Breaking. Prop 8.... struck down.

[g5000]

Actually, they were far more concerned about people like you trying to force your will on the people.

What am I forcing on the people? Am I forcing you to have a gay wedding now?

You are not forcing anything. Activist judges that you support are forcing everyone to recognize gay marriages.

I can't believe it took this long for someone to haul out the "activist judges" meme.

Yeah. The court is such an asshole organization for stopping people from violating a minority's rights.

Say, when the appeals court said the federal mandate is ALSO unconstitutional, were you whining about activist judges then?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

so did the people who are gay and those who dont squirm at the idea of Homosexual Marriage....and in this State i would think they outnumber the Anti-Gay Marriage people by a decent margin.....obviously many Democrats/Liberals out here told the gays one thing and then voted no.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I am neither gay nor do I live in California.

So I don't really care.

you will when the gay marriage proposition hits Cumby....

 

[xotoxi]

So if a gay couple goes to a photographer and a caterer for their wedding plans, you would totally respect a denial of service. If a landlord refused to rent to a same sex couple, you would feel they were completely within their rights.

We have already been through this with serving blacks and interracial weddings which were also banned at one time

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Masturbating into the punch bowl is not allowed?

 

[g5000]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

so did the people who are gay and those who dont squirm at the idea of Homosexual Marriage....and in this State i would think they outnumber the Anti-Gay Marriage people by a decent margin.....obviously many Democrats/Liberals out here told the gays one thing and then voted no.....

The Democratic Party is just as homophobic as the Republican Party. This is one of the few areas where the spirit of bipartisanship still survives.

If the Democratic Party was not homophobic, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have jumped on the gay marriage bandwa-, er, wait, there was no bandwagon.

See what I mean?

 

[xotoxi]

I am neither gay nor do I live in California.

So I don't really care.

you will when the gay marriage proposition hits Cumby....

It has. And I voted for it.

The more gays that are in committed relationships, the fewer that will hit on me.

 

[Katzndogz]

We have already been through this with serving blacks and interracial weddings which were also banned at one time

You are equating a normal man and a normal woman who's skin color is different with an abnormal behavior. So it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we now allow blacks to sit at the lunch counter so we must also allow masturbating into the punch bowl.

Masturbating into the punch bowl is not allowed?

If it isn't, it should be only a bigot would object.

 

[bodecea]

That's because both sides want to force their definition of marriage on the other, and want to use the state to do it. If you get the state out of the way everyone could define marriage for themselves, and associate with whatever religion agrees with them.

In the past, I've see the heterosexual agenda try to force homosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex....where have we seen the homosexual agenda try to force heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex?

That's not what I said. I said they're trying to force their DEFINITION of marriage on others.

Wait.....you are afraid of a word DEFINITION? Got news for you, hun.....look up marriage in the dictionary. You are a few decades too late.

 

[DiamondDave]

What you're attracted to isn't a choice.

It'd probably be better if i weren't attracted to big knockers and a nice can until i were ready for kids and marriage that way I didn't accidentally get a girl pregnant before marriage.

But that's not how it works.

There are genetic reasons why you are a male or female.. there are genetic reasons why you have brown eyes or blue eyes.. there are genetic reasons why your skin is brown or white or yellow or whatever pigment...

There is no proof that there is a genetic cause to being gay or what you are attracted to... while it may not be ENTIRELY correct that it is conscious choice, it can also be based on exposure, experiences, conditions, etc..

just sayin'

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring abnormality that occurs fairly constantly across the entirety of humanity, Homosexuals are about 10% of the population, wherever that population is. Anthropologists theory that homosexuality remained static throughout all of human history. Only approval of homosexuality changes. Widespread acceptance and normalization of homosexuality occurs during periods of widespread generalized degeneracy of all kinds and practices among the people.

Yet unproven by any genetic cause.. as stated... which then could be pattern of behavior, learned or not.. or whatever

 

[bodecea]

That's because both sides want to force their definition of marriage on the other, and want to use the state to do it. If you get the state out of the way everyone could define marriage for themselves, and associate with whatever religion agrees with them.

In the past, I've see the heterosexual agenda try to force homosexuals to marry someone of the opposite sex....where have we seen the homosexual agenda try to force heterosexuals to marry someone of the same sex?

It would not have been allowed. That might change now.

Ah....so your fear is that you will be FORCED to marry someone of the same sex. Gotcha.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not gay.

And I do not know if there is a "gay gene" or not. But I do know that I did not "choose" to be straight. I just am.

Just like you did not choose to be straight or gay or whatever.

You just are whatever you are.

You don't choose to like carrots or hate carrots, you just do. That does not mean there is a "carrot gene".

You are the way you are.

So if you like burritos your gay and straight if you like tacos?

For the most part it is a choice.

There are always exceptions.

Again... because it almost always seems to be ignored

There are genetic reasons why you are a male or female.. there are genetic reasons why you have brown eyes or blue eyes.. there are genetic reasons why your skin is brown or white or yellow or whatever pigment...

There is no proof that there is a genetic cause to being gay or what you are attracted to... while it may not be ENTIRELY correct that it is conscious choice, it can also be based on exposure, experiences, conditions, etc..

just sayin'

There is no Gay gene. Your sexuality is possibly based off of a hormonal balance that is sometimes off-kilter.

It's a choice. The left just wanted to remove guilt from the issue and provide themselves another stick to bash over the head of Christians.

 

[bodecea]

Please show us the gene that programed you to be gay

I'm not gay.

And I do not know if there is a "gay gene" or not. But I do know that I did not "choose" to be straight. I just am.

Just like you did not choose to be straight or gay or whatever.

You just are whatever you are.

You don't choose to like carrots or hate carrots, you just do. That does not mean there is a "carrot gene".

You are the way you are.

That was indeed Jeffrey Dahmer's defense.

Ah....now the comparison to cannibal mass murderers.


You know, Jeffrey would have been allowed to marry heterosexually regardless of being a cannibal mass murderer.

 

[g5000]

The only reason this is an issue is because the federal government involved itself in marriage, and the majority never objected to government involvement. The majority took advantage of the special privileges the government gave to marriage. Tax breaks, inheritance laws, can't be forced to testify against one another, and on and on and on.

We know this is the issue because gay sex is not illegal. Two guys holding hands and kissing in public is not illegal.

So this is a government issue. This is about all those bells and whistles and presents the government gives you for being married.

This is a SECULAR issue.

If it wasn't about all the cash and prizes, no one would give a fuck if two men said they were married. It would not have any effect on anyone else whatsoever that two guys kissing in public doesn't already achieve.

So don't pretend this is some kind of religious issue or anything else.

This is all about the cash and prizes. And since you didn't object to the government getting involved in marriage and making it a secular issue, you can't whine now. Too late.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Basically, people who are not homosexual and who squirm at the very idea of homosexual sex got to vote on what rights should be extended to homosexuals

Homosexuals didn't get to vote?

So the 95% who are not homosexual got to vote on what rights could be extended to the 5% who are

Yes. The 9th circuit making this ruling is no surprise, they are known for making stupid decisions.

 

[rightwinger]

For the most part it is a choice.

You choose to smoke and it becomes a habit.

Same thing with being gay.

Some, however, don't know what sex they're supposed to be.

Transgenders catch hell in the gay community. Did you know that?

What you're attracted to isn't a choice.

It'd probably be better if i weren't attracted to big knockers and a nice can until i were ready for kids and marriage that way I didn't accidentally get a girl pregnant before marriage.

But that's not how it works.

There are genetic reasons why you are a male or female.. there are genetic reasons why you have brown eyes or blue eyes.. there are genetic reasons why your skin is brown or white or yellow or whatever pigment...

There is no proof that there is a genetic cause to being gay or what you are attracted to... while it may not be ENTIRELY correct that it is conscious choice, it can also be based on exposure, experiences, conditions, etc..

just sayin'

Who cares if it is genetic or a personal choice?

If you are in love with someone of your own sex you should be allowed to marry them if you CHOOSE........just like anyone else

 

[bodecea]

It will all come down to can you vote on what rights others are allowed to have

You mean privileges, not rights.

Marriage is a privilege to you? So the government can deny civil marriage to ANYONE without providing a compelling legal reason?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Are you suggesting that we should make a habit of voting on the civil rights of our citizens?

The government should have no involvement in who gets married period.

That maybe one of your most stupid comments.

I guess you would know better than anyone. You're our resident expert on stupidity seeing as how you revel in it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

First of all, there was never a "ban" on homosexual marriages in California. All prop 8 did was say the State would not recognize same sex marriages anymore, although it made exceptions for some that have already occurred. A state not recognizing a gay marriage does not constitute a "ban".

Typical that liberals ruling the courts would rule against the will of the people, claiming that it is "unconstituional" even though there is nothing in the US Constitution pertaining to marriages.

Homosexuals still have "the right" to get married to each other by any church willing to perform the marriage. This "ban" doesn't change that in the slightest.

So please, continue with your disingenuous arguements of gay people having their "rights" taken away from them.

but they dont get the Marriage Certificate giving them the same rights as Heteros do.....like visiting their very sick partner in a Hospital,tax benefits.....things of this nature....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have no problem with gay marriage, but the people of California voted not to have it in their state. If judges are just going to overturn the will of the people then why vote at all?

i kinda of agree with you but this is more about taken away somebodys RIGHTS

the majority cant do that .
think its a state matter not federal

Again, I'm not arguing about whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal. My point is either honor the process in place for deciding these issues or get rid of it.

 

[bodecea]

Yes. I believe you are coming around!

Homosexuals have the right to equal treatment. Very good!

Correct. They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Gender discrimination is illegal.


BTW...when the Virginia lawyers argued that black people had equal rights to white people....both were allowed to marry someone of the same race only, the Justices actually laughed out loud at them.

Come to think of it....by all means, present your argument to SCOTUS when this case gets there. Those justices can use another good chuckle.