NO on Prop 8
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- calcium0
sounds like california also got rid of the freedom to assembly
- yep, total bullshit. everyone was so peaceful and law abiding and the cops couldnt wait to crack skullthreadpost
- This election was bitter sweet to a lot of people. Overall obviously very happy however :)threadpost
- locustsloth0
fusionpixel (or epete, but i think he bailed on this thread), why is it that you, personally, are happy to see gay marriage banned in California? As i asked before, if it's not a religious thing, what is it about homosexual marriage that is going to negatively impact you in Zimbabwe (or wherever you currently reside)?
- Seriously, i am genuinely interested in how someone comes to that opinionlocustsloth
- 5timuli0
Too lazy to read... is this about bum love?
- fusionpixel0
^^@locustsloth
I'm not in Zimbabwe I am in the US. and to answer your question: I am glad it has been banned in Cali because hopefully more states will follow by example and ban it as well. I am old and I have kids so I don't want them to grow up thinking that being homosexual is something you are born with, I strongly believe it is a choice (yeah yeah call me grandpa or old fashion http://www.narth.com/docs/isther…). That does not mean that I condemn their choice I have close friends that have chosen that life style and friends of friends so I am not a dude that lives in denial in a little box in the middle of no where that has never had contact with the outside world.
Lastly I am not bailing out, I just have more important things to do than to repeat myself over and over if you have more questions or want to discuss the subject off line I am more than happy to do so.
- locustsloth0
1) Sorry about the Zimbabwe confusion, just read what was on your profile
2) Sorry, i didn't mean you bailed, i meant epete, as he hadn't posted in a while.
3) i don't see how whether homosexuality is something you're born with has anything to do with whether they can be married. Choice or not, why can't they get married? i don't believe answering that would be repeating yourself as i can't find where you've said it before.
But i can understand if you feel uncomfortable expressing that or just plain don't care to let people here into your opinions that much. i just can't think of a reason outside of religious dogma that someone would oppose this and was interested to hear from someone who may have a reason.
What's more, why not just instill your values regarding this issue in your children? Why impose your values on others whom are unrelated and unconnected to you?
And why do you seemingly feel that homosexuality is an affliction to be treated (regarding your NARTH links)? What harm will befall the world if those who choose (as you believe) to be homosexual do so?
But again, i understand that this is a personal matter which you could possibly feel sensitive sharing your opinions about.
Live and let live, is all i'm saying.- point 3 makes a good point. everyone deserves the right to be unhappily married.airey
- ukit0
On some level, does anyone feel this is the wrong way to go about amending laws? Isn't one of the reasons our government is set up the way it is to protect minorities against discrimination by the majority? I'm not one of those who would compare the two, but imagine if there had been a referendum in each state on giving civil rights to blacks during the 60s,
- precisely my point. our entire constitutional foundation is to protect minorities from the will of the majoritythreadpost
- Sandder0
Don't protest: just move out of that shit-country. Exodus
- a_iver0
Yeah it's definitely not acceptable that our laws be based on any real moral foundation.
- moral foundation? who defines morals? you? god?spifflink
- our nation, hopefullya_iver
- you arent allowed to put your moral relativism onto me. Equal protections under the law. see the 14th amendment.threadpost
- ukit0
I think that's what locustsloth was getting at, what is the moral argument for preventing gays from marrying? There isn't a good one that I can think of.
- designbot0
It seems blatantly obvious to me based on this vote that the majority of people in this country are simply opposed to the legalization of gay marraige. Say what you will, but if this couldn't even pass in California, then the majority vote in other states would be much higher. When you say it's "taking rights away" what exactly does that mean? The people never voted on this, only the supreme court did. Like a true democracy, the people have had a chance to vote this time and it was rejected. Some people in here act like gays have no rights already. They have been able to have civil unions for many years, are able to adopt, and even get tax breaks like married straight couples.
- Except that the same groups who worked to ban marriage will go on to work to revoke those rights as welllocustsloth
- also, like i said earlier, amendments to the constitution are not voted on by people but by legislators and judgesspifflink
- that's the way its done, that's how it was done for the somewhat analogous national reconstruction amendmentsspifflink
- threadpost0
^^ It is very very simple. its called the 14th amendment and equal protections under the law.
Quite simply, if the state makes a marriage legal to some, it must therefore extend that same legality to everyone. There is no differentiation whether it is gay or straight. It is unconstitutional for the laws a state makes to apply to only certain people.
- airey0
hahaha. homosexuality is a choice. you fucking idiot. yeah, if i were to map out the best choices a teenager could make when entering their own sexuality it would be to choose one that would run them the risk of losing both family and friends and add one more thing to the list of 'easy reasons to be bullied at school / uni by morons'. yep, just cause you found yourself straight that must mean that all people must. this kind of judgement has nothing to do with religion, it's simple small mindedness.
if you really care about your child's future you'd support their right to choose and their happiness not force an outdated opinion. i hate the emo look and am not a fan of country music, so should i force my kids into the belief that those things are crap? no. and at least their things they can choose. should i force the moron 8 year old to use his right hand cause southpaws are inferior? no. even though it's true.
saying that, if my kids had ginger hair i'd drown 'em as a mercy kill. so swings and roundabouts.
- how about pedophilia then eh? Is someone born a pedophile? Is that a choice? Or something beyond their control. Their is no science to support the "born gay" notion.designbot
- science to support the "born gay" notion.designbot
- The only difference is that a gay person is not technically hurting anyone by their actions.designbot
- There is a lot of science to support the idea of born gay. often in the 2nd trimester an abnormal hormonal level can contributethreadpost
- nice link from gay to kiddy-fiddling designbot you fuckwit.airey
- airey, calm yourself down. No need to get psycho about the issue. Typical of someone who can't debate...hurl insults.designbot
- my point was that if you are going to claim people are born gay, there are a host of other things you could associate people being born with.designbot
- being "born with".designbot
- airey0
also, since when did marriage become sacred in america? there's a fucking elivis and star trek chapel in vegas ffs!?! if that's sacred i'm a monkey's uncle! (and we all know that we aren't evolved from apes. the great ceiling cat vomited us up 5000 years ago. i read it on the net so it's true).
- airey0
my favourite tirade in west wing towards an anti-homosexual pundit:
A talk show host defends calling homosexuality an "abomination" by saying that that is what the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 (That verse, by the way, reads: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such thing is an abomination.") This annoys President Bartlet who proceeds to ask a few pointed questions about just what one should accept from the Bible.
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
Leviticus 11 7 and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. 8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
grabbed the text from here: http://westwing.bewarne.com/seco…
- modern0
Get with the program America, why are you even debating these sort of issues in 2008 when the rest of he civilised world gave equal rights ages ago.
Makes you look so backward, stop letting stupid made up books and borderline cults get in the way freedom
- stem0
Couldn't have said it better modern...
___________________END_OF_THREAD...
- janne760
this thread is gay.