As someone said earlier, that's a civil rights issue. The reason that was repealed was because it violated basic civil rights by attempting to redefine marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays want to change society's rules just so they can feel normal.

oh i see so civil rights only applies to people of color. interesting.

Civil rights is about tolerance for our society's diversity.  It's not about calling apples oranges.

If two people in a union want the same rights that two married people have, let them have it.  But I don't think that's what gay people are after.  They are after normalcy and don't want to be distinguished, and they believe that society will accept them even more if "marriage" is added to their repertoire of words.

It's shameful to equate the gay struggle to the African American struggle. Two men and two men butt-fucking themselves are not a race of people fighting to be recognized as human beings.

They are after normalcy and don't want to be distinguished, and they believe that society will accept them even more if "marriage" is added to their repertoire of words.

how do you know of this agenda and what's abnormal about them

Normal is sticking a penis in a vagina where it belongs. Not in a shitter. [But that's another aspect of it, and I will not let my opinions destabilize the arguments being made here about marriage].

To continue answering your question about why I'm led to think it's an agenda. I asked, why aren't they fighting for "all consenting adults" instead of equality for "gay people"?

To continue answering your question about why I'm led to think it's an agenda. I asked, why aren't they fighting for "all consenting adults" instead of equality for "gay people"?

because gay people are fighting for THEIR rights? why must they fight for all consenting adults. that's like saying why aren't black people fighting for native americans. where are you going with this

bawomolo:

because gay people are fighting for THEIR rights? why must they fight for all consenting adults. that's like saying why aren't black people fighting for native americans. where are you going with this

Civil rights movement fought for the recognition of all people to be recognized as human beings. Black people fought against the laws that were made against them.   Is there a law against a gay race , or is there a gay race that's being deprived of human rights that I don't know about? There is no right to marry, and there's nothing stopping any "one man and woman" from getting married if they choose.

A lot of people don't' like handicapped parking, but they respect it because the state gives handicaps that benefit of having closer lots. And if a lot of gays don't like marriage, that's fine, but why won't they respect it?  They don't have to change it. They should create their own system.

A lot of people dont' like handicapped parking, but they respect it because the state gives handicaps that benefit of having closer lots. And if a lot of gays don't like marriage, that's fine, but why won't they respect it?

H2O2:

Civil rights movement fought for the recognition of all people to be recognized as human beings; so, yes, the argument can be made that Blacks did fight for natives too. Is there a gay race that's being deprived of human rights that I don't know about?

i don't think mlk was fighting for native american land rights. so only "races" deserve protection

Everyone deserves protection.  Are gays not protected under the law?

Is there a law that says gays can't vote, or gay votes only count as 0.6? The law doesn't prevent a gay man from getting married to a beautiful woman.

H2O2:

Everyone deserves protection.  Are gays not protected under the law?

Is there a law that says gays can't vote, or gay votes only count as 0.6? The law doesn't prevent a gay man from getting married to a beautiful woman.

what's the point of being gay if you get married to the opposite sex. what's so hard about giving them marriage rights. why not end divorce if the institution is so sacred

bawomolo:

what's the point of being gay if you get married to the opposite sex.

What's the point of getting married if you don't want to unite with someone of the opposite sex?

what's so hard about giving them marriage rights.

I have no problem with giving them marriage rights.

why not end divorce if the institution is so sacred

That's an issue of separating church and religion.

What's the point of getting married if you don't want to unite with someone of the opposite sex?

maybe because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. now who is FORCING their opinions on who?

I have no problem with giving them marriage rights.

why support prop 8 then

That's an issue of separating church and religion.

but but high rates of divorce is affecting this "sacred" institution. i wonder how sacred it is considering i can get married in a las vegas chapel!!!!!!

Did you hear that the Catholic church in Massachusetts had to shut down its adoption agency because the state tried to force it to send children to gay couples?
How is that for separation of church and state.    By the way, did you know that separation of church and state was adopted to protect the church from the state?  I just find it funny now that it's the other way around.

bawomolo:

maybe because you are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. now who is FORCING their opinions on who?

If you're not attracted to members of the opposite sex, then don't get married.  Marrriage is not about having to "accomodate" gays.

why support prop 8 then

Because 8 is hate on marriage.
Fortunately, the state Supreme Court cannot pull the same wuru-wuru it did 8 years ago because the ban is now a law that is very much part of the State constitution. Sadly, gay groups will still keep searching for ways.

but but high rates of divorce is affecting this "sacred" institution. i wonder how sacred it is considering i can get married in a las vegas chapel!!!!!!

Your argument about las vegas chapel does not hold water.  Again, separation of church and religion.  Still doesn't change the definition of marriage.

For those who know nothing about the DOMA act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[b]The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 US.C. § 7 and 28 US.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

If this is truly a fight about the state of California giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, domestic partnership would have solved that problem.  One reason gays are so obsessed with the "marriage" word is because of the benefits attached to it at the federal level.

Then it makes sense to ask the question: Shouldn't gays be fighting the federal government instead of the state government?  The answer is yes.  But why won't they fight it?  Because they can't win.  LOL!


The term "right" isn't even the best qualifier to use in this scenario. Marriage is a privilege granted by this great state. Privileges can be taken away or only provided for a certain sect of our populace; it's always been that way. I don't know or see why we have to succumb to these whiners.

H2O2:

If this is truly a fight about the state of California giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, domestic partnership would have solved that problem. One reason gays are so obsessed with the "marriage" word is because of the benefits attached to it at the federal level.

that is the sole reason we have this ridiculous fight on our hands. Its not about "equality" at all.

I also have to quote something H2O2 said earlier:

As someone said earlier, that's a civil rights issue. The reason that was repealed was because it violated basic civil rights by attempting to redefine marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays want to change society's rules just so they can feel normal.

This is just the unfortunate truth.

Gay rights do not equal civil rights. You choose your sexuality. Society permits it, you show it. Society frowns at it, you are in the closet.

This cannot be equated to being black, asian or hispanic and I think blacks who think otherwise need to be asked where they place a black gay person?

I don't see straight people going around fighting for "straight" rights, or "i'm being discriminated at because I'm straight" yet it happens,

that is the sole reason we have this ridiculous fight on our hands. Its not about "equality" at all.

the last i checked, equality is about having the same access to opportunity as others.  of course those freaking homos don't deserve the benefits we get.

I don't see straight people going around fighting for "straight" rights, or "i'm being discriminated at because I'm straight" yet it happens, 

when were you discriminated for being straight? please can you give examples or are you talking out of your ass.

This cannot be equated to being black, asian or hispanic and I think blacks who think otherwise need to be asked where they place a black gay person?

discrimination is discrimination. where create an heirachy of discrimination just to make yourself feel better. like oh we blacks have suffered the most.

Gay rights do  not equal civil rights. You choose your sexuality. Society permits it, you show it. Society frowns at it, you are in the closet.

so you had to choose between men and women. does that mean you like women too but you settled for men? so how do hermaphrodites get to choose by the way.

bawomolo:

the last i checked, equality is about having the same access to opportunity as others. 

If we got with your definition of equality being about having the same access to opportunity as others, are homos not the ones cutting themselves short? The access to opportunity is there for them yet they refuse to take it.

of course those freaking homos don't deserve the benefits we get.

You're right.  That's what the state said too.  There's a distinction between the heteros and those homos.
Homos cannot force benefits out of the state.  That's like me forcing the state to grant me handicapped parking when it's obvious I'm not a handicap.

They can't whine their way like stubborn children to getting what they want.

bawomolo:

the last i checked, equality is about having the same access to opportunity as others. of course those freaking homos don't deserve the benefits we get.

they have the benefits already. the battle is about forcing society to redefine the term "marriage" so they can fit in too.

yup, homos already have state benefits. they need to take their fight to congress and stop burdening cali taxpayers with their bitchinng

they have the benefits already. the battle is about forcing society to redefine the term "marriage" so they can fit in too.

no they actually don't. the current benefits for civil unions aren't the same as that of marriage

It’s funny for some folks to argue that sexual behavior is not a voluntary action. Sexual behavior is a non reflex action, so as such should not be equated with BEING black. It’s still a CHOICE to have sex or not. Equality of marriage should apply to all types of marriage. I wonder if this issue could have received a different reaction if it were Hispanics fighting for comprehensive immigration policy

*rolls eye*

and what has this gat to do with our Politics

and didnt someone open a thread on this

kai, pipu

bawomolo:

no they actually don't. the current benefits for civil unions aren't the same as that of marriage

and that's the issue isnt it? They want to force us to redefine marriage so they can fit in. When are polygamists going to start their own agitation for "equality"?

DavidDylan:

and that's the issue isnt it? They want to force us to redefine marriage so they can fit in. When are polygamists going to start their own agitation for "equality"?

who exactly is stopping them from fighting for equality. did i have any problems with homosexuality?

[/quote][quote author=bawomolo link=topic=196068.msg3097209#msg3097209 date=1226898199]
no they actually don't. the current benefits for civil unions aren't the same as that of marriage

Actually, that's not true. There are no legal rights taken away from civil unions versus marriages in the State of California. It is the Federal Government that discriminates between marriage and civil unions.

When they say Prop. 8 has taken away their rights, they don't mean California rights but United States rights because at the Federal level, civil unions and marriages are not granted the same rights.

They should be fighting Obama and his govt. to give civil unions and marriages the same legal rights.

But they are not which makes it obvious that's not what's bugging them. It is obvious that what galls them is the word civil union. They want the word marriage. Civil union makes them feel inferior. It's the social recognition they want, thus a redefinition of marriage as not between a man and woman only. That's what it's all about. It's not about rights because in Cali, they've already got it.

Changing the definition of marriage won't work. They should argue for the equal legal rights for civil unions and marriages on the Federal level.

that doesn't matter considering the current gay marriages have been repealed. the supreme court would be forced to step in soon

bawomolo:

that doesn't matter considering the current gay marriages have been repealed. the supreme court would be forced to step in soon

What do you mean by it doesn't matter? It matters because it tells you it's an argument of semantics.
They have lost no rights by gay marriage being disbanded because civil unions and marriages are the same in California.
The Mormon Church isn't against that. The Mormon church doesn't care about that. All they care about is the definition of marriage.

Being married or not; they lost no rights. It's why Elton John could not understand what they are fighting for. They are fighting for a redefinition of marriage to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is what the Mormon Church objects to and why it contributed to Prop. 8.

Raskimono:

What do you mean by it doesn't matter? It matters because it tells you it's an argument of semantics.
They have lost no rights by gay marriage being disbanded because civil unions and marriages are the same in California.
The Mormon Church isn't against that. The Mormon church doesn't care about that. All they care about is the definition of marriage.

Being married or not; they lost no rights. It's why Elton John could not understand what they are fighting for. They are fighting for a redefinition of marriage to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is what the Mormon Church objects to and why it contributed to Prop. 8.

it's not an argument of semantics, this is similar to state marijuana laws that can be overun by federal law. please get that right. they do lose rights if they are not married and there is no civil union in place. why can't married be redefined? how does it affect the mormon church?

link=topic=196068.msg3105585#msg3105585 date=1227041091]
it's not an argument of semantics, this is similar to state marijuana laws that can be overrun by federal law. please get that right.      they do lose rights if they are not married and there is no civil union in place. why can't married be redefined?  how does it affect the mormon church?
[quote][/quote]

You are arguing with emotions and not facts trying to reprimand what is no t there. You say[b] they do lose rights if there is no civil union in place. [/b] What does not mean? All couples do not have the same rights if they cannot show a legal contract of partnership, gay or straight. If you have no civil union or marriage, there is no legal union.

You say that is similar to state marijuana laws that be overrun by federal laws. Federal laws cannot automatically overrun State laws. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time pushing for gay marriage. No Federal law recognizes gay marriage nor civil unions. It is a matter for the Federal Courts to decide. When there is a clash, it goes to the courts. This issue will get there eventually. Till, then the state's law is as good as God Almighty.

It is a matter of semantics foremost because they already had the same rights as heterosexuals in California. Look, Obama and Biden are for giving civil unions the same rights as marriage rights on the Federal level.  The Mormon Church as far as I know is not opposed to them getting the same rights as married couples. They are opposed to the change in the definition of marriage.

I personally don't care about that issue one way or the other but the Church and its members think its important. Social changes do affect the way people think. They have a right to defend their beliefs silly as it may be.

But as long the President-elect believes marriage is only between a man and a woman the odds of them changing these attitudes any time soon is improbable. Therefore isn't their energy better served seeking equality for civil unions and marriage on the Federal level instead of fighting the gay marriage fight.

And that's why it's about semantics. It's about the word marriage. It's about having the right to say marriage as everyone else and not to feel like second class citizens. And I can understand that.

The gays already had equal rights. Nobody asked the California govt. to take it away.  They wanted marriage and the Church rallied against it. Lobbying the Federal govt. to give them equal rights is less of a hot button topic. It would be more successful than trying to change the definition of marriage.[quote author=bawomolo

Bamowolo, you sure say you no gay? I have long suspected you.  Too liberal for my liking. 

bawomolo:

unmarried couples have been stopped from adopting kids in arizona and florida. this was obviously targeting gay couples.  you now see why civil unions aren't the same as marriage?

Why should gays be allowed to adopt?


Look, gays can have whatever rights they want, but marriage and adoption is a no go as far as I am concerned. That infringes on my definition of "marriage" and "family" and I am intolerant of any redefining of those two institutions.