Gamine:

I don't 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!

of course, it's fine when it doesn't affect you. funny how it's the people have spoken as if the rights of a minority shouldn't be protected.

I don't believe this has to do with rights YET. When it becomes about rights, then we will address the issue then. We can throw the word RIGHTS about and put democracy to the side willy nilly. But the fact remains the gay community is not THREATENED in anyway by this ban. It is not a ban on GAYS but a ban on gay marriage. Heck, we already have people claiming HealthCare and Welfare are RIGHTS as well. Come on!!!

This is democracy in action. Some will come out loosers and the loosers need to understand this is how it works, and leave the fight for another day. Heck the republicans lost the presidential elections, you don't see them claiming rights, do you?

Kobojunkie:

I don't believe this has to do with rights YET.  When it becomes about rights, then we will address the issue then. We can throw the word RIGHTS about and put democracy to the side willy nilly. But the fact remains the gay community is not THREATENED in anyway by this ban. It is not a ban on GAYS but a ban on gay marriage. Heck, we already have people claiming HealthCare and Welfare are RIGHTS as well. Come on!!!

This is democracy in action. Some will come out loosers and the loosers need to understand this is how it works, and leave the fight for another day. Heck the republicans lost the presidential elections, you don't see them claiming rights, do you?

homosexuals lose lots of benefits when it comes to not having the rights to marry. the couples of homosexual victims of the 9/11 attacks couldn't get the benefits they deserve. there are other cases such as this.  homosexuals would continue to fight.  they have been doing that for 50yrs. it wasn't so long ago that states had sodomy laws.

Kobojunkie:

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]

Well then I guess you are preaching to the choir

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

Comparing apples and oranges. The people didn't choose to be black.

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

We can talk about the drastic effects from morning till night and never reach an agreeable position.
In regards to this issue, if I allow gay marriage, I might as well make marriage a free for all. Let people marry their pets. Let brothers marry their sisters. Let Akin marry himself. Now the question arises, at what point do we put an end to the madness of amending the constitution to accomodate selfish choices that are quite frankly stupid, and are of no benefit to the state?

Comparing apples and oranges. The people didn't choose to be black.

the rights of minorities aren't apples and oranges.

at what point do we put an end to the madness of amending the constitution to accomodate selfish choices that are quite frankly stupid, and are of no benefit to the state?

how exactly do u gauge what's of benefit to the state??

how is homosexual marriage a selfish choice?

bawomolo:

the rights of minorities aren't apples and oranges.

Gay marriage is not a right even though gays are a minority.

how exactly do u gauge what's of benefit to the state??

Whatever the measuring stick is, clearly the state of California, with the help of its people, has concluded that gay marriage isn't one of them.

how is homosexual marriage a selfish choice?

Because homosexuals and their lobbyists are trying to force their opinions down the throats of other Californians by misconstruing marriage as a right, when it is not; .

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/07/no-state-recognition-of-gay-marriage-is-not-a-fundamental-right/

While I believe the U.S. Supreme Court got it right in Lawrence v. Texas when they overturned the Lone Star State’s sodomy laws (though I disagree with the court’s rationale, believing the majority should have used the Ninth Amendment), I think those state Supreme Courts (Massachusetts, California and Connecticut) mandating gay marriage got it wrong.

And the difference, as I see it, is between a liberty interest and a state benefit.

Those who read this blog carefully note that I repeatedly refer to state recognition of marriage as a benefit, not a right. If marriage is a right, we already have it. A right simply means the freedom to do something. Gay people remain free to marry same-sex partners even if the state does not recognize our unions as such.

Even after Tuesday’s vote, couples who got married when the state recognized their unions will not be incarcerated or forced to leave the state should they continue to call their partnerships marriages.

Hence, the distinction between Lawrence and the various marriage cases.

Under Texas law (and that of a number of other states), before the decision was handed down, you could be arrested for engaging in consensual sex (as were the plaintiffs in that case).

With marriage, however, the issue is state recognition of the unions. Voters of California did not strip gay people of a right, as some activists claim. They merely voted to deny us the privilege of having the state call our unions “marriages.” But, we remain free to call them whatever we want.

In the coming days, despite this vote, I will continue to call my gay and lesbian friends married if that is how they choose to define their unions. And I highly doubt government officials will attempt to prosecute me for so speaking my mind.

The issue now is to make our case to California citizens why the state should call our unions marriages. And angry protests demonizing various churches will do little to accomplish that goal.

As I’ve said repeatedly on this blog, state recognition of same-sex marriage represents a huge social change. And social change can be a good thing. It’s time to show why that is so.

The burden falls on those pushing the change.

Gay marriage is not a right even though gays are a minority.

people once said the same thing about interracial marriage. but hey we would just agree to disagree. time would tell.

bawomolo:

people once said the same thing about interracial marriage. but hey we would just agree to disagree. time would tell.

you make a comparison between inter-racial marriages and homosexual marriages?

JustGood:



you make a comparison between inter-racial marriages and homosexual marriages?

what's the difference, people disagreed with it along ago. discrimination is discrimination

bawomolo:

what's the difference, people disagreed with it along ago. discrimination is discrimination

We are going fast down a slippery slope where the views of a minority will be forced on the state. If the electorate voted to ban gay marriage, why are we turning to the courts to overturn it? What then is the definition of democracy?

Very soon some will be going to court to overturn presidential elections. The idea that gay rights MUST be foisted on the state BY FORCE is alarming.

bawomolo:

what's the difference, people disagreed with it along ago. discrimination is discrimination

I'm sure you'll also have no problems in claiming that rights are being infringed if the state does not allow a man to marry his sister or if the state does not allow a woman to marry her son.

OR maybe a man should be given the right to marry a tree afterall no one gets harmed

lol.

Dont mind Bawo, looking for justification where none exists

DavidDylan:

We are going fast down a slippery slope where the views of a minority will be forced on the state. If the electorate voted to ban gay marriage, why are we turning to the courts to overturn it? What then is the definition of democracy?

Very soon some will be going to court to overturn presidential elections. The idea that gay rights MUST be foisted on the state BY FORCE is alarming.

the idea of civil right laws was forced on states and you have no qualms with. the supreme court had to step in on the issue of native american rights pertaining to water resources and the mining of their lands. there is a reason the SUPREME COURT exists. protecting the rights of minorities is not a slippery slope but actually a sign of a true functional democracy.

JustGood:

I'm sure you'll also have no problems in claiming that rights are being infringed if the state does not allow a man to marry his sister or if the state does not allow a woman to marry her son.

OR maybe a man should be given the right to marry a tree afterall no one gets harmed

i have no problems with you marrying your sister or the iroko tree in front of your company. as long as the iroko tree and your sister agree to the relationship and are considered adult(well what's the age of an adult tree).

Gaminechic:

lol.

don't mind Bawo, looking for justification where none exists

and you are looking for justification for your biblical based homophobia

LOL

H202 has talked about this

When anyone talks out against homosexuality

the person is either a Homophobe or Struggling with some inner desires

rotflmao. yah, misery loves company and pity


Its a Nature thing, Nature kicks against Homosexuality

and the Bible enforces it,

Shikena.

Gaminechic:

LOL

H202 has talked about this

When anyone talks out against homosexuality

the person is either a Homophobe or Struggling with some inner desires

rotflmao. yah, misery loves company and pity


Its a Nature thing, Nature kicks against Homosexuality

and the Bible enforces it,

Shikena.

the bible enforces it? word. the same bible that claims the earth is 6000 years old. the same bible littered with inaccuracies. talk about a source.

how is homosexuality against nature? if homosexuality is a choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual.

it's homophobia when you start claiming homosexuals are forcing their view on people or would soon become a majority(what kind of scare tactic rubbish is this)

DavidDylan:

We are going fast down a slippery slope where the views of a minority will be forced on the state. If the electorate voted to ban gay marriage, why are we turning to the courts to overturn it? What then is the definition of democracy?

Very soon some will be going to court to overturn presidential elections. The idea that gay rights MUST be foisted on the state BY FORCE is alarming.

This is not about rights of the state, it's about right of these exact people that choose to be gay
Yes you definitely right, democracy is about enforcing the opinions of the majority, but the court is also there to protect the rights of the minority

It's really hilarious, a law on taxes, take it to the House of Reps . . . a law on protecting the minority, take it to a bunch of homophobes
This is pure irony . . . YES YOU CAN, EXCEPT YOU'RE GAY

Gaminechic:

Its a Nature thing, Nature kicks against Homosexuality

and the Bible enforces it,

I can't believe this!!! Since when did the US become a country ruled by theocracy??
The Bible?? The same Bible says women shouldn't wear trousers, the same Bible says we shouldn't eat bacon . . . hell the bible doesn't support taxes . . .
So now we'll rule Atheists, Muslims and  Budhists with what the Bible says??

This sounds so wrong on every level
Infact, any woman that has extramarital sex should be stoned to death . . . Why?? The Bible/Koran support it

very good points.

Very Good points

lol, indeed.

I can't believe this!!! Since when did the US become a country ruled by theocracy??
The Bible?? The same Bible says women shouldn't wear trousers, the same Bible says we shouldn't eat bacon . . . hell the bible doesn't support taxes . . .
So now we'll rule Atheists, Muslims and  Budhists with what the Bible says??

This sounds so wrong on every level
Infact, any woman that has extramarital sex should be stoned to death . . . Why?? The Bible/Koran support it

Biko! don't injure your Carotid o!

I was talking about Homosexuality in general, not just in the US

and i was answering Bawo on the bible issue.

Anyways, The US was founded on the Bible, they still swear on the Bible in Court.

And i wonder where you got your claims about not wearing trousers, etc etc.

What i was even gunning for was that Homosexuality is unatural, why are they dependent on the Hetero for Survival

it is a Choice they made and they shouldnt force anyone to accept or recognise it.

If they push it, then they have to accept Bestiality and the Polygamous marriages.

pray tell why polygamy is not encouraged seeing that it works for lots of people.

Double Standards i say!

Annoying really.

eldee:

hell the bible doesn't support taxes . . .

I'm not sure u've read the bible at all. Another fellow bandying around something he heard from someone who also heard it from somewhere . . .

Gamine:

Anyways, The US was founded on the Bible, they still swear on the Bible in Court.

Erm yes, the US was founded on Christianity, definitely . . .
But the same First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion''
In other words, the fact that the Bible does not support it means nuffin . . .
My question is, why should we disobey other laws in the Bible and choose this one cus it favours us??

They use the Bible to swear don't mean nuffin too. We swear by the Queen here in the UK but her word is fuckery

Gamine:

What i was even gunning for was that Homosexuality is unatural, why are they dependent on the Hetero for Survival

So is contraception, yet there are no laws against people that use condoms

They are dependent on hetero for survival??
Have you heard of this new technology?? It's called artificial insemination, it's been around since 2002, maybe you missed it
It means they don't really need to adopt kids anymore . . . these guys are not changing the cost of a bread at Sainsburys, just let them be

Gamine:

it is a Choice they made and they shouldnt force anyone to accept or recognise it.
If they push it, then they have to accept Bestiality and the Polygamous marriages
pray tell why polygamy is not encouraged seeing that it works for lots of people.
Double Standards i say!
Annoying really.

Are they forcing you to accept it?? Nah, what they want is recognition of the fact that they are taxpayers and should not be denied their rights because 80% of their state is homophobic.
They want to be able to get mortgage as a couple and pay from their accounts
They want to get bonuses to support their nuclear families at work
They want what moi and you take for granted . . . if it's not killing us, why should we disturb them??

Polygamy is not encouraged because it's caused too many problems for the society
More children will continue to be ignored in polygamous families than we have now . . . Polygamy is harmful to the society, the babymama system has proven that already.

And beastility, as Bawolomo pointed out, if you can prove to me the dog/cat/cow has the brainpower and cognitive ability of the human adult and agrees to it and that the result of procreation will live a normal life, then c'est fini.

Erm . . . what's a carotid??

DavidDylan:

I'm not sure u've read the bible at all. Another fellow bandying around something he heard from someone who also heard it from somewhere . . .

Nah . . . I'm not the best christian you'll find, but I just believe in saying the truth when I see it.

And yeah, I've only read the Bible in KJV so maybe there's some parts that are really hard for me to understand
But what I know is that the only reason why the Bible implied that Levi was a sinner is because he was a tax-collector

Sratch that, why'm I talking bout sumn I'm not 100% sure of??
How can we rule America with a book that clearly states 'Thou shalt not suffer a with to live'??

Admit it the Bible is a personal thing, to rule one's life, not a nation
For goodness sake the US constition has had 27 major ammendments since the 1800s, some books in the Bible have not had any ammendments since 6000 years ago . . .

Anyways, The US was founded on the Bible, they still swear on the Bible in Court.

word the good ole days of slavery and sexism sure were biblical principles. talk about a strong foundation

ghey topics = scapegoating.

The gheys are livid with the AA's, mormons and everybody else for taking their "SO-CALLED' rights.

them mofo's gets divorced faster than anybody,

they just WANT it to be WANTING it.

They really need to STFU, cause Barack Obama is not giving it to them.

to eaches own

eldee:

But what I know is that the only reason why the Bible implied that Levi was a sinner is because he was a tax-collector

No, because he was a corrupt tax collector. Even Christ paid taxes. Its in the bible . . . and Matthew the disciple was a tax collector too.

Erm . . . what's a carotid??

Google? heard of it?

There are toooo many reasons why Homosexuality is just a Behavior
and we all know that EVERY behavior is acquired.

About the subject at hand, i dont know why it got to Voting levels
but if people voted in a free and fair way, WHY THE PROTEST
if they cant stay in CAli, last i checked The USA had 51 states.

About this whole consent matter thing,
Dont you know when a Dog is happy, sad, angry? i do.
Many people in polygamous marriage are not complaining, they are HAPPY
SOON,
People will start producing consent letters from people they murdered,

*sigh*

i know its all going downhill

Gamine:

About this whole consent matter thing,
don't you know when a Dog is happy, sad, angry? i do.
Many people in polygamous marriage are not complaining, they are HAPPY
SOON,
People will start producing consent letters from people they murdered,

This got me laughing.

People will start producing consent letters from people they murdered,

actually there is a movement for assisted suicide. isnt that legal in the netherlands. my PETA bobo love animals anyway. you nuts are so behind

Lol