Gay Marriage In California

[gisellebebegirl 0]

OKAYYY before you judge me by what i am going to say;; let me get it straight; lmao i am straight; anywho; i shall continue;First off, i find it completely pathetic that they even decided to CONSIDER passing out, something so discriminating as proposition 8, (proposition 8, bands bands gay marriages in the state of california, just in case you werent aware of this). I thought we were a liberal/free country, banning the right to show off legally THE ONE YOU LOVE is against the constitution is you ask me, whatever happened to freedom of speech?Second of all, i find all the signs around Imperial Beach (where i live, its part of San Diego), more than pathetic, IVE SEEN HOUSES COVERED (when i mean covered i mean 10-20 signs per yard, and ive also seen this in cars, & suvs) with little happy signs saying "YES ON PROP 8", bad use of media;; people are too ignorant to actually research what the propositions do half the time, so PUTTING AN EFFIN happy family & a http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ url at the bottom, just gives people the wrong ideas. And i know by experience that they give the wrong ideas; just in my economics class half of the seniors in there where comfussed and arguing on whether or not PROP 8, banned homosexual marriage, or it supported it, because of the way the media was used.Third of all, All you people who are actually aware of the issue, and are PRO banning gay marriages;; why does it concern you so much, that people are enjoying their life, and spending it with the one THEY LOVE; those who think its disgusting to see a man/man or a woman/woman together, what is so disgusting about them being together? i doubt they are having sexual interscose in public. and yeah im sure someone is going to try to pull the religion out saying that marriage is meant to be between a woman&a man, but i dont think it says anywhere in the bible to deny people the right to spend their lives with the one they love;Off topic but while im at it, i recently watched one of Chris Crocker's Video, about how he lived in fear, and about how he couldnt even go to the bathroom in public;; but what do you when your in that situation? where your a guy that dresses & appears like woman but still has a penis? ps.he is not allowed in girls restrooms, because of little kids//reability issues; idk

[Pippin95 0]

if i were chris crocker, i would live in fear. fear of being mocked over that britney video

[Deretto 0]

I have to say that I'm also very disappointed by the results. The YES defense was that they weren't taking away rights, just defining marriage. That's *BLEEP* though! Domestic Partnership doesn't nearly grant as much benefits as a legal marriage contract does. For all you bible thumpers out there. Guess what, by banning gay marriage you've just promoted bigamy. Good job. I really hate this.Although I'm very mad at the people I'm not at all worried. Because in a likely scenario the supreme court of California will just strike it down again. Besides even if we don't win it now we know we will in the future. Most of the younger voters voted no. So we just have to wait a while for more well informed young voters to join in and replace the ignorant older voters. We'll have our way in due time.

[rayzoredge 2]

Here's a thought: Why is the government and state even involved in what should be an individually-exclusive issue?

 

I love how we use the freedom of speech and such to death, then tell someone else that they can't think, say, or do something (within the confines of law). So what if a man and a man love each other? Woman on woman? Does it affect you? It really doesn't. And if you want to abolish it because of your so-called religion, you probably have the freedom to exercise the right to mind your own business, because everyone has a right to exercise religion. And if my definition of religion still stands as a set of beliefs, I think people should exercise the belief that they can go ahead and have the freedom to love anyone, as long as it's mutual.

 

It's a stupid argument. And it's great how many AMERICANS are out to see this banned, considering the irony of the principles that we preach... and take back.

[kobra500 1]

Well thats a releaf, I thought that you were going to be against gay marriages from the topic title, Well if theres one thing I've learned in this forum in the months I've been here is just how Athiest England is, or to put it another way, how religious others are. For example over here, people don't talk about religion outside of church, why would they, they just don't bring it up, I'm not saying there isn't religion but when people decide they want something "Well how do the Christians feel about..." isn't prominent in polotics or in most peoples lives with only 40% or something proclaiming belief in God. And thats how I feel things should be, I don't mean athiest, I mean that polotics or whatever should be religion free. Am I saying that someone doesn't have a right to an opinion if they believe in God, no I do not. But the trouble is that a lot of people with belief in god who follow a religion will do what the religion says. No offence but being part of a religion is like being a sheep plain and simple. Some May Say "Now where are U going with this Kobra, I don't believe in God but I morally think Gay Marriages are wrong"Well, where do you live, there isnt a single country that a some point would not have been Thiest, or at least 90% and where do you get some of your views and morals from? Your Parents and they get theres from there parents so the chance is that somepoint in your direct lineage there would be direct belief in a religion therefore is there not a chance that these morals are just getting passed down from generation to generation until eventually you have bias views, and thats what religion gives you, bias views.Now of course so do your parents, statistacally if both your parents say vote Labour then you will probalbly vote labour. Now I'm going to back track, do I believe that religious people don't have a right to a view in politics, no but do I think if there view is or stems from "I don't agree/disagree because my religion says so" then should they be told to shut up and sit in the corner, Yes I suppose I do.Now I'm not saying being gay is right or wrong, well I am but hear me out. What i'm saying is that morals like everything else are a matter of opinion. Now some things are obviously black and white, don't kill, steal etc. They are all morals that are set in stone, that doesn't count on circumstance but 9 times out of 10 they are, but things that are trivial like being gay, wether or not its morally correct to mix coca cola with pepsi, it doesn't matter, NO ONE has the right to say and decide for the rest of us wether it's right or wrong, not even God if he exists. Because they are just a matter of opinion, and opinions are ALWAYS to some extent bias, and you cannot rely on a bias argument.Now in response to the statement, gay marriages should be allowed because no one has the right to tell them that they are morally wrong.I'm expecting hate posts in the morning, though i think my post was fair

Edited November 7, 2008 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[joeblogg 0]

gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. gays are disgusting! god made us so we can reproduce and the only way we can do that is with the opposite sex. that is how all animal species survive they reproduce. gays cannot so therefor they are strange and out of the ordinary. gayness is really gross and should be banned in every country!

[galexcd 0]

gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. gays are disgusting! god made us so we can reproduce and the only way we can do that is with the opposite sex. that is how all animal species survive they reproduce. gays cannot so therefor they are strange and out of the ordinary. gayness is really gross and should be banned in every country!

Wow, I have never seen a post that screams "I am homophobic", as much as yours just has. Even if you believe gay people shouldn't be together doesn't mean you should trample on the rights of others.

[gisellebebegirl 0]

gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. gays are disgusting! god made us so we can reproduce and the only way we can do that is with the opposite sex. that is how all animal species survive they reproduce. gays cannot so therefor they are strange and out of the ordinary. gayness is really gross and should be banned in every country!

oh wow i cant believe you actually replied saying that; did you even read what you were saying as you typed it? really mature of you; i think its the unaware/immature/judgemntal/close minded people who made the passing of proposition 8 happen;; i guess all we can do now, is try to protest somehow

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

myself, it shouldnt matter one way or the other is 2 men or 2 women marry. as long as there is true love in there hearts. "No I am Not Gay" I just belive that if 2 people truely love each other, same sex or not and they can deal with all the problems. why not? I mean they are going to live together as man and man or wife and wife anyways, so why not make it legal. True the rightus ones will think they are all doing to hell for living in sin. but when a man and woman live together without marriage. is that not a sin? thats done every day all around the world. So why not allow it? this is 2008 not 1828 It is a way of life for a lot of people in the world. why keep them in the closest when they are wanting to come out into the open, and be honest about who and what they are.

[truefusion 3]

why does it concern you so much, that people are enjoying their life, and spending it with the one THEY LOVE; those who think its disgusting to see a man/man or a woman/woman together, what is so disgusting about them being together?

Proposition 8 doesn't prevent them from being together. It doesn't remove any rights from them, unless you consider marriage a right that was established by government and not religion. But can you inform me of all the rights they lose from this? Is this the only "right" they lose? I ask seeking an answer from you; i do not intend to be rhetoric.

 

But concerning rights, i ask you, should priests be forced, by law, to do something against their faith? That is, should they be forced to marry gay couples? By forcing them by law you are removing their right of Freedom of Religion. In order to maintain the right of everyone, as you so appear to be in support of, you would have to have government ordained marriage set-ups. But if that were to happen, marriage would be degraded, it will lose its essence, for it would be considered just another thing on the side. Why then consider marriage? They say marriage is so you can be together. No, it has to be more than that, for you can still be together till death without marriage. If they want to be together, they can be together—they don't need marriage for that. So what is it that they seek for concerning marriage? That is what i wonder indeed.

 

... and thats what religion gives you, bias views.

It's unnecessary to argue from biasism. Here are two things about the statement: 1. In order for your statement to remain true, you yourself would have to have a religion. I'll show you why: 1.2. When you are for or against something, you are biased. There's no way to avoid it.

 

NO ONE has the right to say and decide for the rest of us wether it's right or wrong, not even God if he exists. Because they are just a matter of opinion, and opinions are ALWAYS to some extent bias, and you cannot rely on a bias argument.

I have a question for you: if it is impossible to be unbiased, or if you can't argue morals, then why say gay marriage should be allowed (as you do below)? If opinions are always biased to whatever degree, why do you rely on your opinion? Even if it is to get a word out, you argue against yourself.

 

Now in response to the statement, gay marriages should be allowed because no one has the right to tell them that they are morally wrong.

Following your argument above this one, your arguments lead to paradoxes. That is to say no one has the right to uphold laws, but at the same time you can't tell them that, because no one has the right to do so. So then you are left with a problem—albeit more than one—so we should in turn release all prisoners, for we have no right to place them in jail for doing "so-called" immoral acts. That is to say, you have no right to tell a person it is wrong to break all the bones in your body and just leave you in an area where you cannot obtain help—them being a sadist.

 

I'm expecting hate posts in the morning...

Though you may not believe me, i will still say this was not a "hate post," as you call it, from me.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Gay marriage is only political because of how religious the government is and that is the reason why everyone wants to ban gay marriage because religious it is immoral. The question is who decided that, they claim the bible is thousands of years old and I highly doubt the stone age really thought about stuff like that. I wouldn't put it past the Catholics of saying being gay once they found out what ancient Rome and Greece were doing with the whole sexuality thing. Of course, you got two face people like Sarah Palin who doesn't mind gay people just as long as they are not married, and the reality is that is the stage we are in right now. Most everyone has accepted gay and lesbian relationships, but because of the fear of God that has been drilled in peoples minds for the last couple of thousand years, these religious leaders use it as a means of control, surprise they didn't do this witch burnings of Europe back in the 14-1600s.

[moogie 0]

To tell you the truth I was very surprised about the outcome of this vote, especially from a liberal-minded state like California, followed by both Florida and Arizona.

 

It's going to be interesting to see if the California Supreme Court overturns it again like they did a little while ago. And if they do, will gay marriage and gay rights be written into the California constitution? Because if they aren't this particular battle will continue.

 

And what about other states? Utah for instance, where Mormons are most dominant or any state where a particular religion is dominant because I agree that religious intolerance is the reason for strong feelings against gay marriage.

 

I read an interesting article from the New York Times about Arkansas banning people cohabiting outside of marriage from fostering or adopting children.

 

link

 

Is all this a religious backlash?

 

I live in Ontario Canada and same-sex marriage is legal here. On June 10, 2003 Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to officially recognize same-sex marriage and Feb 24, 2005 our provincial legislature passed a bill that would bring various laws concerning marriage into line with the new ruling. Data reference

Edited November 12, 2008 by moogie (see edit history)

[HappyHippie 0]

I have to agree with the majority gays do not bother me at all I have many many gay friends I am not gay I am very married with 4 kids. But I love to go out with my gay friends and go to the gay bars. I personally would not be with another woman i'm just not into that. I have to admit there was a time in my life I thought about experinencing it just once, But I think everyone woman does wether they want to admit it or not. I am alittle upset about Joebloggers response I thougth it was pretty rude. But anyway Im not trying to bash joe for his opinion everyone is entitiled to there own. But I do strongly believe that if a man and man want to marry they should be allowed same with woman and woman. They are not hurting anyone and anyone who doesnt like it doesnt need to watch them they have the right to leave and go anywhere else anytime they want. If they want to adopt kids they should be allowed doesnt mean they are gonna teach the kids to grow up gay. As long as they love the child as any normal parents there is not a thing wrong with it. I really do believe our country is going to s*it sorry for the language but why do we even have our rights and ammendments when they dont matter anymore the government does what ever they want weither it be right or wrong. Anyway I need to get off this subject because it angers me and I could go on forever.

[Deretto 0]

Proposition 8 doesn't prevent them from being together. It doesn't remove any rights from them, unless you consider marriage a right that was established by government and not religion. But can you inform me of all the rights they lose from this? Is this the only "right" they lose? I ask seeking an answer from you; i do not intend to be rhetoric.

There a lot of things that are lost when marriage is taken. Does insurance, retirement, etc work the same for married couples and domestic partnership? I think not!

But concerning rights, i ask you, should priests be forced, by law, to do something against their faith? That is, should they be forced to marry gay couples? By forcing them by law you are removing their right of Freedom of Religion. In order to maintain the right of everyone, as you so appear to be in support of, you would have to have government ordained marriage set-ups. But if that were to happen, marriage would be degraded, it will lose its essence, for it would be considered just another thing on the side. Why then consider marriage? They say marriage is so you can be together. No, it has to be more than that, for you can still be together till death without marriage. If they want to be together, they can be togetherthey don't need marriage for that. So what is it that they seek for concerning marriage? That is what i wonder indeed.

Last I checked, not all marriages are done in a church. Homosexuals want to be able to get married. They're not demanding to do so in a Christian church. Marriage may have originated form religious belief, but it does take place outside of religions as well.

[truefusion 3]

There a lot of things that are lost when marriage is taken. Does insurance, retirement, etc work the same for married couples and domestic partnership? I think not!

You're implying that the income received by non-married couples is unfair when compared to married couples. Although no rights are lost with this, i would still like for you to show me the rates for each state of the United States for both married and non-married couples, also for singles, so that everyone may see the unfairness which you imply exists.

Last I checked, not all marriages are done in a church. Homosexuals want to be able to get married. They're not demanding to do so in a Christian church. Marriage may have originated form religious belief, but it does take place outside of religions as well.

I never limited it to Christian churches, so you are avoiding my question: Should priests be forced, by law, to go against their faith? Secondly, i have already addressed the consequences of marriages being done in an indecent place or a small place in the corner, etc. By stating what homosexuals want, you imply that you speak for them. So i shall ask you what i said i wondered about in the other post: If you can still be together till death do them part without marriage, then why do they want to get married? If it is to give marriage greater value, or if it is to give "being together" a greater value, then why let governments set-up places with lower value for it?
Also, as you imply you already know, since marriage is not something that originated from a government but religion, and unless someone can show me somewhere in the constitution that we have the right to marriage, homosexuals have no case when they argue "We want equal rights" concerning this, for they do indeed have equal rights.

But here's a quote i found comical from another site:

I've got no problem with gay marriage—even though I don't understand why a gay man and a lesbian would wanna tie the knot in the first place.

It does bring up an interesting topic, as that is what gay marriage should actually be about.