Prop 8 in California

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Look we have another retard amongst us. Let me talk slowly for you, S H A L L I? I said " I would not doubt" I did not say anything specific nor did I provide anything besides an opinion. Now go take your plastic bag with that rubber band and go play in the busy Highway. Ok?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Retired GySgt.,

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

-Colorado Mountain Man

Civil Unions should be what the Government does. Already said that. Marriage should be a Religious ceremony, between the couple and their Religion.

I absolute disagree with gay marriage but we are a society of laws and those laws allow gays to "marry" in several States. The Constitution is quite clear that ALL States are to recognize and accept all other States laws unless they violate Federal Statues.

The solution is not that idiot law in 96, it is to convert all the commitments, rights and obligations under marriage today to a Civil Union and that is what the State will provide. You want a marriage take it up with a religion.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Look we have another retard amongst us. Let me talk slowly for you, S H A L L I? I said " I would not doubt" I did not say anything specific nor did I provide anything besides an opinion. Now go take your plastic bag with that rubber band and go play in the busy Highway. Ok?

Why do you have to get insulting Gunny? All I said was you didn't put your statement in a way that was an expression of opinion. It was made as a statement. So, leave the insults alone, Gunny, there's no need, and I don't think its an effective way to communicate with people. And you didn't say "I would not doubt", you said "I am quite sure". Don't try to weasel out of it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Civil Unions should be what the Government does. Already said that. Marriage should be a Religious ceremony, between the couple and their Religion.

I absolute disagree with gay marriage but we are a society of laws and those laws allow gays to "marry" in several States. The Constitution is quite clear that ALL States are to recognize and accept all other States laws unless they violate Federal Statues.

The solution is not that idiot law in 96, it is to convert all the commitments, rights and obligations under marriage today to a Civil Union and that is what the State will provide. You want a marriage take it up with a religion.

I know you already said that, what I didn't know was that you felt that civil unions should be all that the government recognizes and marriage should be religious only.

I think that's great and I wish more conservatives and liberals should try to communicate to find common ground.

So, don't insult me. Oorah, devil dog, leatherneck, and semper fi!

 

[Vintij]

Civil Unions should be what the Government does. Already said that. Marriage should be a Religious ceremony, between the couple and their Religion.

I absolute disagree with gay marriage but we are a society of laws and those laws allow gays to "marry" in several States. The Constitution is quite clear that ALL States are to recognize and accept all other States laws unless they violate Federal Statues.

The solution is not that idiot law in 96, it is to convert all the commitments, rights and obligations under marriage today to a Civil Union and that is what the State will provide. You want a marriage take it up with a religion.

Okay so does this civil union grant federal marriage benefits as well? Would it grant hospital visitation rights? What about the right for gays to adopt where it is now illegal in Arizona I believe. How far will this shit go. Now the entire California judicial system is confused as to the fine print that nobody read in this pathetic piece of legislation, do already married gays have to be unmarried as in retroactively take someones rights away which would be just appualing, or are these people going to be able to keep their marraige? See what happens, nobody reads the prop and now apparently there are hundreds of lawsuits in the state for gay couples to appeal this decision and KEEP their marriage benefits. You have got to be kidding me, we elect a black president and people are still fighting for equal rights benefits that they have already experienced and executed by getting married?

 

[DiveCon]

I know you already said that, what I didn't know was that you felt that civil unions should be all that the government recognizes and marriage should be religious only.

I think that's great and I wish more conservatives and liberals should try to communicate to find common ground.

So, don't insult me. Oorah, devil dog, leatherneck, and semper fi!

thats what he said and what i have been saying for several years
get the government out of marriage
it is a religious ceremony and as such the government should have no say in it
and never should have


that said, there are several churches that agree with marrying gays, so, it wouldnt change that

 

[DiveCon]

Okay so does this civil union grant federal marriage benefits as well? Would it grant hospital visitation rights? What about the right for gays to adopt where it is now illegal in Arizona I believe. How far will this shit go. Now the entire California judicial system is confused as to the fine print that nobody read in this pathetic piece of legislation, do already married gays have to be unmarried as in retroactively take someones rights away which would be just appualing, or are these people going to be able to keep their marraige? See what happens, nobody reads the prop and now apparently there are hundreds of lawsuits in the state for gay couples to appeal this decision and KEEP their marriage benefits. You have got to be kidding me, we elect a black president and people are still fighting for equal rights benefits that they have already experienced and executed by getting married?

there would be NO "marriage benefits"

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Okay so does this civil union grant federal marriage benefits as well? Would it grant hospital visitation rights? What about the right for gays to adopt where it is now illegal in Arizona I believe. How far will this shit go. Now the entire California judicial system is confused as to the fine print that nobody read in this pathetic piece of legislation, do already married gays have to be unmarried as in retroactively take someones rights away which would be just appualing, or are these people going to be able to keep their marraige? See what happens, nobody reads the prop and now apparently there are hundreds of lawsuits in the state for gay couples to appeal this decision and KEEP their marriage benefits. You have got to be kidding me, we elect a black president and people are still fighting for equal rights benefits that they have already experienced and executed by getting married?

Which just goes to demonstrate the irrationality of fear and hate...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

there would be NO "marriage benefits"

Right, only 'civil union' benefits. Seems like a great idea. Why doesn't it happen?

 

[Vintij]

there would be NO "marriage benefits"

Exactly my point, we all understand this as being the stripping of benefits correct? Okay well democracy has spoken and we will get another try in a few years but what about the ALREADY married gay couples? Does anyone know if these people are going to be treated like animals and have thier current benefits taken away just like that? Trust me there is going to be alot of backlash if this is the case, not only is state revenue going to go down deepening the economic resession thanks to this prop, but now we have people who spent literally thousands of dollars on weddings, thousands of dollars on marriage certificates and plans to recieve current benefits, do they get their money back? Who is going to pay them? Are you going to pay them back the money they spent on a marriage license?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Exactly my point, we all understand this as being the stripping of benefits correct? Okay well democracy has spoken and we will get another try in a few years but what about the ALREADY married gay couples? Does anyone know if these people are going to be treated like animals and have thier current benefits taken away just like that? Trust me there is going to be alot of backlash if this is the case, not only is state revenue going to go down deepening the economic resession thanks to this prop, but now we have people who spent literally thousands of dollars on weddings, thousands of dollars on marriage certificates and plans to recieve current benefits, do they get their money back? Who is going to pay them? Are you going to pay them back the money they spent on a marriage license?

I don't know, but I sure as hell hope not. However, controversy will help the cause and I just feel bad for those that have to fight the fight. However, if they win, I will only feel pride for them and the pride they feel...nothing could take that away from them. And they're fight will go down in history.

 

[DiveCon]

Right, only 'civil union' benefits. Seems like a great idea. Why doesn't it happen?

because it doesnt fit the agenda
you have some that think that marriage will somehow have less meaning if they cant limit it by government decree
and others that want to redefine what it is
both sides are acting like fucking morons in defence of something the government should never have been involved with in the first place

 

[Vintij]

because it doesnt fit the agenda
you have some that think that marriage will somehow have less meaning if they cant limit it by government decree
and others that want to redefine what it is
both sides are acting like fucking morons in defence of something the government should never have been involved with in the first place

The government should be out of the marriage business but my point is, if your going thrust yourself in the marriage business by granting federal and state rights on so many different levels, you HAVE to grant everyone with those rights.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

because it doesnt fit the agenda
you have some that think that marriage will somehow have less meaning if they cant limit it by government decree
and others that want to redefine what it is
both sides are acting like fucking morons in defence of something the government should never have been involved with in the first place

That's a fucking shame.

 

[DiveCon]

That's a fucking shame.

yes, it is

 

[tymebeta]

So what are the arguments against gay marriages? Someone help me out here, cause I have a hard time coping with this. Doesn't matter if you are for/against gay marriage. I just want to try to understand the reasoning.

Here are the ones I know:
Marriage is traditional between a man and woman. Strong families are fundamental to society. Gay marriage will harm society.
Married gay couples can adopt and that's not the best environment for a child.
Children will be taught about gay marriage in schools.

What other arguments are there?

 

[Vintij]

So what are the arguments against gay marriages? Someone help me out here, cause I have a hard time coping with this. Doesn't matter if you are for/against gay marriage. I just want to try to understand the reasoning.

Here are the ones I know:
Marriage is traditional between a man and woman. Strong families are fundamental to society. Gay marriage will harm society.
Married gay couples can adopt and that's not the best environment for a child.
Children will be taught about gay marriage in schools.

What other arguments are there?

All fallacy.

whether gays can get married or not, they are going to find out that gays exist because its not illegal to be gay, sorry.

So either way your going to have to explain it to your children, gay marriage equal rights had nothing to do with what anyone teaches their children......the same way you teach your child now about what they see on TV or in the real world with gay relationships is the same way that you can teach them about gay relationships even after marriage is allowed. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you tell your kid that gay marriage is OKAY. Thats a fallacy


Taught in schools? Complete fallacy, I have been in school for most of my life and have never heard anything of that nature ever. And even in the rare event that this does happen, you think they would do this without consent from parents? Consent is not even a state law its a federal law.

Strong familys, that is a fallacy.......divorce rate among Mormons (the retarded group who actually sponsored this prop) is higher than divorce rate of nearly every other group other than evangelicals. The rate is at 50% right now among conservative evangelicals, I dont see how this is an argument when familys are being broken up more among this group than any other group.


This prop was based on fear, the only way any church ever some how gets thier sleezy little scumbag hands onto state legislation is by using money and campaigning on fear. Same way Bush got elected except the difference is, Bush gets taxed for his campaign contributions, these little fuck tards dont pay a dime because they let their spineless followers pay the taxes on them.

 

[CaféAuLait]

"Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.... The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."


I guess blacks were not worthy to teach the word of god?

Trust me, I have nothing against mormons. All I am saying is that they have alot of soul searching and alot of growing up to do before a mormon will be elected president. The mormon church just needs to get the bad taste of racism out of thier mouths and then maybe one day we will see a mormon president.

Is that bipartisan enough for you?

Of course you’re going to bitch just as hard because women can’t be Mormon priests too right? This is about “equality” for all right?

 

[Vintij]

Of course you’re going to bitch just as hard because women can’t be Mormon priests too right? This is about “equality” for all right?

Ofcourse I will, its an outrage but again this is a confused church. They allowed women to do all the things men could do in the early stages of the church short of priesthood, but twice they were stripped of this and to this day still have alienated some of the most loyal members of the mormon church ever. About 9 million female alienated members in the last decade have left this church for the same reasons gays have, the same reasons blacks have.......its simple, direct, unadulterated discrimination.

 

[tymebeta]

Vintij, I know those arguments are all logical fallacies. I'm just trying trying to see if I'm missing any other anti-gay marriage arguments. I'm just trying to bring myself back into the middle and see if I can see both sides. Right now, I can't. And I feel like I'm missing something from the pro-traditional marriage side.