Prop 8 to pass?

**Devastatin Dave** · 11-07-2008, 17:01

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Southern voters said "no" to interracial marriage and integration for decades. What's your point?

.

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

**Rhyfelwyr** · 11-07-2008, 17:10

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

Plus the obvious fact that the idea of marriage has nothing to do with skin colour, all it requires is one man and one woman.

**LittleGrizzly** · 11-07-2008, 17:37

Homosexuality is pervered and spreads more STD's than any other form or sexual activity.

A great reason to encourage gay people to get married and stick with one long term partner!

good argument!

Nope its based on the FACT that feces is not clean.

but you do choose what orafice you use for sex.

No one seems to have any qaulms about straight couples who engage in anal getting married, infact i don't really see why what type of sex couples have has anything to do with marriage or the goverment (assuming consenting adults obviously)

This issue is eventually going to get resolved in favour of gays, every generation the hate against gays drops slightly and a more open acceptance of them evolves, there is no point forcing this issue through the courts, it is simply a waiting game now...

Think about it, 10 20 years ago gay marriage wouldn't even be an option in any state, now already a few have approved of it and a despite a far worse funded campaign they only lost by 500,000 votes, its just a matter of time....

all it requires is one man and one woman.

All you need is love!

**Koga No Goshi** · 11-07-2008, 21:19

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

This is the lamest arguement from the left about this topic. You don't choose what pigment your skin is, but you do choose what orafice you use for sex. Homosexuality is an action. Yawn....

Allow me to pitch another then.

Black people are entitled to equal rights.

But people who ACT BLACK are not. You can discriminate against those ones.

Same sort of thing you're arguing, really.

**Decker** · 11-07-2008, 22:33

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more. In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously. What they want contradicts with others belief systems, yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream. Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage. It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it. It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same. I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

**LittleGrizzly** · 11-07-2008, 22:46

They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

Yes like those damn blacks when we gave them equality... ohh no wait a second... though i suppose you do have affirmative action in the US, but barring that we gave opressed minoritys equality, its a common scare tactic to pertend minority x wants more than everyone else, a classic excuse to keep minoritys down...

It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married, it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Well gays couldn't get married in america before mass. im not sure why exactly... was it that the goverment or state wouldn't recognise such a union ? thats as good as law...

I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states,

Wasn't marriage around before the major religions we had today, im sure there was some prototype version at least, but anyway there are gay churches, whose to say these gay churches are any less entitled to marriage than some of the major ones ?

**Koga No Goshi** · 11-07-2008, 22:47

Originally Posted by Decker

What Rights are the gays exactly missing and what kind of identity will "marriage" give them? They will keep asking for more, and more, and more, and more.

This is not a valid argument to deny a group equal civil rights. The list of things that gay couples cannot get, or can get only after drawing up a slew of contracts in an attorney's office (which might be challenged just about anywhere) has been listed earlier in the thread.

In my opinion, they will get treated with the respect they feel they deserve if they try and stop playing the victim and trying to relate to being on the same treatment level as when the blacks were slaves. Even CNN mentioned this last night that their whole argument of being treated like slaves apparently didn't work in California's black community. This shows that they aren't like them and any support they were looking for obviously didn't garner enough to win it. It shouldn't come down to race or what sex the person is, this is more than that obviously.

It has nothing to do with the comparison not being valid, and more to do with the black community being extremely religious and not "totally lib" on every issue like people tend to dismiss them as. Both the black and hispanic communities tend to be liberal economically and conservative socially. And the yes on 8 ad campaigns played to religious fears which had nothing to do with the law in question. And, people do not need to "prove that they deserve" equal rights. If any once spat-upon group in the U.S. had to do that, they probably never would have gained equal rights. You can still find plenty of people today who still hold pre-1965 views on non-white minority groups.

What they want contradicts with others belief systems

There is only one belief system that should matter when it comes to a question of legal rights: equal protections. Whether or not someone doesn't like gay people or gay lifestyles on particular religious grounds is entirely irrelevant.

yet they also have that wonderful accusation of bigotry because our society is trying really hard to be politically correct (or PC) and they also used that as a scare tactic, so it's not like everyone is all peaches and cream.

You think George Takei of Star Trek/Heroes just wanted legally recognized rights with his life partner just to "make America prove it could be P.C."? Or do you think it might have a little more to do with the fact that he worries about what would happen if he were in a critical medical condition and the hospital staff was saying "family and spouses only"? If you think this whole issue is a nitpick over nothing then I can only guess it's because you take the legal rights that come with marriage for granted, and don't appreciate how wide-ranging and important they are for people living together as a family unit.

Like I've said earlier, there are better ways to give them the rights that they are looking for and then we don't need this ridiculous fight over marriage.

You, like almost every other people who approves of Prop 8, don't even understand the law you are talking about. Prop 8 was not "legalizing gay marriage." Prop 8 was writing a BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE into the state constitution. So if you think this was all just some people causing ruckus and trouble, go take that up with the Knights of Columbus and the religious people who spent millions of dollars to get this ban written, who were never going to be negatively impacted by gay people getting married in any way whatsoever.

It's a religious constitution, I do not know why people have ignored this... apparently, and if they want the same rights as straight couples then there can be a way to work around it.

1. No, the Constitution delineates freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.
2. No, telling people to just "work around" a discriminatory law violates Constitutional guarantees of equal protections.

It shouldn't be LAW to decide who does get and doesn't get married,

It IS law. You are reinventing all of history in order to make your argument. If you think law has no business regulating marriage then you are about 300 years late to the party in the United States.

it's been established without the need of laws until Mass. made it law and now California battling to do the same.

Gay marriage was established without the need of laws? Since when?

I don't care if you think religion shouldn't matter here or not, I know it's about there rights, but it was started by religions and not by states, and this violates the whole separation of church and state. I don't see what's the big deal with people (like me) standing by their own beliefs over the issue, while those who fell for both side's scare tactics are more or less the sheep and letting others to decide for them.

I would agree with you that the Knights of Columbus lying in a multimillion dollar ad campaign to get a religious ban rights for groups that live a lifestyle not approved by Christian contemporary moral thinking written into state law is a big violation of church and state. Maybe a court will agree with that and strike it down in the inevitable challenge. But I think you are way off reinventing this issue as just gay people demanding excessive special privileges, complaining, or causing legal trouble. This was a religiously-funded law to ban equal rights for gay people.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 11-07-2008, 23:39

Gay men are not discriminated against - they can marry a woman just like anyone else.

Why must this contract that gives powers regarding medical procedures etc be limited to those who enter into relationships based upon sexual attraction - that would be discriminating against those who don't want to for whatever reason.

As with the last thread, this is a matter of wording. Nobody can ever change what the traditional meaning of marriage is, if they allow homosexual couples to marry then they are creating a completely different institution.

A much better idea would be to allow everyone to pick one person, whether they are a sexual partner or not, and say that they can say what will happen if they lie dying in hospital etc.

**Xiahou** · 11-07-2008, 23:46

The "equality" argument falls flat because the same rules do apply to everyone. I, a heterosexual, cannot marry another man either. The rules are consistent for everyone. The way gay marriage supporters try to sneak "equal rights" into the issue is by talking about "love" or "attraction", neither of which are prerequisites for civil marriage.

The argument is about homosexual couples wanting a government benefit recognizing their union. They can make their case for that- persuade enough people and they'll get it. Ramming it thru the courts however, leads to backlashes like we've seen in California. Now it's part of the state constitution and it will be much tougher to implement even if they do get more support for it.