Prop 8 in California

[Ravi]

I don't know how the California amendment reads, but ours also bars gay couples from having visitation rights.

I'm ashamed of my state.

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't know how the California amendment reads, but ours also bars gay couples from having visitation rights.

Excellent!!!!!

 

[Ravi]

Excellent!!!!!

Ah, go fuck yourself.

 

[Vintij]

yes, it can. it's crappy law to begin with, but it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses 80+ senators 300+ reps.

Big deal, many bills have been repealed after having an overwhelming senate majority vote. Look at the creation of the FDIC/central bank. They came back after only like 20 something years of being abolished by a majority of the senate and house.

 

[Vintij]

I am against homo marriage because I support all of the gays having unprotected random sex.

Then as they spread their diseases and infections to each other.

The sodomite problem will slowly take care of it's self.

They will self eradicate each other and the world would become homo free!!

Your not funny. The pathetic little gimmick you have going on is a waste of time for you. Instead of sturring up controversy in the name of comedy you should do something more constructive with your time.

 

[Sunni Man]

Your not funny. The pathetic little gimmick you have going on is a waste of time for you. Instead of sturring up controversy in the name of comedy you should do something more constructive with your time.

I wasn't trying to be funny.

Sodomites are the bane of humaity and civilization.

They really need to be classified as criminals and locked up for the sake of society.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

But does that mean if you are a male in every sense of the word, you have the right to be called a woman? If you wish to be designated as Black, you should get that definition because you want it?

HELL FUCKING NO...

Actually, hell yeah! If a man, for whatever reason, would like to be called a
woman, well, that's his perogative. If a white person would like to be called a black person, well, that should be his/her perogative. The government should stay out of it.

Marriage is what it is... if you get completely equal rights in a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman as a married couple, it is equal... just as a black man is equal to a white woman is equal to an asian transvestite is equal to an eskimo hermaphrodite... but indeed they are all different with the commonality of being humans (and US citizens, in terms of this argument)

You can have your life as a homosexual in a union relationship.. you can pursue your happiness... you can have your liberty... but you do not redefine marriage, just as you do not redefine the term dog just because you think your goldfish is equal to your dog

Once again this argument misses the mark: "separate but equal" isn't equal. Address this argument with your next remark.

I think, and it seems you would agree with this: that marriage should be left alone by the government. Marriage should happen in church, or be religious in nature, and civil unions should be what the government recognizes with all of the rights that marriage currently entails. The government shouldn't recognize marriage but should recognize only civil unions and anyone can get a civil union. That seems, to me, to address that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that, in respect to government, everyone enjoys equality.

 

[Chris]

This just another case of bigotry in America.

One day we will overcome this because it makes no sense.

 

[Vintij]

But does that mean if you are a male in every sense of the word, you have the right to be called a woman? If you wish to be designated as Black, you should get that definition because you want it?

HELL FUCKING NO...

Marriage is what it is... if you get completely equal rights in a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman as a married couple, it is equal... just as a black man is equal to a white woman is equal to an asian transvestite is equal to an eskimo hermaphrodite... but indeed they are all different with the commonality of being humans (and US citizens, in terms of this argument)

You can have your life as a homosexual in a union relationship.. you can pursue your happiness... you can have your liberty... but you do not redefine marriage, just as you do not redefine the term dog just because you think your goldfish is equal to your dog

Are you fucking kidding me? This is the most ignorant post I have ever come accross. You have effectively compared dogs and goldfish (two different species) to Gays and straights.

Wow is this really how people think? Are people really this uneducated?

Your fucking stupid because you just stated that Civil Unions give all races (humans or Homo sapiens to be exact) equal rights but that you should not give federal Marriage benefits because gays are as different to straights as Dogs are to Goldfish?

Thats got to be one of the most profound departures from commons sense in my lifetime.

 

[Modbert]

Dirty little secret about Black voters: Gays and Gay Marriage is not a popular thing in the Black community.

I actually have to agree with Mad Scientist somewhat here.

The polling #s show that catholic hispanics are the ones voting against this along with many blacks suprisingly.

That's not say to all, but many are which is just surprising to me.

 

[tymebeta]

Obama, as a Christain, is against gay marriage but does not believe he should be imposing his religious beliefs onto others and let the state decides themselves.

I'm fine either way. You can call it civil union, you can call it marriage. As long as I have legal rights of visitation, adoption, and right to property and all the same rights "traditional" marriage couples get.

But it does bring me to this point, when did the church earn the right to define what marriage is in a legal sense?

 

[Modbert]

Obama, as a Christain, is against gay marriage but does not believe he should be imposing his religious beliefs onto others and let the state decides themselves.

I'm fine either way. You can call it civil union, you can call it marriage. As long as I have legal rights of visitation, adoption, and right to property and all the same rights "traditional" marriage couples get.

But it does bring me to this point, when did the church earn the right to define what marriage is in a legal sense?

They feel marriage is their thing, so they feel they should be able to define it.

Civil Unions aren't the same as Marriages though. One of the key arguments is that people who have Civil Unions but not Marriage can't file joint income taxes.

It's basically like they are second class citizens. Which I find repulsive.

 

[tymebeta]

They feel marriage is their thing, so they feel they should be able to define it.

Civil Unions aren't the same as Marriages though. One of the key arguments is that people who have Civil Unions but not Marriage can't file joint income taxes.

It's basically like they are second class citizens. Which I find repulsive.

If Civil Unions doesn't have all the same rights, then it's wrong even on that level. On the marriage level, I'm going to play the separation of church and state card. We've accepted God to mean different things to different people, not sure why marriage doesn't work that way.

Feels so weird, to celebrate our first black president and turn around and still see a fight for civil rights. Amazing how they can take rights away from people. Oh well, always work to be done.

 

[Modbert]

If Civil Unions doesn't have all the same rights, then it's wrong even on that level. On the marriage level, I'm going to play the separation of church and state card. We've accepted God to mean different things to different people, not sure why marriage doesn't work that way.

Feels so weird, to celebrate our first black president and turn around and still see a fight for civil rights. Amazing how they can take rights away from people. Oh well, always work to be done.

Exactly, this is the first time in history that Gay Marriage rights are being taken away from people. Not just taken away, actual rights being taken away.

Obama has a long road of ahead of him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Admit what? That the mormon church donated 73 million untaxed dollars to influence state legislation? What happen to separation of church and state?


Ill tell you who is wrong. The mormon church for using money for the word of god to influence an election for state legislation. That is very very wrong my friend.

How would you like the church of Athiesm to donate 300 million anti-church dollars to the presidential candidate in 2012? Or how about the church of Scientology? Would you like them to donate billions of dollars to influence a federal election? I thought not.

I am quite sure that those whacko's in Scientology did JUST that to Obama.

 

[Modbert]

I am quite sure that those whacko's in Scientology did JUST that to Obama.

Evidence?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Evidence?

Last I checked I do not need "evidence" for an OPINION. But hey maybe you have changed the rules?

 

[Modbert]

Last I checked I do not need "evidence" for an OPINION. But hey maybe you have changed the rules?

No but those are pretty big things your saying there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I am quite sure that those whacko's in Scientology did JUST that to Obama.

You didn't say I THINK that those whacko's, and you didn't say I LIKE that those whacko's, or in any other way express your though as an opinion. What you did say is that you are "quite sure that those whacko's" making it a statement of fact, not an opinion. So, Gunny, you changed the rules: about what is an opinion or what is a statement of fact.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Once again this argument misses the mark: "separate but equal" isn't equal. Address this argument with your next remark.

I think, and it seems you would agree with this: that marriage should be left alone by the government. Marriage should happen in church, or be religious in nature, and civil unions should be what the government recognizes with all of the rights that marriage currently entails. The government shouldn't recognize marriage but should recognize only civil unions and anyone can get a civil union. That seems, to me, to address that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that, in respect to government, everyone enjoys equality.

Retired GySgt.,

Are you going to reply to this post above? I would like to know what you think.

-Colorado Mountain Man