bawomolo:

this is a stupid statement considering that the population of humans is at most 10% homosexuals. more bisexuals and heterosexuals in the mix.  an argument could actually be made that homosexuals help curb overpopulation of the earth.

Yours is an even more unwise statement, considering that heterosexual (natural) intercourse is responsible for you being here today.  Just confess that you do not value human evolution and life. Heterosexuality is responsible for procreation , I stand corrected.

you are right. you know those homos would go around raping and indoctrination people when it's made a law

You don't need to misconstrue the post, or draw it out of context as you have the tendency/penchant of doing. The fact remains that people will be forced to sin against their will.  That is a fact you have not discredited.

n-guage:

justify stopping them from doing what they want to do?

Isn't that an easy question to tackle, albeit in a silly manner? I can easily tell you like I did earlier that this is for the selfish social gain of a group of people, society has nothing to gain from this union, and we have wasted too much of our taxpapyers' money on this mess. The sexual perversity of two people who like it up the buttocks should remain in their bedroom. I don't want my cousin who likes having sex with himself while looking in a mirror to be legally allowed to marry himself. Marriage is not a intimacy gadget.

Yours is an even more unwise statement, considering that heterosexual (natural) intercourse is responsible for you being here today. Just confess that you do not value human evolution and life. Heterosexuality is responsible for procreation , I stand corrected.

homosexuals are a minority and would never be a majority. you would be tolerant of homos if you truly valued life. bigot.

The fact remains that people will be forced to sin against their will.

have people been forced into homosexuality in the netherlands or mexico city. homosexual feelings can't be forced into you. your bigotry is disgusting

bawomolo:

homosexuals are a minority and would never be a majority. you would be tolerant of homos if you truly valued life. bigot.

You are bitter and you argue with little reason.  Homosexuality is tolerated in California, homosexual marriage isn't. What part of that don't you get ? I still stand corrected. Read the post again and again.  It's the truth in it that makes you sound so bitter.

have people been forced into homosexuality in the netherlands or mexico city. homosexual feelings can't be forced into you. your bigotry is disgusting

Your inclination of hating opinions that differ from yours is even more disgusting.  Have you ever thought that people have religious rights in this country? Oops, I forgot you don't care about religion, right?  Does that mean it should be meaningless to those who do?

Where's your proof that people haven't been forced into homosexuality in said places?

I'm pretty indifferent. Homosexuals don't affect me negatively or positively. However, from a religious point of view, I should be happy about it but then I feel everyone should have equal rights to marry whoever they choose and not be judged because of it. Anyway, like I said, I'm indifferent.

I'm pretty indifferent. Homosexuals don't affect me negatively or positively. However, from a religious point of view, I should be happy about it but then I feel everyone should have equal rights to marry whoever they choose and not be judged because of it. Anyway, like I said, I'm indifferent.

is Christianity a loving religion if it doesn't support equal rights for minorities. think about that.

Homosexuality is tolerated in California, homosexual marriage isn't

i think people tolerant of homosexuality wouldn't be reluctant to support homosexual marriage. again it's obvious that the black vote led to the resolution passing. whites supported homosexual marriage while latino's were split.

Have you ever thought that people have religious rights in this country?

have i ever criticized tolerance for religion. you can worship if your cat if you want to. none of my business. don't divert the thread because u have nothing to support your argument.

Where's your proof that people haven't been forced into homosexuality in said places?

a nigerian answering a question with a question. what a surprise!!!!!! you made the claim first, now support it with some myth. are homosexuals the majority in the netherlands or spain

StephenP:

I'm pretty indifferent. Homosexuals don't affect me negatively or positively. However, from a religious point of view, I should be happy about it but then I feel everyone should have equal rights to marry whoever they choose and not be judged because of it. Anyway, like I said, I'm indifferent.

Exactly!!!

i think people tolerant of homosexuality wouldn't be reluctant to support homosexual marriage. again it's obvious that the black vote led to the resolution passing. whites supported homosexual marriage while latino's were split.

The votes reveal that you thought wrong.

have i ever criticized tolerance for religion. you can worship if your cat if you want to. none of my business. don't divert the thread because u have nothing to support your argument.

The argument has been supported from head to tail through out this thread.  People have been arguing with facts, but all you have raised are questions. Your questions have been answered numerous times before.  You did not criticize religion but you keep shying away from the religious rights that gays will usurp from others.

a nigerian answering a question with a question. what a surprise!!!!!! you made the claim first, now support it with some myth. are homosexuals the majority in the netherlands or spain

It's not peculiar to Nigerians alone.  Caucasians know about it too, are you surprised about that? Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence my dear.  You brought up the argument of spain and norway in a fuzzy attempt to divert the focus of the thread.  Homosexuals have forced their rights on pastors who did not want to wed them. Full stop.  That was the argument.  Stop playing with semantics.  It really is good to ask questions about things you don't understand, y'know?   I heard that's how you increase your knowledge

is Christianity a loving religion if it doesn't support equal rights for minorities. think about that.

Christianity is a loving religion. Historically, gays have not been very respectful of that religion. Forcing the church to partake in, and promote, their sin is where the issue lies. We can and do accept sinners - gays included, we also know that it's a violation of God's love to promote sin.

The votes reveal that you thought wrong.

besides san-francisco. California isn't a friendly place to homosexuals. that has always been known.

You did not criticize religion but you keep shying away from the religious rights that gays will usurp from others

this is absurd considering lots of homosexuals are religious.

Homosexuals have forced their rights on pastors who did not want to wed them

where did you get this front. homos usually demand marriage from city council and not the church. are you sure you haven't been eating a lot of bible belt sandwiches lately??

Christianity is a loving religion. Historically, gays have not been very respectful of that religion. Forcing the church to partake in, and promote, their sin is where the issue lies. We can and do accept sinners - gays included, we also know that it's a violation of God's love to promote sin.

sorry to burst your bubble, but religion should be separated from state because of reasons such as this.

this is absurd considering lots of homosexuals are religious.

Your responses make me laugh. I never said homosexuals are "not religious". I told you to consider the rights being forced from others. Lol you seriously crack me up.

where did you get this front. homos usually demand marriage from city council and not the church. are you sure you haven't been eating a lot of bible belt sandwiches lately??

My foot! Have you been following this thread at all, or do you just love keeping your fingers busy?
Besides, it's not like there's anything wrong with eating bible belt sandwiches is there? The bible not a welcome discussion around you? Talk about being intolerant.

sorry to burst your bubble, but religion should be separated from state because of reasons such as this.

Continue fooling yourself. It still doesn't take away the constitutional right to religious freedom.

H2O2:

Your responses make me laugh. I never said homosexuals are "not religious". I told you to consider the rights being forced from others. Lol you seriously crack me up.

is it the same for rights for blacks, native americans, disabled people etc. hey those ramps for the disabled are blocking my way.

Besides, it's not like there's anything wrong with eating bible belt sandwiches is there? The bible not a welcome discussion around you? Talk about being intolerant.

the bible belt is a region in the united states known for social conservatism. read about it.

Continue fooling yourself. It still doesn't take away the constitutional right to religious freedom.

how is your religious freedom affected by married homosexuals? am confused here. has queer guys forced your church into the underground??

how is your religious freedom affected by married homosexuals? am confused here. has queer guys forced your church into the underground??

It does not need to be forced into the underground before it is affected.
This is why I don't like explaining things to blondes. . . it flies over their heads each time.

the bible belt is a region in the united states known for social conservatism. read about it.

You were here calling me a bigot for being intolerant, now meargues that you're intolerant of social conservatists. Lol

I heard about this and in as much as I am against gay lifestyle, I still think they should be allowed to get married whenever and however. I don't think that there should be any ban on gay marriage in the registry. We already see them making out on streets and in other public places. It's better to allow them do that legally.
However, the people of California have spoken and I like their decision to an extent.
Marriage in church is another thing entirely.

It does not need to be forced into the underground before it is affected.
This is why I don't like explaining things to blondes. . . it flies over their heads each time.

answer a simple question. how is the church or any other religious body affected?

You were here calling me a bigot for being intolerant, now meargues that you're intolerant of social conservatists. Lol

oh ok.

I have answered that question at least twice on this very thread. It will only take you about a minute or two to find the posts that address them bawo.

H2O2:

I have answered that question at least twice on this very thread. It will only take you about a minute or two to find the posts that address them bawo.

part of the links u posted is an article about a bishop suing a pastor over a gay marriage lol. you post random incidents and claim it's representative of the gay right movement. can u pls show a systematic pattern of homosexuals as a whole oppressing the church

Lol, really? That's pretty funny. But that is one out of many. This is already a pattern of homosexuals oppressing the church, and how come it doesn't count in your book? The law will not exclude it just because it's not " systematic. Is it because the're not all doing it? Once the law passed they saw it as their legal right to be married where-ever. . . that includes the church. I will find more links for you in due time . .

if we're to take religion and morality out of it (objective). Considering the issue of race in the country, Obama's recent victory at the election is one bold step taken by Americans. Simultaneously, the ban on gay marriage seems to be conflicting with that (human right issue). Sentiments aside, how can you give the black man the right he has always been fighting for hundreds of years before now, and at the same time deny rights to some people? ironic i would say.









I hate gays though, i really do

Uggh.

People will only see what they want to see

H2O2:

Lol, really? That's pretty funny. But that is one out of many. This is already a pattern of homosexuals oppressing the church, and how come it doesn't count in your book?

four examples and you conclude it's a pattern, think about it. it's high crime rate in the black community a pattern that blacks are thugs??

The law will not exclude it just because it's not " systematic. Is it because the're not all doing it? Once the law passed they saw it as their legal right to be married where-ever. . . that includes the church. I will find more links for you in due time . .

please find more links. most of the marriages were peformed at CITY COUNCIL. get that right. if thousands of homosexuals were suing the church for the right to marry there then that would be worrisome. people voted for the proposition because of their personal beliefs and not because of homosexuals trying to get married in the church

bawomolo:

four examples and you conclude it's a pattern, think about it. it's high crime rate in the black community a pattern that blacks are thugs??

Even one example is enough. Four examples is too much to show you that these people have used this so called "right" to cause an infringement on the rights of others. What part of that are you finding it hard to comprehend? And your analogy makes me want to puke. It is a legal loophole that can-and-will-be-exploited. . . . do you understand me better now?

please find more links. most of the marriages were peformed at CITY COUNCIL. get that right. if thousands of homosexuals were suing the church for the right to marry there then that would be worrisome. people voted for the proposition because of their personal beliefs and not because of homosexuals trying to get married in the church

Your logic is backwards. Keep turning a blind eye to it until it affects the majority? Why don't we turn a blind eye on gays until they become the majority? How come you're arguing that "gays" who are the minority now should be given the same privileges that "heterosexuals" who are the majority have? And your last statement is very unpolished. Did you try to do some research to find out that there are many Californians who voted for the ban that are not affiliated with any religious groups? No need to get all paranoid against religion anytime society votes to uphold moral conducts they believe are true.

dreeldee:

if we're to take religion and morality out of it (objective). Considering the issue of race in the country, Obama's recent victory at the election is one bold step taken by Americans. Simultaneously, the ban on gay marriage seems to be conflicting with that (human right issue). Sentiments aside, how can you give the black man the right he has always been fighting for hundreds of years before now, and at the same time deny rights to some people? ironic i would say.



I hate gays though, i really do

j-girl:

I heard about this and in as much as I am against gay lifestyle, I still think they should be allowed to get married whenever and however. I don't think that there should be any ban on gay marriage in the registry. We already see them making out on streets and in other public places. It's better to allow them do that legally.

People's rights to choose their partner is respected in California, dreeldee & jgirl.  Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman.  We all believe in equal rights for everyone, including gay partners - that's why the state gives them the opportunity to become domestic partners.  "gay marriage" makes as much sense as "dry ocean" .   There is no federal constitutional clause/right to "equality based on sexual orientation". If the state wants to give them that right, it is the state's decision, but it should not be forced upon the state.  Gays in Cali have the same rights as str8s in cali, with the exception that their union is not called a "marriage", pretty much. I am happy that they have all those rights and it's because they deserve those rights.  If the gays insist, let them term their union "garriage". There's a difference between heterosexual union and homosexual union.  I'm sure we all agree with that fact.

dreeldee:

I hate gays though, i really do

Aww, that means you hate me

[size=3pt]Hehehehehehehe, I dey craze?[/size]

Even one example is enough. Four examples is too much to show you that these people have used this so called "right" to cause an infringement on the rights of others. What part of that are you finding it hard to comprehend? And your analogy makes me want to puke. It is a legal loophole that can-and-will-be-exploited. . . . do you understand me better now?

why does my analogy make you puke. isn't it the same thing. there are millions of homo's and you come to that conclusion using 4 examples. my argument is that homosexuals prefer to get married in city hall and not the church. the US supreme court would never force the church to sanction gay marriages

. Did you try to do some research to find out that there are many Californians who voted for the ban that are not affiliated with any religious groups?

the push for the proposition came from the mormon and african-american dominated churches. without them, the proposition would have filled. i find it funny prop-4 failed though

How come you're arguing that "gays" who are the minority now should be given the same privileges that "heterosexuals" who are the majority have?

but why should the majority dominate the affairs of the minority?

Why don't we turn a blind eye on gays until they become the majority?

this will never happen considering people tend to be bisexual/heterosexual rather than homosexual.

@H2O2
Why are you so hung up on this issue? Homosexual marriage shouldn't stir up so much emotion from anyone unless they're fighting some "secret urges" themselves. I for one don't give a monkey weather two adults are allowed to marry or not.
I may not agree with gay people but as human beings we evolve.
P.S
I bet you in 10 to 20yrs most states will legalize gay marriage. Your arguments were the same as those in Europe when it was debated in Europe, but there's no notable increase in homosexuality since the law was passed in Europe.

sleek_p:

@H2O2
Why are you so hung up on this issue? Homosexual marriage shouldn't stir up so much emotion from anyone unless they're fighting some "secret urges" themselves.

Joh gbenu soun jare.  What secret urges are you fighting?  You proponents of faggotry never cease to amuse me.  So anyone that speaks out against homosexuality is now a "homophobe" or is fighting "secret urges"? mumu.

I for one don't give a monkey weather two adults are allowed to marry or not.

Why not 3 adults or even 4 adults?

I bet you in 10 to 20yrs most states will legalize gay marriage. Your arguments were the same as those in Europe when it was debated in Europe, but there's no notable increase in homosexuality since the law was passed in Europe.

The discussion is not about the homosexual population increasing if gay marriage is legalized, it is about the use of the term in association with gay unions.

If gays can marry, polygamists should be allowed to marry too.

bawomolo:

why does my analogy make you puke. isn't it the same thing. there are millions of homo's and you come to that conclusion using 4 examples. my argument is that homosexuals prefer to get married in city hall and not the church.

Crime rates are ginormous among blacks due to poverty being higher for blacks and education levels being lower. But you're comparing that to the legal gap exploited by these people because of the passing of this state-law.

US supreme court would never force the church to sanction gay marriages

Even if the US. supreme court doesn't, the state supreme court can do so, unless the US. supreme court intervenes.  That's why your "separation of religion and politics" propaganda will not work, in so far as there's a law tying legal benefits to churches.

the push for the proposition came from the mormon and african-american dominated churches. without them, the proposition would have filled. i find it funny prop-4 failed though

It doesn't matter where the push for the proposition came from.  It has been passed, period.  The gay community and their advocates are being sore losers.  You could also argue that another reason this proposition will not get backing from the african-american community is because of the ignorance of those hurling slurs at people of color for the passing of the measure.  They need to understand that violence, stealing signs, and insults will not get people on their side.

but why should the majority dominate the affairs of the minority?

Because the majority have reason to be concerned about the affairs of the minority when the actions of the minority have drastic effects on the majority.

this will never happen considering people tend to be bisexual/heterosexual rather than homosexual.

That's the same argument white people used in the past, but look, there goes Obama.

@ topic

My opinion hardly matters, as am not gay neither am I a law maker but I know the people in California are not backing down without a fight.

Even if the US. supreme court doesn't, the state supreme court can do so, unless the US. supreme court intervenes. That's why your "separation of religion and politics" propaganda will not work, in so far as there's a law tying legal benefits to churches.

there has never been a legal precedence for this, not even in the state supreme courts.

The gay community and their advocates are being sore losers.

the same was initially said about civil and native american rights leaders .

Because the majority have reason to be concerned about the affairs of the minority when the actions of the minority have drastic effects on the majority.

this is our main disagreement. what drastic effects would they have. are countries that allow gay marriages experience these drastic effects??

smurf:

@ topic

My opinion hardly matters, as am not gay neither am I a law maker but I know the people in California are not backing down without a fight.

Well. . . it is also the people of california that voted for the ban. So Should their will not be respected in this? Sure, there will be a fight but I believe we fail to see that this is democracy in action here. The majority have voted, hence the ban.  I don't think this is really about where you stand on gay issue. The people have voted for a ban, and so those who lost need to at least understand that before moving ahead to fight this. Should democracy be overruled so the minority may have their way in this?


[size=13pt]Agressive minority should not force their views and tastes on everyone ![/size]

I dont know what the Stress is really

California said they no want the marriage,

The grieved should go marry in another state that is ok with it

isnt this the beauty of America!