Prop 8 Overturned

[lord_casek]

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?

 

It's not exactly the same thing. We're comparing vaginas to buttholes. (is joke)

 

casek, at least i know you wont be one of the bungholes voting against gay marriage ( if it were to come up in your state) since you dont iike to inflect your personal beliefs on others. ill give you props for that.

 

Yeah, I won't try and step into it and vote either way. But if the people of any given state are unanimously for/against it, that is the will of the people and I support that.

 

 

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

 

 

They have the same rights, but not the same taxation rights. I still don't see a point in licensing love. Just my opinion, though.

 

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.

 

I've thought a lot about this, as well. I still can't get over the moral hump. That's just me, though. I don't try and stop it from happening by holding up any "God Hates Fags" signs or

any such thing.

 

AOD pretty much nailed it. I think gays should be fine with civil unions. Most churches don't accept them due to the church's values (excluding modern Universalist churches and the like), so why do they want to press this and make law force this?

 

Anyway, take what I say however you want. Know that I don't hate these people for their beliefs or sexual practices, though. They're well within their rights to press for a change in their own states.

[Cracked Ass]

I'm with Lewis Black on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk

[visual_ransom]

You're pissing up the wrong tree, mate.

And anyone who tries to say that homosexuality is not natural has missed the fact that there are hundreds of millions of gay people in the world.

 

now, i'm not saying im against gays, all power to them. I just think people are homosexual for a reason.

 

yes, there are hundreds of millions of gays in the world, but if you took a tally at where the concentration of most of them are, they are more in the liberal advanced nations. Not the more religious nations, or 3rd world countries.

 

unless homosexuality has selective country breeding, then i don't know. But i believe homosexuality is a societal thing.

 

again i have nothing against them and more power to em, and i too agree its stupid to try to change how people think or feel, its up to them to decide what they want to do with their lives and for straight people to sanctify marriage as only between man and woman is to sanctify marriage as a physical entity to say it is not about love and commitment, but about visual/physical status.

 

but then again i think marriage is pointless in the first place. if you love someone then why prove it with marriage. Love is love, its an emotion not a piece of paper.

[christo-f]

now, i'm not saying im against gays, all power to them. I just think people are homosexual for a reason.

 

yes, there are hundreds of millions of gays in the world, but if you took a tally at where the concentration of most of them are, they are more in the liberal advanced nations. Not the more religious nations, or 3rd world countries.

 

unless homosexuality has selective country breeding, then i don't know. But i believe homosexuality is a societal thing.

 

Yes, that's because access to freedoms are different. There is more than likely no data available but I'd bet that there would be as many gay people in Iran and Afghanistan were the social freedoms even as liberal countries.

 

You may also like to look at the andorgenising periods during pregnancy for the bio argument.

 

again i have nothing against them and more power to em, and i too agree its stupid to try to change how people think or feel, its up to them to decide what they want to do with their lives and for straight people to sanctify marriage as only between man and woman is to sanctify marriage as a physical entity to say it is not about love and commitment, but about visual/physical status.

 

but then again i think marriage is pointless in the first place. if you love someone then why prove it with marriage. Love is love, its an emotion not a piece of paper.

 

Yes but there are legal rights associated to it as it is a legal partnership.

 

 

Marriage is essentially a religion based concept, in Western terms anyway. I'm not religious but I will be getting married to my girl as it is legally better for us.

[visual_ransom]

good point, that would be hard to measure

 

and i understand the whole tax benefits of marriage etc, but that also means i could start my own war against tax benefits with marriage against people like me who don't believe in marriage. but life's too short to be spending a lot of it with battling man made laws.

 

its a really dirty shitty cycle.

[Decyferon]

AOD, customer's have the freedom of choice to choose where to shop, that is not discrimination that is just the way shops work, everyone knows that.

 

A shop doesn't have the right to refuse to serve someone because they may be handicapped, that is discrimination, not freedom of choice. Why do you think that civil rights people campaigned for the end of segregation in the south, blacks only toilets etc, because it was complete discrimination and not freedom of choice.

 

I swear you can't actually believe half the stuff you type because it seems so backwards, to say I am discriminating against men and women because I am married is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard you say.

 

If you tried to seriously have a shop that you only allowed whites to use, you would get done for it simple as that, and I would laugh at the owner the whole way to the human rights court which would trump your constitution.

[Realism]

now, i'm not saying im against gays, all power to them. I just think people are homosexual for a reason.

 

yes, there are hundreds of millions of gays in the world, but if you took a tally at where the concentration of most of them are, they are more in the liberal advanced nations. Not the more religious nations, or 3rd world countries.

 

unless homosexuality has selective country breeding, then i don't know. But i believe homosexuality is a societal thing.

 

Openly homosexual, yes. But many of the 3rd world countries you're alluding to have laws against homosexuality, as in you are executed for being gay. You're looking at the concentrations of open homosexuals, if you're even using actual stats...they still exist just as much in other places, just not as openly because they recognize that it would be dangerous.

 

In less extreme terms, let's call America a liberal advanced nation, which is a safe assumption. Do you think there are more gay pride parades, events, clubs, and general awareness in Massachusetts, or Alabama? It all has to do with location, there is a relatively equal distribution of gays in the country but generally speaking you won't find it being paraded as much in an area that is not as tolerant.

[visual_ransom]

AOD, customer's have the freedom of choice to choose where to shop, that is not discrimination that is just the way shops work, everyone knows that.

 

A shop doesn't have the right to refuse to serve someone because they may be handicapped, that is discrimination, not freedom of choice. Why do you think that civil rights people campaigned for the end of segregation in the south, blacks only toilets etc, because it was complete discrimination and not freedom of choice.

 

If you tried to seriously have a shop that you only allowed whites to use, you would get done for it simple as that, and I would laugh at the owner the whole way to the human rights court which would trump your constitution.

 

actually, stores can't discriminate who shops at their venue, BUT much worse, they can discriminate who they want to work at their store. Its easy, Let's say a white guy owned a store and didn't want any black people working there. So a black guy walks in and says "hey are you guys hiring"? Instead of saying "we don't hire black people" the store owner could easily just work around that and say "no, but we're accepting applications". He fills one out, hands it to him he walks out, store owner tears it up.

 

its what lawyers do, its called contextual loop holes. You question how its phrased and what is being said and you work around it. Its dirty, and beautifully worked out.

 

it doesn't fix the problem, its superficial. and very sad. but again i have no right to tell him who he wants and doesn't want working at his store.

[visual_ransom]

Openly homosexual, yes. But many of the 3rd world countries you're alluding to have laws against homosexuality, as in you are executed for being gay. You're looking at the concentrations of open homosexuals, if you're even using actual stats...they still exist just as much in other places, just not as openly because they recognize that it would be dangerous.

 

In less extreme terms, let's call America a liberal advanced nation, which is a safe assumption. Do you think there are more gay pride parades, events, clubs, and general awareness in Massachusetts, or Alabama? It all has to do with location, there is a relatively equal distribution of gays in the country but generally speaking you won't find it being paraded as much in an area that is not as tolerant.

 

that's a good point, ok lets say people are born gay, lets go with your theory.

 

how do you explain people who are gay and say they're straight later on in life, or vice versa?

I mean c'mon if you're born gay, thats like being born black, you can't change colors later on in life, you are what you are right?

[Realism]

Uh...where did "my theory" talk about being born gay or not? Additionally, what does the debate of being born gay or not have to do with choosing to be open about it?

 

What I'm saying is that just because it's not being shoved in your face doesn't mean it's not there.

 

And furthermore, just because someone undergoes a re-orientation program to "get straight", gets a wife, and forces a nut to get a kid doesn't mean they aren't still gay...

[visual_ransom]

Uh...where did "my theory" talk about being born gay or not? Additionally, what does the debate of being born gay or not have to do with choosing to be open about it?

 

hmmmm thats a good rebuttal.

[angelofdeath]

AOD, customer's have the freedom of choice to choose where to shop, that is not discrimination that is just the way shops work, everyone knows that.

 

do you understand what discrimination is?

obviously not.

discrimination is nothing but a choice.

how can you claim to hold a solid coherent position yet say that it is morally wrong and illegal for property owners to discriminate based on race, but morally ok and legal for another group of people, customers, to discriminate based on race?

 

if you were serious about your position, you would seek to rid the world of discrimination based on race by customers.

discrimination is discrimination, right?

 

 

A shop doesn't have the right to refuse to serve someone because they may be handicapped, that is discrimination, not freedom of choice. Why do you think that civil rights people campaigned for the end of segregation in the south, blacks only toilets etc, because it was complete discrimination and not freedom of choice.

 

segregation laws were government laws!

it was illegal for a business owner to allow integrated dining, etc.

 

what you cannot comprehend is that if you own property, such as your house, YOU control who enters the property. this is freedom of association. if you are to agree that you have a right to end discrimination by property owners, then i have the right to force you to associate with neo nazi's in your house, as well as black panthers AND you must also seek to eliminate discrimination by customers based on race on which stores to shop at.

 

I swear you can't actually believe half the stuff you type because it seems so backwards, to say I am discriminating against men and women because I am married is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard you say.

 

once again... what is discrimination?

it is nothing but a choice.

you seem, for some reason, to equate the word 'discrimination' with nothing but hate. this is not the case.

the boy scouts discriminate against girls. girls schools discriminate against boys.

 

if you choose to marry a woman that is white, you literally just discriminated against every other race in existence. should we throw you in jail?

and besides just saying...'but its a store owner!' explain to me exactly how a store owner choosing to associate with someone is ANY different than you choosing who you associate in your marital relations?

 

If you tried to seriously have a shop that you only allowed whites to use, you would get done for it simple as that, and I would laugh at the owner the whole way to the human rights court which would trump your constitution.

 

the hysterical arguments you put forth about 'race based discrimination' on the part of store owners is nothing but silliness. you now make these arguments, and in other discussions you make arguments that basically say..'but the capitalists are trying to exploit everyone...!!'

how can you square the two? are they either all racist or are they exploiting everyone trying to make evil profits?

 

a 'human rights court' trumps the constitution? i dont think so.

there is no more of a right for a property owner to associate with someone than there is for me to force you to associate with neo nazi's. it is THAT simple. there is nothing to dance around. that is the plain basic truth.

 

what would happen if a business decided to only serve black people? they would probably go out of business. if a business refused to serve white people? they probably would be boycotted to hell and then they'd be out of business. probably faster than the blacks only business.

 

is saying someone cannot buy a gallon of milk from your store because they are white abhorrent? i'd say so. but the store owner is perfectly within his rights. he has a right to forbid entry.

 

discrimination also takes other forms. if we are in the business of ridding the world of 'discrimination' then we must also throw you in jail if you decide to patronize a business based on price. if you buy a shirt at a store because it was cheaper than the last store you looked at it in, you are guilty of discrimination. and should be sent to jail...right? should we also throw store owners in jail who have the audacity to discriminate against non paying customers? if someone cant pay, and the store owner wont sell him the product, then the customer was just discriminated against! call DIE STASI!

 

i know i know, 'but its a store owner and you cant forbid blacks from shopping there....' is about as far into a theoretical argument you can put forth on the subject, but im trying to engage you in more philosophic terms than your hysterical emotionalism that if someone owns property or if someone is free that they can associate with whom they want to for whatever reason.

[angelofdeath]

actually, stores can't discriminate who shops at their venue, BUT much worse, they can discriminate who they want to work at their store. Its easy, Let's say a white guy owned a store and didn't want any black people working there. So a black guy walks in and says "hey are you guys hiring"? Instead of saying "we don't hire black people" the store owner could easily just work around that and say "no, but we're accepting applications". He fills one out, hands it to him he walks out, store owner tears it up.

 

its what lawyers do, its called contextual loop holes. You question how its phrased and what is being said and you work around it. Its dirty, and beautifully worked out.

 

it doesn't fix the problem, its superficial. and very sad. but again i have no right to tell him who he wants and doesn't want working at his store.

 

good point.

 

i'd continue into more economic arguments about this if someone gives you a rebuttal...

[Decyferon]

Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups. (so not price or stock etc)

 

While I suppose you could say that I am discrimnating because I am married to a white woman, I would disagree because that decision to marry wasn't based on any racial or class principles, had I had the same connection with a black woman I would have married her. If I had gone out intentionall to marry a white woman and completely disregarded other races based solely on race then I would be discriminating (I wouldn't use that term I would say racist).

 

You use to wide a generalisation for discrimination, you are using econominc arguements (such as price, service, stock) when that isn't what the arguement is about, and that isn't discriminating that is freedom of choice. To you every single choice is discrimination when that is not correct, it is just a choice based on service, price etc, I am not discriminating against the shop because they may supply something else at a better price that I want, It is the choice to buy, something all retailers would know.

 

Yea I agree with the statement that if someone decides to not use a shop based on the owners race then that is racial discrimination, but that is the free will of the customer, they may admit to themself that it is racially motivated but if you asked them they would probably say oh the prices are better elsewhere, but I think you are missing the point again because you use discrimination instead of choice, the 2 things are different, but I essentially get what your saying I just don't agree with it.

 

Again while I understand what points you are trying to make, what I am saying is that a shop cannot discriminate a customer based solely on race or class, they can say uner 18s aren't allowed in the shop because maybe they sell things that under 18s aren't allowed, but they can't say under 18 blacks aren't allowed in because that is then racial discrimination.

 

Basically the point I am making is you say discrimination, but there are different levels of discrimination, discrimination based on hate is what is wrong and I am glad that it is wrong and if a shop owner was found guilty of discriminating against a race or religion then they should be taken to the cleaners.

 

As for Visual Ransoms point, I am not denying that probably happens, but then they have the legal loophole of saying oh I checked the application they didn't have the skills for the job, no one in their right mind would say oh I didn't hire them because they are black or gay because then they do face legal action for hate based discrimination.

 

A shop may be privately owned but it is a public space, this is why you cannot have hate based discrimination towards customers, what someone does in their private home that isn't a public space is up to them.

 

so while I conceed that you are right that discrimination is a wide term that should really be called choice, any discrimination based on class, religion, sexuality, race, gender or any of those irrational hate based discriminations are wrong and getting back to the actual topic of the thread, is why people that campaign to say gays cannot be married are basically narrow minded idiots. I see everyone as equal, whether I agree with your views or not, people are equal and should be treated that way regardless.

 

But this is all off topic, go gay people get married you deserve it. sorry for thread derailments.

[angelofdeath]

"A shop may be privately owned but it is a public space, this is why you cannot have hate based discrimination towards customers, what someone does in their private home that isn't a public space is up to them."

 

it is NOT public space anymore than your house is 'public space' if you invite people over for dinner.

you are making an assumption that someone has a RIGHT to enter anyone's property, whether it be a business or a home.

 

so then do i have a right to force you through quota's or through govt force for you to associate/have over said nazi at your dinners? and how does this discrimination differentiate itself if you refuse the nazi than if the black store owner refuses the nazi to enter his store?

 

"Yea I agree with the statement that if someone decides to not use a shop based on the owners race then that is racial discrimination, but that is the free will of the customer, they may admit to themself that it is racially motivated but if you asked them they would probably say oh the prices are better elsewhere, but I think you are missing the point again because you use discrimination instead of choice, the 2 things are different, but I essentially get what your saying I just don't agree with it.

"

 

then you must recognize that you are holding a hypocritical position. it is the free will of the customer to associate with whom he wants and it is the free will of the property owner to decide whom who wants to associate with. you either support the right of free association or you dont. you dont. but you want to be able to freely associate with whom you want and you want others to be forced to associate with others based on your set of morals but you dont want me to have the right to force you to associate with someone whom you dont like.

at least recognize you are holding a hypocritical position and that you dont support the principles of a free society. that is all i ask. if you just come out and say you are a meddling lefty then, i'll stop the discussion...

 

listen to this black economist talk about 'discrimination'

i agree with him:

 

What is Discrimination?

6 September 2006

 

Walter Williams

 

There's so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I'd take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs.

Williams demands continued discrimination.

 

You say, "Williams, such discrimination doesn't harm anyone."

 

You're wrong. Discriminating in favor of Bordeaux wine reduces the value of resources held in Burgundy production. Discriminating in favor of Mrs. Williams harmed other women by reducing their opportunity set, assuming I'm a man other women would marry.

Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination. When we modify the term with race, sex, height, weight or age, we merely specify the choice criteria.

 

Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.

 

I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?

Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it's racial discrimination that's truly offensive.

 

That's when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts.

According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity.

 

You say, "All right, Williams, discrimination in marriage doesn't have the impact on society that other forms of discrimination have."

 

You're wrong again. When there is assortive (non-random) mate selection, it heightens whatever group differences exist in the population. For instance, higher IQ individuals tend toward mates with high IQs. High-income people tend to mate with other high-income people.

It's the same with education. To the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection exaggerates the differences in the society's intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater equality if there weren't this kind of discrimination in mate selection.

 

In other words, if high-IQ people were forced to select low-IQ mates, high-income people forced to select low-income mates, and highly educated people forced to select lowly educated mates, there would be greater social equality. While there would be greater social equality, the divorce rate would soar since gross dissimilarities would make for conflict.

 

Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.

 

also:

 

 

 

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/10/04/discrimination,_prejudice_and_preferences

 

[!@#$%]

it's hilarious to me that right wingers want the government to meddle in shit like pregnancy and marriage, but when it comes time to tell a corporation they have to dispose of their waste in a responsible fashion it's all WOAH WOAH WOAH! the gov't can't tell 'people' what to do!!

[angelofdeath]

the hypocrisies of various 'wings' are everywhere....

al gore with a carbon footprint bigger than entire nations. drug snorting rush limbaugh's. fornicating ministers. 'pro life' advocates that advocate nuclear strikes. michael moore saying the stock market is immoral but he invests in stock. nancy pelosi being a huge unionist but forbids her workers in her vineyard from unionizing. the biggest anti gun advocate in existence has the one and only concealed carry pistol permit in san francisco. and then there is that guy who wants to ban guns but shot the guy who tried to break into his house in NC. people who want to control the population, but they procreate and havent killed themselves. the list never ends...

[russell jones]

 

I've thought a lot about this, as well. I still can't get over the moral hump. That's just me, though. I don't try and stop it from happening by holding up any "God Hates Fags" signs or

any such thing.

 

I do not see how, morally, a homosexual relationship differs from a heterosexual one. Each type of relationship could be filled with moral virtues, like love and commitment, or conversely with immoral acts, such as infidelity and lying. I fail to see how the type of relationship itself could be considered moral or immoral.

[Decyferon]

that is a very good point Russell, i think it all comes down to the propaganda that is organised religion

[shai]

Just like most things what this really comes down to is the vanity of fundamentalism. They think that their interpretation of _________________ (insert book here) is the ONLY answer/way to live, and woe to anyone who lives or thinks differently.

 

It is ironic that the folks who want to legislate against gay marriage/equal treatment claim to be conservatives, when in fact what they're doing is exactly what they accuse liberals of....i.e., the "nanny state" mentality.

[angelofdeath]

^^^ indeed.

 

conservatives want to legislate morality but be free from govt interference in other areas. liberals want to legislate other morals like racial associations and regulations on the market, but want to be free from laws throwing them in jail if they smoke pot and bun another guy at the same time.

 

the general public view of marriage being between a man and a woman (which, even a liberal like obama uses as the definition) is generally based in tradition and culture. its that simple.

i think arguing about it is stupid. i personally think gay marriage is more or less an oxymoron, but this is my personal view. just like how i think socialism is stupid, but i only get concerned when you force it upon me.

[shai]

The point I was trying to make earlier in the thread was that any debate over gay marriage demonstrates how far behind the curve Americans are as a group regarding political and social issues.

 

Not to mention that it's a red herring. It's a lot easier for neocons to vilify gay marriage than it would be for them to address, say, what's really wrong with the economy...quite a few people they're in bed with would have a lot of explaining to do.

[lord_casek]

I do not see how, morally, a homosexual relationship differs from a heterosexual one. Each type of relationship could be filled with moral virtues, like love and commitment, or conversely with immoral acts, such as infidelity and lying. I fail to see how the type of relationship itself could be considered moral or immoral.

 

 

I don't like it. My moral values say that it is wrong. It's my right to be opposed to it personally just as it is homosexuals right to be homosexual. I won't hate them for it, I won't march with Westboro Baptist and tell them that God hates them for what they are, and I won't go kick the shit out of a homosexual just because I feel like it.

 

I try to go out of my way to be kind to everyone no matter if they are black, white, homosexual, etc. They only people I am not nice to are crackheads, thieves, and your

general jerk off who feels self entitled b/c of class, etc.

 

I can't wait for someone who regularly uses "/nohomo" to come in here and tell me I'm

being an asshole because I don't agree with homosexuals being allowed to marry. Or someone who says "nigger" on the regular saying the same thing.

[shai]

I don't mind that you don't agree with gay marriage, nor am I surprised. That's not a knock, BTW...I'm guessing it has to do with where you grew up.

[Realism]

I don't agree with you in the least casek, but I can live with it because you're clearly reasonable and have the ability to concisely explain your viewpoint...if one thing in this whole debate irritates me it's when someone disagrees with gay marriage because "fagz r gross lolz" and can't expand on shit beyond that...

 

On another note, my personal beliefs tell me that even though nationally legalized gay marriage is an admirable goal, it is not going to become a reality within most of our lifetimes, or at least not while we're continent. It's one thing to support it, it's another entirely to overly romanticize the movement and expect anything more than very slow results.

[lord_casek]

I don't mind that you don't agree with gay marriage, nor am I surprised. That's not a knock, BTW...I'm guessing it has to do with where you grew up.

 

 

I understand and agree. There's a little more to it than that, but I agree. I'd like to point out to you that I was not raised in a church going family, nor a very religious family at all and I did not believe in a creator until the last several years of my life.

 

Like I said, the idea of it is morally wrong for me. I realize others feel differently and don't hold it against them for it.

[lord_casek]

I don't agree with you in the least casek, but I can live with it because you're clearly reasonable and have the ability to concisely explain your viewpoint...if one thing in this whole debate irritates me it's when someone disagrees with gay marriage because "fagz r gross lolz" and can't expand on shit beyond that...

 

On another note, my personal beliefs tell me that even though nationally legalized gay marriage is an admirable goal, it is not going to become a reality within most of our lifetimes, or at least not while we're continent. It's one thing to support it, it's another entirely to overly romanticize the movement and expect anything more than very slow results.

 

 

That's cool by me. If states, one by one, decide that it should be law, fine by me. As long as we as a nation are not forced into it.

[shai]

To be honest I consider it a non-issue even though it does affect me indirectly. I have a lot of gay friends, and it bothers me that they don't have the same rights that I have. Then again that could be assigned to the whole "straight white male" privilege/guilt complex. Or at least that's what one of my best friends tells me, who happens to be gay and black.

 

I've been thinking about this ever since 2004, when Gavin Newsom (mayor of SF) mandated the lifting of restrictions on marriage licenses. That's mainly what my views are based on, it really comes down to issues of practicality and common sense for me.

[cunt sauce]

I don't like it. My moral values say that it is wrong.

 

Homosexuals are wrong, or homosexuals getting married is wrong?

 

It's my right to be opposed to it personally just as it is homosexuals right to be homosexual.

 

Yes you do have that right, but it doesn't change the fact that your belief could be founded in ignorance or some underlying confusion with your own subconscious gayness that you refuse to confront. It is my right to believe interracial relationships are morally wrong, but even though it is my right, I believe this probably because I haven't thought about the issue too much, or I have never really sat down and got to know a negrodamus.

 

Maybe you have already Casek, and if I missed it I apologize, but could you please explain to me why it is morally wrong to be a homosexual or a homosexual couple united in marriage? Give me a few reasons as to why it is wrong, because nothing you have said so far has really satisfied my need for a solid opposing viewpoint that I can work off of and argue with. Let's dance man, I want to pick your potentially homophobic brain, hah.

[lord_casek]

Homosexuals are wrong, or homosexuals getting married is wrong?

 

 

 

Yes you do have that right, but it doesn't change the fact that your belief could be founded in ignorance or some underlying confusion with your own subconscious gayness that you refuse to confront. It is my right to believe interracial relationships are morally wrong, but even though it is my right, I believe this probably because I haven't thought about the issue too much, or I have never really sat down and got to know a negrodamus.

 

Maybe you have already Casek, and if I missed it I apologize, but could you please explain to me why it is morally wrong to be a homosexual or a homosexual couple united in marriage? Give me a few reasons as to why it is wrong, because nothing you have said so far has really satisfied my need for a solid opposing viewpoint that I can work off of and argue with. Let's dance man, I want to pick your potentially homophobic brain, hah.

 

 

Have you read what I have been saying? At all? Homosexuals getting married is wrong to me.

 

Is homosexuality wrong? I don't think that is something i should be burdened with deciding. It seems like asking someone if salt in the sea is wrong. I just don't know.

I know it's wrong for me, though.

 

Wow, you not only insult me by telling me that I have some sort of subconscious gayness going on, but then you apologize because you may have missed what I have said several times over and over.

 

Passive aggressive much?

 

I'm only half joking around with you when I say that.

 

1) Not once have I wished for a penis to go near my mouth or anus.

 

2) I understand that what is wrong for me isn't necessarily wrong for others.

*crimes against children and women excluded, but I think that is probably a given.

 

3) Marriage, as I believe in it, is to be between a man and a woman. It is strictly defined that way.

 

4) My potentially homophobic brain? I'm not scared of homosexuals, I don't want to go

around with my Doc Martins on booting them in the head for whatever behind the doors

practices they have. I just don't care enough. I am kinda grossed out by seeing two dudes

kissing, groping on tv/movies/irl. I think I have a certain right to feel so, though.