, thought so.... Then why oh why make such a big fuss out of being married at a specific church? Why the fawk would anyone want to be married by a church or organization which doesnt support their beliefs is beyond me...


That's what I said the Church charges for ceremonies don't they so why provide financial support to an institution that is trying to persecute your way of life?


----------



## crazy_enough (Nov 10, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's because gays (in the US, anyway) have moved beyond the "I wan't equal rights phase." They're now on to the phase that blacks have been on for sometime. That's the "equal rights means that I get to shit on you now" phase.
> 
> This is only going to make enemies.


 
Altho, U have to ''understand'' that being oppressed for so long does leave a bad taste in one's mouth... I can kinda see how some may want to tell all to f** off and stick it, ya know.  

I must admit I dont think so kindly of revoking such a right... Its pretty ridiculous that in 2008 gays must still fight to be recognized as equals to the heterosexual population.


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> I must admit I dont think so kindly of revoking such a right... Its pretty ridiculous that in 2008 gays must still fight to be recognized as equals to the heterosexual population.




amen to that


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> Altho, U have to ''understand'' that being oppressed for so long does leave a bad taste in one's mouth... I can kinda see how some may want to tell all to f** off and stick it, ya know.
> 
> I must admit I dont think so kindly of revoking such a right... Its pretty ridiculous that in 2008 gays must still fight to be recognized as equals to the heterosexual population.



Sure, they can keep doing it...it's worked so well for the blacks.


----------



## crazy_enough (Nov 10, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Sure, they can keep doing it...it's worked so well for the blacks.


 
It was no less ridiculous for black folks to endure such a struggle... Geez...people are just that: people. They come in all shapes, sizes, skin tones and have varying belief systems and values. 

Perhaps we should all be evaluated, judged and scored based on this criteria; then depending on each individual's score, rights would be granted...


----------



## DOMS (Nov 10, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> It was no less ridiculous for black folks to endure such a struggle... Geez...people are just that: people. They come in all shapes, sizes, skin tones and have varying belief systems and values.
> 
> Perhaps we should all be evaluated, judged and scored based on this criteria; then depending on each individual's score, rights would be granted...



You misunderstood. 

I wasn't saying that gays shouldn't get equal rights, I was saying that if they continue pulling the shit that blacks have, they're only going to prolong the problem.


----------



## min0 lee (Nov 11, 2008)

dg806 said:


> Why even vote if the court knows best? That is a crock of shit. Again, that is the second time the people have voted. I guess we need to let the liberal judges take over our country since they obviously know what we want.


*Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged*
LOS ANGELES -- The future of same-sex marriage in the Golden State will rest, once again, in the hands of its highest court. But this time, its fate will hinge on a different question: Can a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage go before voters? Or must it go before the legislature first?

The answer, legal experts say, will determine whether gay rights advocates can overturn Proposition 8, a recently passed ballot measure that overruled a state Supreme Court judgment that legalized same-sex marriage.

Three lawsuits, ready since the initiative was green-lighted for the November ballot, have been filed with the California Supreme Court asking it to stop the state from enforcing the proposition until the court has decided on its constitutionality. The suits aim to undo the measure on grounds that, under the equal protection clause in the state's constitution, a majority of voters are not allowed to revoke equal rights intended for everybody.


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 11, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> Cant you be married somewhere other than a church in the US? Like city hall or judge judy or whatever?



I read on a website that was protesting the mormon temples that the church doesnt hate gays or is against them,but rather they want to keep their values.
But isnt this what a democracy is about? That we go with the majority of the votes....?
Theres alot of things not going my way(laws and stuff),but I aint gonna cry about it infront of an establishment that played a big role in going against me,they shouldnt get mad at the opposition,they should get mad at not having enough support.There will always be people who dont agree with you,me us......what should the patients who use medical cannabis do when their state didnt pass for medical MJ,go protest outside the pharmacie
 companies like bayer,johnson and merc?
If gay supporters had enough votes,they would have won,but they didnt....we shouldnt blame the opposition,we should blame the people who say they are for gay marriages,but didnt vote.


----------



## Splash Log (Nov 11, 2008)

RexStunnahH said:


> I read on a website that was protesting the mormon temples that the church doesnt hate gays or is against them,but rather they want to keep their values.
> But isnt this what a democracy is about? That we go with the majority of the votes....?
> Theres alot of things not going my way(laws and stuff),but I aint gonna cry about it infront of an establishment that played a big role in going against me,they shouldnt get mad at the opposition,they should get mad at not having enough support.There will always be people who dont agree with you,me us......what should the patients who use medical cannabis do when their state didnt pass for medical MJ,go protest outside the pharmacie
> companies like bayer,johnson and merc?
> If gay supporters had enough votes,they would have won,but they didnt....we shouldnt blame the opposition,we should blame the people who say they are for gay marriages,but didnt vote.



Doesn't mean the majority is right, if we went by that logic how long would of slavery lasted in the south?


----------



## DOMS (Nov 11, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> Doesn't mean the majority is right, if we went by that logic how long would of slavery lasted in the south?



As long as it took for stronger, northern half, of the US to decide otherwise.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 11, 2008)

DOMS said:


> As long as it took for stronger, northern half, of the US to decide otherwise.



This is a great point. The fact is, many issues do not boil down to popular vote, ethics, morals, or values. Most of the time it boils down to power especially when talking about supreme court rulings and the legislative process. 

If enough people get together and demonstrate their intentions to vote your ass out of office, if you don't give them what they want, those people created power. The churches in America are extremely good at this, and I have ot give them credit for it. They are creating their own power legally through the proper channels.

If gay rights advocates do the same, they might be able to take that power away.


----------



## brogers (Nov 11, 2008)

Pop Up Video

Disgusting people.  Keep it up.


----------



## DOMS (Nov 11, 2008)

brogers said:


> Pop Up Video
> 
> Disgusting people.  Keep it up.



It's that kind of shit that'll push the fence sitters to be against gays.

Not so smart.


----------



## KelJu (Nov 11, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's that kind of shit that'll push the fence sitters to be against gays.
> 
> Not so smart.



That anchor woman is smoking hot!


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 11, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's that kind of shit that'll push the fence sitters to be against gays.
> 
> Not so smart.



i agree the crowd was really out of line n rude to not let that woman speak but i think it's fair to keep in mind this is not an emotionless issue. it seems to many that one group of people got their way by callously breaking the hearts of another group...


----------



## maniclion (Nov 12, 2008)

Gay people get married all the time they have the ceremony and the honeymoon, some take the honeymoon literally , they live together and have rings(some even have cock rings) and joint bank accounts and buy cemetary plots next to each other.  They make their wills, get power of attorney and whatever else.  So what are we talking about here oh yes a fucking piece of paper that lets bureaucrats know that these 2 people who have gone through every other motion of appearing to be a combined entity are in fact married.....


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 12, 2008)

in their words there's more to it than a piece of paper...

_I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.

I want to get married because I am in love and I want to make a life long commitment to my love. I want to stand up in front of friends and family and way "we are together forever."

I want to _be_ married, legally, so that if anything happens to my girl I am legally allowed to take care of her, make medical decisions for her. I want the more then 1000 rights and responsibilities that marriage grants.

But I can get a civil partnership, right? Sure, but it's only valid in California. If I was visiting my girlfriend's parents in Florida and there was an accident they could keep me out of her hospital room. She could be dying and they could legally prevent me from saying goodbye. They can't do that if you are married.

I want my kids to have two legal parents. And if something happens to either one of us I want to know that my kids are protected, not in danger of being taken away from their parent.

I want to be equal to everyone else in the country, because I am.


_and_

There are legal consequences to marriage that are not available to non-married people, no matter how close and committed they may be.

For example, in the absence of a will, property from one married partner automatically transfers to the surviving spouse.

Another is health care coverage. Not all health insurance plans explicitly cover "domestic partners" (although many do).

The list of such benefits is fairly lengthy. 

While it is true that most of these benefits can be contractually arranged, not all of them can (e.g. tax benefits) and it would be immensely easier for the same-sex couple to just be legally married so that all of those benefits are automatically granted.

My prediction is that, eventually, we will have something called 'civil partnership' or 'domestic partnership' wherein two people can be recognized as "married" for legal purposes, but we won't call it "marriage" so as not to offend people who think God cares who marries whom.

_


----------



## maniclion (Nov 12, 2008)

Little Wing said:


> in their words there's more to it than a piece of paper...
> 
> _I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me.
> 
> ...


What I am saying is the Churches and the other haters are wasting their time and money because in all other respects besides the legal documentation gay people can and already do get "married".  I was at my Gf's brothers wedding to his husband, they have all legal documents like wills and power of attorney and everything else that a loving married couple has except for the legal binding contract and ability to file taxes jointly......That's what I don't get is this sanctity of marriage thing, some people get married in a civil servants office or in a dingy little chapel in Vegas while drink off their asses for gods sake what is so sanctified about that?  Young women marry old geezers basically like paid escorts what is sanctified about that?


----------



## Little Wing (Nov 12, 2008)

maniclion said:


> What I am saying is the Churches and the other haters are wasting their time and money because in all other respects besides the legal documentation gay people can and already do get "married".  I was at my Gf's brothers wedding to his husband, they have all legal documents like wills and power of attorney and everything else that a loving married couple has except for the legal binding contract and ability to file taxes jointly......That's what I don't get is this sanctity of marriage thing, some people get married in a civil servants office or in a dingy little chapel in Vegas while drink off their asses for gods sake what is so sanctified about that?  Young women marry old geezers basically like paid escorts what is sanctified about that?



i suspected that's where you were coming from 


in the beginning marriage was about property. the sanctity part came later. 

and this debate is as old as marriage is 

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared that same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13]


----------



## RexStunnahH (Nov 12, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> Doesn't mean the majority is right, if we went by that logic how long would of slavery lasted in the south?




But if they would have won, they wouldnt be saying that,lol
They would expect everyone to just conform to their lifestyle.
Besides,I thought gays and lesbians could already get married,isnt this just about a word?
I dont mind either way,because I think it will keep going back and forth till they win,but what I dont understand is the targeting people do....I read an elderly couple was beat up by their neighbor because they were voteing "YES" on prop 8.....and they have all these Protests outside mormon temples and vandalsing temples and churches?WTH? why...the church didnt contribute money,,,The members of the church donated money from their own pockets,not the actual church,so all this talk of storming churches and burning temples,Mormons wernt the only ones to vote,I heard a large number came from places like south central L.A and stuff too,why dont they go and protests and vandalize the churches there?
I just dont understand why they say people who voted yes are haters,yet they have these protests and beat up old people and violent acts towards people who are just doing the american thing-Voteing.....not burning property or beating up people who are diffrent,just voteing.


----------



## powerbomb (Nov 13, 2008)

Well said Rex


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2009)

prop 8 upheld.


----------



## ROID (May 26, 2009)

disclaimer: I've not read any post on this thread.

my opinion... it's not even about being a gawl dern ka-were anymore, it's just about attention. All homos are sell outs


----------



## maxpro2 (May 26, 2009)

Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.


----------



## Dale Mabry (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.



A little harsh, they did put it to a vote in California and it was 52/48 against.  I am for equal rights, marriage or otherwise, for gay people, but you can't just force it down the people's throat.  IMO, both sides of this debate are guilty of just not wanting to budge, some people against gay marriage wanting no rights for gay civil unions and some of the gay vote taking no less than calling it marriage.

Honestly, what I don't get, is that if this is such a strong issue for gay people and CA keeps voting it down, why do you still live in CA?  There are like 5 states where you are considered equal, why not move there?  If there was some personal quality or trait of mine that a state was against, I wouldn't stay there knowing I am equal somewhere else.  Why would you continue to keep pumping money into the economy of a state that looks at you as inferior?


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Don't worry... history will view assholes like bio-chem in the same light as it now views George Wallace.



im an asshole because i like that the system works?


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> im an asshole because i like that the system works?



no, because you don't think like him


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> no, because you don't think like him



I don't? i must admit I find it hard to like someone who calls me an asshole when i don't recall ever interacting with them before.


----------



## Hench (May 27, 2009)

I can understand the abortion argument, with the whole ''is is murder or not'' shit. 

However, what do any of you have against gay marriages? Now I don’t particularly like most gay people (I have a dark sense of humour, they all think I'm mean) and I only have 1 gay friend. But we live in a world that makes a lot of noise about equality, how can we all be equal when gays don't have the same rights? 

This isn't an issue that deeply concerns me, I just find it confusing.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> I can understand the abortion argument, with the whole ''is is murder or not'' shit.
> 
> However, what do any of you have against gay marriages? Now I don???t particularly like most gay people (I have a dark sense of humour, they all think I'm mean) and I only have 1 gay friend. But we live in a world that makes a lot of noise about equality, how can we all be equal when gays don't have the same rights?
> 
> This isn't an issue that deeply concerns me, I just find it confusing.



Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.


----------



## Hench (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.



Fair enough, makes sense.


----------



## ALBOB (May 27, 2009)

I'm not even sure why I'm chiming in because this issue is soooooo unimportant to me.  But I'm going to anyway.

If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church.  Therefore it would be the church that should get to decided what is and is not allowed under the guise of marriage.

With that in mind, I don't know why on Earth the government ever got involved in the first place.  (That's not entirely true, I THINK they started granting tax breaks to married couples and for children to encourage the practice and perpetuate the "species".)  

Anyway, my point is that marriage as an institution should be decided by the church and NOT the government.  As far as the tax breaks and other legalities that go I support civil unions.  That way everybody gets equal treatment in by the government and the government keeps its hands out of the church's business.  

(And in case anybody is wondering no, I'm not Catholic.)


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> Marriage is not a universal right to be viewed the same as voting or owning property. proof of this is in the fact that it is universally understood to be a state choice. People get to define what type of societies they want to live in. If the people wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman that is the right of the american people. i presume down the road the people will choose to define marriage as something that includes homosexual couples. that day has not yet arrived. at least not in california.



Clearly you have not read up on any constitutional law cases. The Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right time and time again. The precedents are all there, and one challenge on a favorable Court will put an end to all this ridiculousness. If you want a foreshadowing of what is to come, go read the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. It is right on the money.

That's why I'm not really worked up over this California stuff or biggot assholes like you saying the majority can take away a fundamental right from a minority group. Gays will be allowed to marry sooner than you know, it is inevitable.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church.



You dumb ignorant asshole. This doesn't even warrant a response. Go do some research.

The only thing the Catholic Church invented was molesting little boys and having their parishioners fund settlements stemming from that abuse.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

YouTube Video


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Clearly you have not read up on any constitutional law cases. The Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right time and time again. The precedents are all there, and one challenge on a favorable Court will put an end to all this ridiculousness. If you want a foreshadowing of what is to come, go read the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. It is right on the money.
> 
> That's why I'm not really worked up over this California stuff or biggot assholes like you saying the majority can take away a fundamental right from a minority group. Gays will be allowed to marry sooner than you know, it is inevitable.



while i don't doubt that gays will eventually get the right to marry, your unbelievably biased reasoning is off. Marriage is a state matter. thats accepted. making the argument that homosexuals are a minority and therefore a protected class is a difficult one in my mind. 

there are those even on this forum that have admitted to having a homosexual experience, but consider themselves heterosexual. marriage is one that time and time again has been shown can be legislated.

and of course it is going to take a favorable court. it is a lot easier to convince a majority of 7-9 guys than it is the majority of the populace. when left to the people to decide what they want it is not yet a question. putting ones goals in an activist court just seems wrong to me.


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> YouTube Video



I couldn't be paid to listen to Keith Olbermann


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> I'm not even sure why I'm chiming in because this issue is soooooo unimportant to me.  But I'm going to anyway.
> 
> If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was "invented" by the Catholic church.  Therefore it would be the church that should get to decided what is and is not allowed under the guise of marriage.
> 
> ...



That's why I personally don't care if the government allows it.. as long as the people want it & vote for it.. not a decision by an activist judge.   

When the Catholic church allows it, then I may have a problem with it.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> That's why I personally don't care if the government allows it.. as long as the people want it & vote for it.. not a decision by an activist judge.
> 
> When the Catholic church allows it, then I may have a problem with it.



I guess you were against _Brown v. Board of Education_ too then, you biggot? Protecting individual liberties is not activism--it is the job of the courts.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> When the Catholic church allows it, then I may have a problem with it.



If it involved a priest and a little boy, I'm sure the Catholic church would be all for it.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> I couldn't be paid to listen to Keith Olbermann



Yeah I guess he makes too much sense in that clip huh.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> I guess you were against _Brown v. Board of Education_ too then, you biggot? Protecting individual liberties is not activism--it is the job of the courts.



dude, quit with the bigot talk ok. it's just not needed. 52% of california is not bigoted and neirther is he. this is not about individual rights. every individual here in america has the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as the next.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Yeah I guess he makes too much sense in that clip huh.



actually he makes very little sense. you are just too close to the situation to look at this objectively.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> dude, quit with the bigot talk ok. it's just not needed. 52% of california is not bigoted and neirther is he. this is not about individual rights. every individual here in america has the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as the next.



It is absolutely bigotry, and 52% _is_ bigoted, and it _is_ about individual rights. The right to marry _is_ a fundamental right. 

Trying to craft the right in a certain way to prove that a violation of rights has not occurred will not work. If you think it does, then you were probably for the miscegenation laws that prohibited blacks from marrying whites, and would probably defend it by saying "Oh, well there is not violation of the fundamental right to marry because everyone still has the right to marry anyone they want _of the same race_."

Why don't you go read _Loving v. Virginia_ and curb your ignorance.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> actually he makes very little sense. you are just too close to the situation to look at this objectively.



I'm not gay nor am I from California. However, I am smart enough to realize that individual rights are being trampled upon, are you?


----------



## ALBOB (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> You dumb ignorant asshole. This doesn't even warrant a response. Go do some research.
> 
> *The only thing the Catholic Church invented was molesting little boys and having their parishioners fund settlements stemming from that abuse*.




And you're calling ME a dumb ignorant asshole?


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

ALBOB said:


> And you're calling ME a dumb ignorant asshole?



Absolutely. If you think the Catholic Church invented marriage, then that is absurd.

And who do you think foots the bill for all of the abuse scandals in the church? That's right... the only thing the money you donate to the church feeds is horny priests.


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

Accusing someone of bigotry and then throwing out slews of insults and demonstrating yourself to be rabidly anti-catholic might be a bit hypocritical.

1)  Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.
2)  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.  Due to this inconvenient reality, what gay people want is not marriage.

As previously stated, no right is denied as all men have equal rights to marry a woman and all woman have equal rights to marry a man.  If no distinction should be made between man and woman, I suppose you would be in favor of eradicating "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms as that is distinguishing between man and woman.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Accusing someone of bigotry and then throwing out slews of insults and demonstrating yourself to be rabidly anti-catholic might be a bit hypocritical.


I am anti-little-boy abuse... if that makes me anti-catholic so be it.



brogers said:


> 1)  Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.


Read up on your constitutional law, my friend. You are wrong and your bold assertion and belief of something that couldn't be further from the truth does not make it correct. Even _prisoners_ cannot be denied the right to marry, since it is a fundamental right. 



brogers said:


> 2)  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.  Due to this inconvenient reality, what gay people want is not marriage.


Oh really? Who has made this definition? What purpose does it serve?


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

The previous 200+ years of United States history as well as the law was just upheld, prop 8, define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I'd hardly consider "anti-little-boy abuse" to include stating that the tithes of catholics to the church are used entirely on "feeding horny 
priests."

Your arrogant tone, while being wholly ignorant, is rather amusing.  I suggest you heed your own advice and brush up on Constitutional law.  You'll need to look elsewhere in making an attempt to validate your argument.


----------



## Dale Mabry (May 27, 2009)

Why doesn't someone post the right as it appears in the constitution assuming it exists.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> The previous 200+ years of United States history as well as the law was just upheld, prop 8, define marriage as being between a man and a woman.



 Yeah I guess a referendum in California will dictate Federal Constitutional Law. Do you know anything about how our government and legal system works?

And I guess you are right, with the history being incapable of change... how do you square that with the whole slavery thing? With women once being treated as property? With blacks not being allowed to marry whites? With "separate but equal"?


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Why doesn't someone post the right as it appears in the constitution assuming it exists.



*crickets*


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Yeah I guess a referendum in California will dictate Federal Constitutional Law. Do you know anything about how our government and legal system works?
> 
> And I guess you are right, with the history being incapable of change... how do you square that with the whole slavery thing? With women once being treated as property? With blacks not being allowed to marry whites? With "separate but equal"?



Yes, I'm fully aware of the Constitution and its provisions.  You will not find marriage listed in the constitution as a protected right.  

Proposition 8 is a state law, not federal.  It does not conflict with the Constitution in any way.  I feel like I'm saying 2+2 = 4, and you're screaming 2+2=5 and then acting like I'm the moron.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Why doesn't someone post the right as it appears in the constitution assuming it exists.



Since you are unfamiliar with Constitutional Law start here:

Fundamental right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court has recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right subject to protection via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gay Marriage Bans can also be struck down as violating the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

If you want to see how it will play out constitutionally if the Supreme Court ever takes a case, read the _Iowa_ Supreme Court decision invalidating gay marriage bans.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Proposition 8 is a state law, not federal.  It does not conflict with the Constitution in any way.  I feel like I'm saying 2+2 = 4, and you're screaming 2+2=5 and then acting like I'm the moron.



Are you kidding me? Did you know that the U.S. Constitution is supreme over State Constitutions? If California bans gay marriage, but then the U.S. Supreme Court rules that doing so was a violation of individual liberties (due process / equal protection), and no compelling state interest existed, guess what happens...


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Yes, I'm fully aware of the Constitution and its provisions.  You will not find marriage listed in the constitution as a protected right.



You may be familiar with the Constitution, but are clearly not familiar with Supreme Court doctrines and how our legal system works.


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

Perhaps I should be more clear:  Marriage between any human and any human is not a protected right.  I think this should be obvious since we have laws against polygamy and incest.

The argument is really "What is the definition of marriage" which is what Prop 8, and a similar law in my state are all about.  It defines it as between one man and one woman.  All people are granted this right (Male-Female marriage) under equal protection.


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

State law does not supersede the Constitution, no.  However, where the federal government is not granted a power, state law governs.  Marriages are carried out by the states.

This is why the only way to define marriage as being between a man and woman nationwide at the federal level would be an amendment.  Simply passing a law would not be constitutional as it is not an authority granted to the Federal Government.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Perhaps I should be more clear:  Marriage between any human and any human is not a protected right.  I think this should be obvious since we have laws against polygamy and incest.
> 
> The argument is really "What is the definition of marriage" which is what Prop 8, and a similar law in my state are all about.  It defines it as between one man and one woman.  All people are granted this right (Male-Female marriage) under equal protection.



If you think the Supreme Court will rule that way, you are sadly mistaken. Polygamy and incest would meet strict scrutiny--banning gay marriage does not. 

I really don't want to hear another word out of you until you read the Iowa opinion.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> State law does not supersede the Constitution, no.  However, where the federal government is not granted a power, state law governs.  Marriages are carried out by the states.
> 
> This is why the only way to define marriage as being between a man and woman nationwide at the federal level would be an amendment.  Simply passing a law would not be constitutional as it is not an authority granted to the Federal Government.



States carry out marriage, but I think what you are forgetting is that state action still must conform to the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. 

Right now they can ban gay marriage all they want. My point is this: the precedents are there in such a way that when the issue reaches the Supreme Court, all laws banning marriage will inevitably be struck down.


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

Ah, so it's ok to restrict marriage, as long as it meets your particular definition, but when the people of a state restrict it through the a democratic process, it's not ok.

Two related adults:  Not ok.
More than two people:  Not ok.
People under arbitrary age of consent:  Not ok
People of same sex:  Not ok for most people in California, apparently ok for you.

By the way, I really could care less that you "don't want to hear another word" out of me until I read the Iowa opinion.

Edit:  Posted this prior to seeing the above comment.  If you believe in no restriction at all, that ground is far more solid than simply believing that gay marriage should be "added."


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Ah, so it's ok to restrict marriage, as long as it meets your particular definition, but when the people of a state restrict it through the a democratic process, it's not ok.
> 
> Two related adults:  Not ok.
> More than two people:  Not ok.
> ...



Look up the concept of strict scrutiny and how it can be overcome. I'm getting tired of teaching you constitutional law. What is the justification that the state would offer for banning gay marriage? Whatever it is, it would not be sufficient... the Iowa Supreme Court decision has shot down everything you are about to say so I am going to refer you there again to save me some time.


----------



## Dale Mabry (May 27, 2009)

Like I said, I agree that gay marriage should not be banned, and that it is discriminatory.  I do not believe it is a right guaranteed as of yet.  I hope that it will be, if it were struck down tomorrow the country would be a better place, but Iowa has ruled for, CA has ruled against, and the Supreme Court has yet to, so it isn't a Right yet.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> States carry out marriage, but I think what you are forgetting is that state action still must conform to the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
> 
> Right now they can ban gay marriage all they want. My point is this: the precedents are there in such a way that when the issue reaches the Supreme Court, all laws banning marriage will inevitably be struck down.



no the precedent is not there. Constitutionally marriage can and is regulated. this issue will not make it to the supreme court of the US. there is a reason this battle is being fought state by state. The federal government has no authority here.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> no the precedent is not there. Constitutionally marriage can and is regulated. this issue will not make it to the supreme court of the US. there is a reason this battle is being fought state by state. The federal government has no authority here.



Go read up some. The precedent is there. I will quote myself to avoid repetition, because you obviously cannot read:



> States carry out marriage, but I think what you are forgetting is that state action still must conform to the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Go read up some. The precedent is there. I will quote myself to avoid repetition, because you obviously cannot read:



If these 28 states that now define marriage as between a man and a woman violated federal law don't you think that a court would have listened to the case by now? right now the next plan of attack in california is to have the states constitution re-amended. the reason for that is that they do not have a course to take this to the federal level. they can not challenge this in a federal court. if they could they would be. they aren't. no federal judge will see this case for a reason. he has no authority to. proposition 8 did not violate the 14th amendment of the US constitution. your argument is flawed.


----------



## brogers (May 27, 2009)

Equal protection under law is being given.

What right do I, as a straight man, have that a gay man does not?  The answer is of course none.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

bio-chem said:


> the reason for that is that they do not have a course to take this to the federal level. they can not challenge this in a federal court. if they could they would be. they aren't. no federal judge will see this case for a reason. he has no authority to. proposition 8 did not violate the 14th amendment of the US constitution. your argument is flawed.



Are you retarded? Federal judges don't have the authority to hear cases concerning violations of the Constitution? Did you _really_ just assert that?

Nothing is violated until a case challenges it. The gays are not stupid. If you recall the strategy of Marshall that ultimately resulted in the the overturning _Plessy v. Ferguson_ in _Brown v. Board of Education_, the strategy to challenge must be approached carefully and brought only when the issue is ripe for success. _Brown_ didn't happen overnight. When a couple more of Justices die, I guarantee that you will see a ruling.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 27, 2009)

brogers said:


> Equal protection under law is being given.
> 
> What right do I, as a straight man, have that a gay man does not?  The answer is of course none.



The ability to marry the person that you love.


----------



## min0 lee (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> I couldn't be paid to listen to Keith Olbermann



Rush = Keith.

The difference you ask....ones a Republican nut and the other is a Liberal nut.


----------



## min0 lee (May 27, 2009)

Dale Mabry said:


> Honestly, what I don't get, is that if this is such a strong issue for gay people and CA keeps voting it down, why do you still live in CA?



This!
You would be surprise at how much influence and money they have. One thing they know how to do is earn money.
Sheesh...There would be no Catholic priests in California. 



ALBOB said:


> I'm not even sure why I'm chiming in because this issue is soooooo unimportant to me.  But I'm going to anyway.
> 
> 
> (And in case anybody is wondering no, I'm not Catholic.)


*
Ditto!*



brogers said:


> Your arrogant tone, while being wholly ignorant, is rather amusing.



The pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Rush = Keith.



Keith's watchers:  928,000 (lowest on cable news)

Rush's listeners:    20,000,000

Keith isn't even in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## min0 lee (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> Keith's watchers:  928,000 (lowest on cable news)
> 
> Rush's listeners:    20,000,000
> 
> Keith isn't even in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.


Proof please.... and not from FOX.


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

min0 lee said:


> Proof please.... and not from FOX.



  the voice of moderation!

When I looked up his ratings, this is the first one i found... 

Olbermannâ??????s ratings shrinking faster than glacier in global warming

The site i probably biased, but it links to the hard numbers from Nielsen.  

Even if Olbermann had O'Reilly's number at 3 mil a night, it's still 1/6 of Limbaughs.


----------



## min0 lee (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> the voice of moderation!
> 
> When I looked up his ratings, this is the first one i found...
> 
> ...



Hey, I try not to be biased. Yall may call me whatever but I don't belong to one party.
If I am wrong then I am wrong, I can admit I am wrong.
Perfect example was with the gun issue, I was against but in listening to both Willbrink and Albob I learned a lot and it made me see things differently.
Is it we have to get interested in? 
Not really, in NYC the gun laws are very, very strict.




> Even if Olbermann had O'Reilly's number at 3 mil a night, it's still 1/6 of Limbaughs.



Dduh! That's a no brainer.


----------



## maniclion (May 27, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> Keith's watchers:  928,000 (lowest on cable news)
> 
> Rush's listeners:    20,000,000
> 
> Keith isn't even in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.


I think this proves that more Conservatives can't think for themselves.......


----------



## min0 lee (May 27, 2009)

maniclion said:


> I think this proves that more Conservatives can't think for themselves.......



Ouch.....


----------



## busyLivin (May 27, 2009)

maniclion said:


> I think this proves that more Conservatives can't think for themselves.......



I think it proves Conservatives actually care about what's going on & pay attention. Liberals don't know shit, nor do they care to. Pop culture tells them democrats are cool, and they defend them.  I don't talk politics to friends, but to hear them talk in mind-boggling.. I love em, but they're clueless

Conservative TV & Radio destroys it's liberal competition... it's not even close. Liberal radio went bankrupt, and MSNBC does pitiful.

All but one of my friends consider themselves democrats/liberals and don't know shit.  The one conservative friend I have is very knowledgeable on politics.  '


----------



## Dale Mabry (May 28, 2009)

busyLivin said:


> I think it proves Conservatives actually care about what's going on & pay attention. Liberals don't know shit, nor do they care to. Pop culture tells them democrats are cool, and they defend them.  I don't talk politics to friends, but to hear them talk in mind-boggling.. I love em, but they're clueless
> 
> Conservative TV & Radio destroys it's liberal competition... it's not even close. Liberal radio went bankrupt, and MSNBC does pitiful.
> 
> All but one of my friends consider themselves democrats/liberals and don't know shit.  The one conservative friend I have is very knowledgeable on politics.  '



I find that no one who affiliates with a particular party is knowledgeable on what is going on, I don't refer to it as politics because IMO that slants it right away.  I won't watch the typical liberal news, I watch Colbert and Stewart because they are funny, read the news, watch Fox and Friends (As much for Gretchen as to learn), Shep every now and again, then research and form my own opinion.  The very fact that someone affiliates with a party let's me know they are only willing to listen to their stuff.

I will never watch or listen to Rush.  He is immature, about as slanted as anyone could be, and a hypocrite.  People who listen to him either do so to hear what they want to hear or to be outraged.  I would say Stewart is slanted slanted left, but he is funny and handles himself like a man, not a douchebag.

Almost forgot, I like Huckabee too, but he is not on at a convenient time for me.


----------



## ALBOB (May 28, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> Absolutely. If you think the Catholic Church invented marriage, then that is absurd.



Whatever you say.

History of Marriage

"The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced to St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32)."


----------



## Will Brink (May 28, 2009)

maxpro2 said:


> the majority can take away a fundamental right from a minority group.



That's called a "tyranny by the majority" and why the Const. exists, as an overriding set of principles we follow that does not require current public opinions/social norms of a particular time to apply to a group of people.

The majority of people were in favor of slavery at one time, but it was clearly not Const. They solved that problem (for a time) by deciding blacks were not actually human beings.

No state should be able to right bigotry into their state Const. and the US Const . will usually be used to override/correct it. Thus, we may see a US Supreme Court case from the CA issue if they decide it's a Const. issue.

I think it is, some will argue it's not. If I were gay, I would push for the civil unions personally, but I do understand their position that it's "Separate but equal" similar to what was used to hold up discrimination against blacks:

"Blacks were entitled to receive the same public services such as schools, bathrooms, and water fountains, but the 'separate but equal' doctrine mandated different facilities for the two groups. The legitimacy of such laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1896"

Separate but equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some see the idea of civil unions as a way to work with those so opposed to calling it marriage and some see it as a classic "Separate but equal" which does not = equal at all.


----------



## maxpro2 (May 28, 2009)

WillBrink said:


> That's called a "tyranny by the majority" and why the Const. exists, as an overriding set of principles we follow that does not require current public opinions/social norms of a particular time to apply to a group of people.
> 
> The majority of people were in favor of slavery at one time, but it was clearly not Const. They solved that problem (for a time) by deciding blacks were not actually human beings.
> 
> ...


----------



## KelJu (May 28, 2009)

WillBrink said:


> That's called a "tyranny by the majority" and why the Const. exists, as an overriding set of principles we follow that does not require current public opinions/social norms of a particular time to apply to a group of people.
> 
> The majority of people were in favor of slavery at one time, but it was clearly not Const. They solved that problem (for a time) by deciding blacks were not actually human beings.
> 
> ...





"Separate but equal" sounds exactly like "They have the right to marry members of the opposite sex just like everybody else." Its a way of pretending to offer equal treatment without actually giving them equal treatment.  

It is the same bigoted mentality that causes people to try and deny other people the same rights and privileges they hold dead to themselves. This behavior comes from good people, too. It is a human trait I guess. Not the better side of humanity, that's for sure.


----------



## min0 lee (May 28, 2009)




----------

