Why is is thjat Gay Marriage

[bodecea]

Tell that to the voters in California who just passed Prop 8.

By only 4 percent...after some pretty horribly fear and lying tactics in out-of-state funded commercials. By only 4 percent even when entire church congregations were handed signs and told to go stand on street corners on Sunday because that's what Jesus wanted them to do. By only 4 percent even when the No on H8 people didn't start their own commercial campaign until just a few weeks before the election. By only 4 percent when just a few years ago, Prop 22 passed by a LOT more.

The tide is turning. What do you think the percentage will be next time? Especially with 18,000 of us legally married campaigning for our brothers and sisters.

See? This is why it's hard to have a discussion with you Liberals. All you do is resort to name calling when you can't defend your position.

I want you to point out my name-calling in the post you are quoting.

Yeah, the tide is turning. If Obama gets his way and legalizes all illegals then you can kiss Gay Marriage goodbye in the state of California. They're predominately Catholic you know.

And....? There are Hispanic gays with families who accept them and there are Catholic gays whose families accept them. Seems to me, MOST of the Pro Prop H8 money came from Mormons and Evangelicals....not exactly Catholics. Those on the street corners booing us with our gay bumperstickers weren't from the local Catholic Churches.

I was born and raised in California by the way. Born in Hollywood (not West Hollywood ) Presbyterian Hospital, lived in Watts during the riots. Moved to Lakewood then Long Beach.

And......?

Except for the weather, California is a piece of shit and a festering wound that will never heal.

You are going to do us the honor of leaving, right?

 

[bodecea]

The only thing that gays seek in court and in legislatures is equality in CIVIL marriage. Courts and legislatures have no power in church, nor have they ever. Have you seen any church successfully forced to marry interfaith couples? No? Well you won't either.

IF....IF Civil Unions gave the exact same legal rights as Civil Marriage, you would not hear any complaints at all. In fact, in England they do officially call it Civil Union, even tho it has the same rights as Marriage. Hear any complains out of the UK?

Wrong, that is not the only thing the queer movement seeks.

What else then?

Now, you are correct in saying courts and legislation has no power over churches. No where in the US is gay marriage "illegal" as the pro-queer propaganda would have us believe. The whole 'debate' is really about getting all of society to recognize gay marriages the same as they do normal marriages.

Civilly, yes. Because it's called equal protection under the law.

Gays all have the same "legal rights" has hetrosexual married couples the same way any person who isn't in such a marriage can - such as power of attorney and use of wills.

That is simply not true.
Even tho we are now legally married under CA law, we still are not under federal law. We just refinanced our house and had to jump thru more hoops and pay more fees because our loan was federally funded, not state funded. And there are many other things we are not protected on. Does any hetero couple married in CA have to worry about traveling to places like TX, VA, or FL if one of them gets sick or severly injured? Or does any hetero couple with children have to worry about having their medical decision making authority taken away from them if they visit places like TX, VA or FL?

But thats not good enough for queers.

It wouldn't be good enough for you either if that was all you got while other people, based on the gender of their partner, got more protection under the law than you did.

What they really want is for society to condone their homosexual activity.

I could care less what YOU condone or not. But the law must treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally. YOU don't have the right to use the law as a bully stick to force us to fit YOUR mold.

They want to be recognized as "normal" to the point where they can adopt children,

We do adopt children.

join the military as openly gay,

21 year Navy veteran and the world did not end. In fact, if all gay soldiers, marines and sailors left the military tomorrow, the government would be freaking out over all the unmanned positions.

and promote homosexuality as normal to young children.

I don't talk about my sexuality to young children...and I would hope that heteros wouldn't either. Unfortunately, most molestations occure by hetero Males on poor young girls and all those children dragged by their parents to street corners to hold up Yes on H8 signs sure were getting the concept of homo/hetero shoved in their faces, weren't they?

 

[Setarcos]

I didn't think they had women in the navy 21 years ago?

 

[bodecea]

I didn't think they had women in the navy 21 years ago?

Of course they did silly....and even before that.

 

[Setarcos]

I was under the impression that letting women in the armed forces was a relatively recent phenomenon

edit: looks like it happened in '48

my bad

 

[Ravi]

If you don't like guns, don't get a gun"
Makes sense, right?

"If you don't like gay marriages- fight tooth and nail to keep the queers from ruining your marriage"
?!
WTF's up with that?

You're just as dumb as Cuntessa. Go re-read my post or print it out and have someone read it to you aloud.

I dunno, MS...maybe I need glasses?

 

[bodecea]

I was under the impression that letting women in the armed forces was a relatively recent phenomenon

edit: looks like it happened in '48

my bad

Long before that even.

If you want to get a good read...do some research on the W.A.S.P.s. Fascinating group. I met one once and she spoke at my wife's retirement ceremony. Heros in every shape of the word.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have yet to figure out how same sex unions can even impact hetero unions.
Why would heteros even care?
Shouldn't they be concerned with the state of their own relationship?
What? John and Kate are the ROLE FREAKIN' MODELS?
WHAT IS THE HETERO DIVORCE RATE THESE DAYS????
O-M-GODDESS!!!!!

Oh my Goodness! How Stupid of you!

Did you not read my post Cuntessa? I said closet Homos like Sentarcos should make their own church and get married there since they're so concerned. No opposition to fag marriage, just opposition to fag marriage in breader churches.
Homo divorce rate:
Same-Sex Partners In Sweden Have High 'Divorce' Rates

The survey indicated that homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely to divorce as opposite-sex couples; while female homosexuals were 2.67 times as likely to divorce as opposite-sex couples.

You know, Algore didn't go through all the trouble of inventing the Internet just to have people like you remain ignorant. Why don't you just change your signature to "Searcher for Stupidity"?

The church sanctifies marriage. Marriage is a contract. A legal contract. It's a function of the state.

 

[Setarcos]

You mean these wasps?

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

o.o;;

 

[theHawk]

How do you know? Are you gay or do you have family members who are close to you that are?

All you gotta do is listen to them on websites like this or on the news channels. They are pretty loud about what they want.

 

[KittenKoder]

How do you know? Are you gay or do you have family members who are close to you that are?

All you gotta do is listen to them on websites like this or on the news channels. They are pretty loud about what they want.

Um ... I did and all I saw was them asking for equality.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Tell that to the voters in California who just passed Prop 8.

LIAR!

Prop 8 was funded by Mormons and out of state intersts, NOT CALIFORNIANS.

Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage.

November 2, 2008

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

By only 4 percent...after some pretty horribly fear and lying tactics in out-of-state funded commercials. By only 4 percent even when entire church congregations were handed signs and told to go stand on street corners on Sunday because that's what Jesus wanted them to do. By only 4 percent even when the No on H8 people didn't start their own commercial campaign until just a few weeks before the election. By only 4 percent when just a few years ago, Prop 22 passed by a LOT more.

The tide is turning. What do you think the percentage will be next time? Especially with 18,000 of us legally married campaigning for our brothers and sisters.

See? This is why it's hard to have a discussion with you Liberals. All you do is resort to name calling when you can't defend your position.

I want you to point out my name-calling in the post you are quoting.



And....? There are Hispanic gays with families who accept them and there are Catholic gays whose families accept them. Seems to me, MOST of the Pro Prop H8 money came from Mormons and Evangelicals....not exactly Catholics. Those on the street corners booing us with our gay bumperstickers weren't from the local Catholic Churches.

I was born and raised in California by the way. Born in Hollywood (not West Hollywood ) Presbyterian Hospital, lived in Watts during the riots. Moved to Lakewood then Long Beach.

And......?

Except for the weather, California is a piece of shit and a festering wound that will never heal.

You are going to do us the honor of leaving, right?

We can certainly hope for that, Goddess Bless Us!

 

[SenseCommon]

is almost always brought up on message boards by right-wingers who (apparently) feel that not allowing them to marry their secret gay lover is the onyl thing keeping their marriage intact?

You gotta love the thought process that went into making this thread:

You begin by telling us how the subject of gay-marriage is always brought up by the Right. Yet you, a Lefty, discredit that notion immediately by, get this: BRINGING UP THE SUBJECT OF GAY MARRIAGE. Genius!

Then, in what you believe to be an action of showing support for gay-marriage, you insult the Right by calling them, get this: GAY. Thus using that which you are supposedly defending(Gays Rights), and translating it into an insult/negative characteristic toward others.

But hey, you keep on showing us that "progressive" light!

 

[theHawk]

I could care less what YOU condone or not. But the law must treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally. YOU don't have the right to use the law as a bully stick to force us to fit YOUR mold.

The law does treat citizens equally. If you aren't recognized as married how are you being treated any differenly than a hetrosexual that is single?
What lawis being used as a "bully stick" to "force" you to fit "my" mold? (what mold?)

We do adopt children.

Of course gays do, its part of that queer agenda remember? The agenda has been sucessful in parts of the country. But having all states recognize gay marriage as normal would open the flood gates to allow mass adoptions by gays across the country.

21 year Navy veteran and the world did not end. In fact, if all gay soldiers, marines and sailors left the military tomorrow, the government would be freaking out over all the unmanned positions.

Never suggested otherwise. I served with some gays. But the last thing the military needs are openly flamboyant type gays. They are nothing but attention whores and a distraction.

I don't talk about my sexuality to young children...and I would hope that heteros wouldn't either. Unfortunately, most molestations occure by hetero Males on poor young girls and all those children dragged by their parents to street corners to hold up Yes on H8 signs sure were getting the concept of homo/hetero shoved in their faces, weren't they?

Hmm. who do you think perpatrates the majority of child molestation on boys? Homosexual men or women?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I could care less what YOU condone or not. But the law must treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally. YOU don't have the right to use the law as a bully stick to force us to fit YOUR mold.

The law does treat citizens equally. If you aren't recognized as married how are you being treated any differenly than a hetrosexual that is single?
What lawis being used as a "bully stick" to "force" you to fit "my" mold? (what mold?)

We do adopt children.

Of course gays do, its part of that queer agenda remember? The agenda has been sucessful in parts of the country. But having all states recognize gay marriage as normal would open the flood gates to allow mass adoptions by gays across the country.

21 year Navy veteran and the world did not end. In fact, if all gay soldiers, marines and sailors left the military tomorrow, the government would be freaking out over all the unmanned positions.

Never suggested otherwise. I served with some gays. But the last thing the military needs are openly flamboyant type gays. They are nothing but attention whores and a distraction.

I don't talk about my sexuality to young children...and I would hope that heteros wouldn't either. Unfortunately, most molestations occure by hetero Males on poor young girls and all those children dragged by their parents to street corners to hold up Yes on H8 signs sure were getting the concept of homo/hetero shoved in their faces, weren't they?

Hmm. who do you think perpatrates the majority of child molestation on boys? Homosexual men or women?

1ST: THIS THREAD is NOT about CHILD MOLESTORS. You want to discuss that, then start your own thread, THIS THREAD is about CONSENTING ADULTS HAVING EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS.

2ND: What, you didn't get enough attention in the military, your chief didn't hold your hand and mentor you like you wanted, well, OH WOE IS YOU, LIFE AIN'T FAIR!!!! Or did YOU get distracted, LOL????

EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN ATTEMPT TO DIVERT..... SO PPPPPFFFFFTTTTTT!!!!!

 

[SenseCommon]

I could care less what YOU condone or not. But the law must treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally. YOU don't have the right to use the law as a bully stick to force us to fit YOUR mold.

The law does treat citizens equally. If you aren't recognized as married how are you being treated any differenly than a hetrosexual that is single?
What lawis being used as a "bully stick" to "force" you to fit "my" mold? (what mold?)

Of course gays do, its part of that queer agenda remember? The agenda has been sucessful in parts of the country. But having all states recognize gay marriage as normal would open the flood gates to allow mass adoptions by gays across the country.


Never suggested otherwise. I served with some gays. But the last thing the military needs are openly flamboyant type gays. They are nothing but attention whores and a distraction.

I don't talk about my sexuality to young children...and I would hope that heteros wouldn't either. Unfortunately, most molestations occure by hetero Males on poor young girls and all those children dragged by their parents to street corners to hold up Yes on H8 signs sure were getting the concept of homo/hetero shoved in their faces, weren't they?

Hmm. who do you think perpatrates the majority of child molestation on boys? Homosexual men or women?

2ND: What, you didn't get enough attention in the military, your chief didn't hold your hand and mentor you like you wanted, well, OH WOE IS YOU, LIFE AIN'T FAIR!!!! Or did YOU get distracted, LOL????

EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN ATTEMPT TO DIVERT..... SO PPPPPFFFFFTTTTTT!!!!!

Another example of a liberal who fancies them-self a "progressive", but in supposedly supporting a cause(Gay Rights) they just end up hurting it when they insult those who are against gay marriage by insinuating that they are ........ GAY!

You dummies will just never get it!

 

[seth1492]

Let me explain my point of view.

Politics and life for that matter is all about definitions. Life is about learning to define and understand the world around you. As a child you learn that "a" is "a". The sky is blue, etc. because we define it.

Some things really matter how they are defined, like the law. Ambiguous and general laws lack definition and cause chaos in society. Other words need no real definition and can change throughout time, like bad, cool, sweet, sick, and many other words.

The great debate in the marriage argument is over the definition of what marriage is. It is not what gays should have or not have as much as it is in defining what marriage has always been. By definition, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's the definition, so if society wants to make the same privileges available to homosexual couples then they need to create a need legal right other than marriage.

Think of the definition argument of right and privilege, it is the entire basis of the arguments for many political ideologies.

Definition of marriage has been established by legal scholars and professionals for many years and is not only a right or left issue. Judge Douglas (liberal) in the landmark case on the right to privacy,(which I believe is a privilege and not a right), stated that marriage had been established as a legal right before the constitution and should be protected as such.

Think about it, definitions matter.

There are a lot of people with a lot of pretty uneducated notions about this argument, but the heart of it can be explained as war of definitions.

 

[Setarcos]

You gotta love the thought process that went into making this thread:

You begin by telling us how the subject of gay-marriage is always brought up by the Right. Yet you, a Lefty, discredit that notion immediately by, get this: BRINGING UP THE SUBJECT OF GAY MARRIAGE. Genius!

Actually, I bought up the subject of threads about gay marriage

It's kinda like the difference between asking whether you're retarded and calling you retarded because it would explain a great many things

 

[Setarcos]

As a child you learn that "a" is "a". The sky is blue, etc.

Actually, it's no. I drove my science teacher crazy one day back in HS after they said it was.

The great debate in the marriage argument is over the definition of what marriage is.

It's a simple matter: it is a legal contract enforced by the State

It is not what gays should have or not have as much as it is in defining what marriage has always been. By definition, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's the definition, so if society wants to make the same privileges available to homosexual couples then they need to create a need legal right other than marriage.

It's the current definition in this region as the law is interpreted (in most cases).

There are a lot of people with a lot of pretty uneducated notions about this argument, but the heart of it can be explained as war of definitions.

I disagree. They seek to define it as "one man, one woman" because it is a war over rights, equality, and liberty versus religious morality