Jump to content

Prop 8 Overturned


injury

Recommended Posts

I'll never understand why straight people care so much about what gay people do.

 

I'm way too busy and interested in what I'm doing to worry about what other people are doing.

 

I just don't get why people care so much when it doesn't have anything to do with them; "This is what I believe, everybody else should too. If they don't, I'm going to spend my time worrying about it!".

 

 

 

 

Small lives.

 

Oh but you do understand why, doggy. Most people that I know that are against same sex marriage are people without interesting lives. These "National Organization for Marriage" People came to town a couple months ago and preached about the sinfulness of being gay. Do you think people that are able to travel from town to town bashing gays, spreading religious extremism and denouncing people that support (or at least tolerate) the homosexual population could possibly have fulfilling, interesting lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Also, how is marriage not a constitutional law in the united states? That's ridiculous. Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment. If the right to marry or not marry wasn't protected by the constitution, then proposition 8 passing or not passing would have no legal power over who actually gets married in the state of california.

 

I know a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage. More than half of california is. I wouldn't say they're idiots, but they have a long way to go before they realize the only good thing to come of western religions was all the good things Jesus spoke about humanitarianism. It shouldnt make a difference to anyone if he was the son of god or not, jesus was a great humanitarian and that's all that matters.

 

ANYWAY, Their reasons are these:

 

1. Homosexuality is the modern equivalent of transvestite punk rockers in the 70's fueled by meth and cocaine. Homosexuality is a choice. A homosexual can choose to be straight and act out the will of god, or burn in hell.

 

2. Two people of the same sex can never really "love" eachother. They can only bang.

 

3. Homosexuality is an abomination unto god and gay marriage is not done for love, but only in spite of god, religion, the church, and humble simpleton church goers.

 

4. Marriage is a religious institution and the decision of who should be allowed to marry is the will of god and god alone.

 

5. Their core family values of how to raise a child require a mother AND a father present and accounted for at all times.

 

6. Marriage is for parenting and adoption is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, how is marriage not a constitutional law in the united states? That's ridiculous. Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment. If the right to marry or not marry wasn't protected by the constitution, then proposition 8 passing or not passing would have no legal power over who actually gets married in the state of california.

 

i am speaking of constitutional law on the federal level.

flip through this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

and tell me where there is any mention of marriage in the entire document. get back to me when you have done this.

 

Prop 8 was a california state constitutional amendment voted on by popular referendum (democracy... i thought you more liberal types were all about the 'will of the majority?' no? which is one reason why i continually tell the lefty types that democracy is bad, that rights arent protected and my rights arent up for popular vote.) the problem with the court decision is the federal courts have absolutely no authority to strike down a law regulating marriage in any way whatsoever in a state. whether gay marriage was legalized or banned. its no different than a federal court ruling that a marriage law in germany is 'unconstitutional.' there is no jurisdiction to make a ruling either way. this area of life was left to the states, not to the feds. constitutionally the states are sovereign. they delegated a few of their powers to the federal government in a compact among the states. the federal government did not create the states and allow them to have certain powers.

so it is up to californians to decide their own fate.

 

im no fan of state governments. all governments violate liberty by their very existence. however if there is to be a government i want it to be as small and local as possible so as to influence it easier and so it has a smaller enforcement apparatus. screw states rights, i want county rights. city rights. neighborhood rights. this way if a governing body makes a bad decision, it will only affect a small portion of the country. whereas if you federalize every issue, in this case marriage, 305 million people will have to live under the ruling/law/whatever.

 

I know a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage. More than half of california is. I wouldn't say they're idiots, but they have a long way to go before they realize the only good thing to come of western religions was all the good things Jesus spoke about humanitarianism. It shouldnt make a difference to anyone if he was the son of god or not, jesus was a great humanitarian and that's all that matters.

 

to each their own. cant people believe what they want to? its just life. i dont agree with alot of things people do or say, but i will not use any power over them. and i surely will not support any laws that infringe on anyones natural rights whether it is by a local government, a federal government, or a world government.

 

3. Homosexuality is an abomination unto god and gay marriage is not done for love, but only in spite of god, religion, the church, and humble simpleton church goers.

 

4. Marriage is a religious institution and the decision of who should be allowed to marry is the will of god and god alone.

these as well as the rest of your other points are relatively insignificant in this discussion which is more or less about what should be the law/illegal. none of these reasons are justified in banning a contract between consenting adults.

people my hold any of these beliefs either for or against gay marriage privately, but frankly its no ones business one way or the other.

 

i personally think gay marriage is an oxymoron, but i surely am not going to forbid people to do it. i think a lot of other things are stupid as well... drug use for one. but im not going to ban someone from doing it.

do i hate gay people? absolutely not. do i have much in common with them? nope, not unless they want to dead lift, shoot guns or 4x4.

 

which takes us back to the real issue... privatizing marriage. putting it in the hands of the people, churches, whoever want to contract freely. remove all state licensing, etc.

privatize the entire thing....however forcing a private institution like a church to do something against their beliefs as you have suggested is not legitimate if we are interested in freedom. its only proper if you are for preserving a totalitarian dictate of what people should do in society.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But......

It's almost like a monopoly run by women (in the man & woman concept).

Demand for quality women will always be high, but supply is limited. You can't just churn out more women. And women will typically have the power due to greater choice..

I'm reading too much into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

definitely.

hahahahaha

 

you could easily say the same now in the current state of affairs, but i think you are probably being sarcastic in your post anyway.

 

im just in favor of refusing allowing government to regulate marriage one way or other other. no licensing for one. no laws regulating it in anyway. perhaps the only role of the state would be to make sure the contract is enforced and to settle disputes... as far as inheritance, wills, dealing with divorce, etc, etc. which are basic extensions of contract law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is anyone going to make the argument that gays can't marry? It actually made me smile to see such tolerant chit-chat, my little bro just came out a couple months ago.

 

 

I won't make an argument against it, but I will say that I don't like it. That doesn't mean

I will protest it, hate homosexuals, etc. It's just not something I can get down with morally.

However, gays getting married really doesn't affect me. Therefore, it really has no impact

on my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im genuinely curious what you think is morally wrong with two men or women getting married...

 

 

I don't think it's ok.

 

However, I already said that is just my belief. Homosexuals getting married really doesn't affect me personally.

 

I can be both rational and stick to personal belief.

 

/attack my beliefs now. also, feel free to hate on me for believing in god and then tell me I should be more open

minded about homosexuality and their right to marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal belief is that not allowing gay people to get married is morally wrong. It is complete discrimination fueled by organised religion.

 

Anyone that is in a loving relationship and want that to be recognised legally and infront of all the friends should have the right to get married. I really do believe it is an infringement on gay people's human rights to not allow them to marry.

 

There is nothing different between a gay person and a straight person apart from what attracts them, it would be like saying that if you have a thing for blondes and you were in a loving relationship then you aren't allowed to marry them. It is stupid, it doesn't harm anyone and at least it gives them the security of having a legally binding relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i want to understand your beliefs, not attack them. please dont dance around the question, mang. why is it that you find gay marriage to be immoral?

 

 

Well, the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is a reason behind that: Propagation.

I don't necessarily believe the Bible as word, but I do think the tenants are well intentioned and have function.

 

 

I'm of the mindset that the union between man and woman should be preserved.

 

I'm not opposed to a civil unions for homosexuals in states that vote for it as long as there

is a choice and nothing is amended to our Constitution. As AOD said, gov should stay the fuck out of it.

 

It comes down to personal belief and I try my best not to inflect my beliefs upon others.

If gays really think that living together isn't enough and they really need to be married "in

the eyes of the law", let them fight for it in their individual states. If those states decide that it's ok (in the eyes of the voters), fine. I won't protest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal belief is that not allowing gay people to get married is morally wrong. It is complete discrimination fueled by organised religion.

 

Anyone that is in a loving relationship and want that to be recognised legally and infront of all the friends should have the right to get married. I really do believe it is an infringement on gay people's human rights to not allow them to marry.

 

There is nothing different between a gay person and a straight person apart from what attracts them, it would be like saying that if you have a thing for blondes and you were in a loving relationship then you aren't allowed to marry them. It is stupid, it doesn't harm anyone and at least it gives them the security of having a legally binding relationship.

 

 

 

Does license define love now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

never said anything about a license, I just meant that having a legally recognised marriage is everyones right

 

you didnt comment on the blonde comment, what makes someone who is attracted to the same sex any different from someone attracted to blondes? why shouldn't they have the same rights?

 

I dont see why gays should fight to have the same rights as everyone else. it is discrimination pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, there is an element that goes beyond values and that is the access to legal and financial rights that hetero couples enjoy and homo couples don't. Talking insurance, superannuation, etc.

 

IF gays lived together and still had the financial rights that a heterosexual legal partnership the law defines as marriage (or defacto) much of this issue would be resolved. The access to social rights is only one element, access to legal rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples, that don't even have to be married are another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see why gays should fight to have the same rights as everyone else. it is discrimination pure and simple.

 

i dont think casek is saying they shouldnt have the same 'rights' as anyone else nor to go jail if they try to marry or he is just saying he is personally morally opposed to it. and the question is then, what is horribly wrong with this view? you can be morally opposed to lots of things, but still essentially favor its 'legalization' or rather you do not support prosecuting these people for a crime.

 

im personally opposed to polygamy but i do not think it is anyones business if a dude has 1 or 7 wives and i do not support putting these people in jail. im personally against the use of meth, but im not in favor of throwing users in jail. im personally opposed to hipsters, but i do not want them put in jail. im personally opposed to socialists, but i do not want them put in jail. this can go on forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, there is an element that goes beyond values and that is the access to legal and financial rights that hetero couples enjoy and homo couples don't. Talking insurance, superannuation, etc.

 

IF gays lived together and still had the financial rights that a heterosexual legal partnership the law defines as marriage (or defacto) much of this issue would be resolved. The access to social rights is only one element, access to legal rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples, that don't even have to be married are another.

 

interesting that you have brought this up, as just about everyone on both sides of the issue from obama to glenn beck who are BOTH opposed to gay marriage, (last i heard obama was still publicly saying he was opposed to it anyway) say a civil union is cool, you just cant call it marriage. and in a sense, i totally see the point. anyone without an axe to grind can see what marriage was, historically, a union between a man and woman who love each other usually with the intent to procreate. so basically what is being done is 'teh gayz' are trying to c-opt a term that was never traditionally applied to their relationships. but whatever. im not really down with it, but im not down with dudes wearing pants around their ankles or dudes wearing skinny jeans, but whatever... i definitely dont support putting anyone in jail for calling a relationship between a man and a man or a man and a couch a 'marriage' nor do i support throwing people in jail who install wiring in houses 'that call themselves 'plumbers.'

 

the main issue seems to be semantics. you have traditionalists trying to keep marriages traditional meaning and using the state to enforce their views and you have progressives trying to change the meaning and using the state to enforce their meaning. notice the common denominator? using the state to enforce their view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my comment was in response to his comment that said 'let them fight for it in their individual states'

 

all I was stating is that they shouldn't have to fight for something that is in place for every hetro person, it isn't about like or dislike, they are being completely discriminated against by the current laws in place and that isn't right.

 

It is the same as someone refusing to serve a black person in their shop, it is discrimination. Every person is equal and should be treated that way. Doesn't the consititution state that all men are equal? by disallowing gays to marry is meaning they aren't being treated equally and therefore should be unconstitutional.

 

Like Christo said, they should have all the same rights as a hetro married couple, insurance, inheritance etc etc I don't care about the use of the term marriage it just means they should have the exact same rights as a married hetro couple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my comment was in response to his comment that said 'let them fight for it in their individual states'

 

word

 

all I was stating is that they shouldn't have to fight for something that is in place for every hetro person, it isn't about like or dislike, they are being completely discriminated against by the current laws in place and that isn't right.

 

well... of course i think the option is to eliminate licensing. then you will have no 'discrimination.' the state constantly 'discriminates' on everyone, this is nothing new.

 

the problem is then, does the US govt have the right to intervene into an area they have no authority to intervene in? put it another way, can the US govt intervene in the affairs of the UK in its marriage laws to end 'discrimination? and yes, it is the same exact thing. the US govt has no such power. period.

 

if you think the US govt can intervene in california, you must also believe that the UK can intervene in california marriage law.

 

 

It is the same as someone refusing to serve a black person in their shop, it is discrimination. Every person is equal and should be treated that way. Doesn't the consititution state that all men are equal? by disallowing gays to marry is meaning they aren't being treated equally and therefore should be unconstitutional.

 

is it not within a property owners rights to associate with whom they want to? if you have a dinner at your house, can i then force you to serve KKK members or nazi's, people that you are personally opposed to?

 

why is it that it is illegal for a business owner to not have the right to freely associate, but you never hear anything about customers who have made up their mind to buy a certain item, YET they freely discriminate, perhaps based on the race of the store owner, on where to buy it? isnt it just as 'discriminating' for a customer to refuse to give his business to an pakistani run business? why arent these customers being thrown in jail for violation of civil rights?

 

I don't care about the use of the term marriage it just means they should have the exact same rights as a married hetro couple

 

as i said in a previous post, obama is against gay marriage, but supports civil unions. glenn beck holds the same position.

 

i think the divisive point for everyone who chooses not to take my suggestion and support marriage privatization, is the actual term marriage itself. if everyone just shut the hell up about marriage and considered contracts between consenting adults, the problem would largely be solved. traditionally marriage always was held in hands of the various churches and religious sects... gay marriage never existed historically, so the gay marriage advocates have a hard row to hoe in changing the definition of a word, even among liberals, church going liberals in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gays can marry in the UK and have the same rights as hetro couples, obviously the UK cannot intervene in American law.

 

Do I think a shop owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain customers, Nope. If a shop owner refused to serve a black person they should be open for prosecution as they are actively discriminating against someone for no reason. Customers have the choice to where to shop, it is against the law for a shop owner to refuse to serve say a pakastani man. I know you will come back with freedom of association stuff, but if you are a shop inthe public realm you cannot discriminate against the people who come into your shop. If you think that it is fine to have a No Blacks sign in a shop then your view is fucked up (not you particularly AOD, I meant you as a wider generalisation)

 

Can you force me to have KKK members in my private home? nope because it is my private home, there are laws in place that stop shop owners from discriminating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gays can marry in the UK and have the same rights as hetro couples, obviously the UK cannot intervene in American law.

 

agreed. and in the same vain, since the US govt has no authority to intervene in the affairs of california marriage law, it cannot.

 

Do I think a shop owner should be allowed to discriminate against certain customers, Nope. If a shop owner refused to serve a black person they should be open for prosecution as they are actively discriminating against someone for no reason. Customers have the choice to where to shop, it is against the law for a shop owner to refuse to serve say a pakastani man.

 

but i thought the greedy capitalists just want to profit off of the minorities and kill everyone with food product instead of real food, etc?

 

you are also pointing out a mere hypocritical position of the law... its illegal for one person to discriminate, but legal for a customer to discriminate. why not go after the customer who discriminates based on race against store employees or owners?

 

 

I know you will come back with freedom of association stuff, but if you are a shop inthe public realm you cannot discriminate against the people who come into your shop. If you think that it is fine to have a No Blacks sign in a shop then your view is fucked up (not you particularly AOD, I meant you as a wider generalisation)

 

it doesnt matter if we think it is fucked up if someone puts a 'no blacks' sign in someone's shop... it is there own property. who owns it? if they cannot decide who to associate with, then who can? do you have a right to regulate a persons property? if you submit that you do, then i must have a right to tell you how to run your property.

neither of us has this right, legitimately.

 

if we are to agree that the govt has a right to tell property owners who to associate with, no matter how abhorrent their choice in association may be, we have inherently violated their right to private ownership of property in the first place.

 

'discrimination' is nothing but a choice.

do you realize that by that fact that you married a woman, you discriminated against every man in the entire world? and for that matter, you discriminated against every OTHER woman besides your wife.

why is it ok for a bar to refuse to serve someone if they think they have drank to much, for a store to require someone to wear shoes and a shirt before entering their property, for a fancy restaurant to force you to wear a suit and tie if you come on their property due to their dress code, but one cannot freely associate with other types of people and discriminate on their own preferences?

this is what property does. it is controlled by the owner, allows them to make personal choices on who to allow to enter or use the property and if you dont like it, touch luck. its not your property to regulate.

 

Can you force me to have KKK members in my private home? nope because it is my private home, there are laws in place that stop shop owners from discriminating

 

how is your house (private property) any different than any other property? private property is private property. you have simply chosen to keep your property not open to the public and are discriminating against nazi's by restricting them from coming in for dinner, yet if someone else makes the same choice of exercising his right to freely associate, you want him prosecuted for committing a 'crime.'

it is a hypocritical position and there is no talking around it. private property is private property and not amount of 'public accommodation' nonsense can justify invasions of private property by nosy liberal regulating do gooders.

 

im pretty adamant about this subject, because not to long ago, i used to hold the same view that you hold. until i recognized property rights in the equation.

 

this is the great fault of the lefts' argument in these social issues. instead of allowing property rights, they say its illegal for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple and illegal for a black guy to refuse to serve a white kkk member. (yet it is totally legal for the white kkk guy to discriminate against the black store owner by refusing to go into his shop, we must of course, according to the liberal view, then force this white kkk member into the black guys store and compel the black store owner to do business with the kkk member).

 

if the left has its way... girls must be allowed in the BOY scouts, non veterans must be allowed in the vfw and american legion groups, the socialist literature club must now allow free marketeers, and the old mans golf club that meets on wednesday mornings must now accommodate disabled wheel chair bound adolescents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is a reason behind that: Propagation.

I don't necessarily believe the Bible as word, but I do think the tenants are well intentioned and have function.

.

 

I agree that the tenets in the Bible have function. Homosexuality was impractical in the agricultural society in which the tenets were developed. It is advantageous for a family that it makes its living through herding and farming to have as many children as possible, since each child can provide at a relatively young age more food through the his work than it takes to feed him. More children equals more production. Tenets in the bible against birth control and masturbation function similarly.

 

In a hunter/gatherer society, homosexuality would be a benefit. A hunter/gatherer's labor will barely cover their families, and produce little excess. Their is little benefit to having more children, since each child's labor provides a negligible or negative production in comparison to their food needs. Hunter/gatherers are generally tolerant of homosexuality, masturbation, and tend to have multiple methods of birth control.

 

Fewer children is a benefit in our post-industrial/industrial societies in much of the world. Children cannot produce enough to offset their consumption for many years, so having more children is detrimental, rather than beneficial as in the societies of biblical times. It is little wonder that as Medieval Europe became more urbanized, that celibacy for the clergy became codified. Families with multiple children could only pass their inheritance on to so many descendants, so eliminating the possibility of the second and after children from producing descendants had a valuable practical purpose. In our post-industrial society, children can barely produce anything until well into adulthood. It is not surprising that people of my generation and younger are having only one child or no children at all.

 

Given our current economic systems, following a rule that was developed in a completely different society with different needs seems silly at best, and dangerous at worst. I fail to see any moral justification for rules against homosexuality in our modern society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...