Prop 8 in California

[user_name_guest]

How much media attention is those two mayors getting from the national press? I bet if it was the other way around, it'll be an uproar. Like if prop 8 didn't pass, mayor saying "there won't be gay marriages in my city."

 

[BlackAsCoal]

With the genocides from Sudan (not Sri Lanka) and Rwanda has thought us something, United Nations doesn't do a thing. I remember of the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia states, UN didn't do a thing. They sent peacekeepers. But like the name, peacekeepers, they just make sure none of their own kind (peacekeepers) get harm or go into harm way.

Here is an example of the UN. Clinton was close to invading Iraq in 1998. However, October that year, UN brokered a deal that sent the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Clinton stepped back on his threats. December 1998, Saddam kicks out the weapons inspectors. UN do anything to keep Saddam on his promises that he made to the International community after the first Persian Gulf war, not a thing.

UN is more a scam organization that serves the purpose of the top 5% of wealth earners in the world.

You've got your history wrong brother .. Saddam didn't kick out the inspectors, Bush did. El Baradei and the other inspectors said Saddam was cooperating .. Bush kicked them out because he was anxious to invade and didn't wnt El Baradei and the conclusions they came up with .. that Saddam had no WMD .. in other words, FACTS, to get in the way of his adventure.

And the absolute undeniable failure of your argument is that no WMD was found.

Clinton was right to reject the PNAC command to invade Iraq.

Point being, the US is not the world's policeman .. resolution to the atrocities you speak of will have to come from a global coalition.

South Africa is an example of that success.

MY anger is at Africans who perpetrate such brutality on their own people.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, I would rather they be sent to Iran.

They have a cure for homosexuality that is 100% effective.

If slavery were put up to a vote, people in West Virginia would still own slaves. Just because the citizens don't mind descriminating against gays, doesn't make it right.

Let them marry, make choices for each other in hospitals, share insurance, get life insurance, own a home together, get the tax write offs that straights get, etc.

It's only fair.

So we just won't call it marriage. Happy now?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Actually, I would rather they be sent to Iran.

They have a cure for homosexuality that is 100% effective.

There are a hell of a lot more of them then there is you.

Wouldn't it be more cost efficient if you went to Iran to free yourself of the tyranny of gay people.

Of course, they also have a 100% cure for Americans they don't like as well.

 

[Sunni Man]

Of course, they also have a 100% cure for Americans they don't like as well.

As a Muslim American, I would be an honored guest.

Actually, the Iranian people really like Americans. It's the U.S. government they hate.

 

[DiamondDave]

If slavery were put up to a vote, people in West Virginia would still own slaves. Just because the citizens don't mind descriminating against gays, doesn't make it right.

Let them marry, make choices for each other in hospitals, share insurance, get life insurance, own a home together, get the tax write offs that straights get, etc.

It's only fair.

So we just won't call it marriage. Happy now?

Just when we thought you could not be more ignorant

 

[BlackAsCoal]

As a Muslim American, I would be an honored guest.

Actually, the Iranian people really like Americans. It's the U.S. government they hate.

Actually I agree with that about the Iranians .. I was just having fun with your, respectfully, truly warped perspective about gay people.

Your perspective on gays, which I agree is shared by many of your faith, demonstrates that Islam is every bit as fucked up and a contrived to make people stupid religion as is christianity.

 

[DiveCon]

There are a hell of a lot more of them then there is you.

Wouldn't it be more cost efficient if you went to Iran to free yourself of the tyranny of gay people.

Of course, they also have a 100% cure for Americans they don't like as well.

i would support that 100%
send sunni man to Iran

 

[DiveCon]

Just when we thought you could not be more ignorant

who's "we"
LOL

 

[Sunni Man]

i would support that 100%
send sunni man to Iran

If you are offering to pay my way.

I would go in a minute.

I have always wanted to visit Iran.

 

[Elyk88]

Same sex benefits is one thing...but redefining marriage is totally different.

One problem is that because churches don't pay taxes...if a gay couple wanted to get married at a church, the church would not be allowed to discriminate because they are allowed the tax breaks from the state that says gay marriage is legal..

Pretty soon churches would be forced to decide to either..close down..start paying taxes..or simply allow gay couples to marry in their church.

I don't see how it is discrimination...marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. You have the right to not get married. Stop talking about fundamental rights. They get the same rights...it's just not called marriage.

It's more to flaunt their victory over the religious right..not because they deeply love each other. If they did...they would act like those other gays who are perfectly content with what they have now..and don't feel the need to shove their way of live down other people's throat.

Isn't it discrimination if I want to marry my brother or sister then?
Or my mom?
I mean, we are in love...who are you to tell me what's right and wrong..

Where do you draw the line?...and how do you draw it?

It all goes back to generally accepted religious norms in society...whether you are religious or not...marriage has always been a sacred binding...even in pagan religions before Christianity...Islam...

As a southern Californian I resent the fact that this is the second time I have had to fight for my vote to be counted.

The people have spoken. Democracy has spoken.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Same sex benefits is one thing...but redefining marriage is totally different.

One problem is that because churches don't pay taxes...if a gay couple wanted to get married at a church, the church would not be allowed to discriminate because they are allowed the tax breaks from the state that says gay marriage is legal..

Pretty soon churches would be forced to decide to either..close down..start paying taxes..or simply allow gay couples to marry in their church.

I don't see how it is discrimination...marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. You have the right to not get married. Stop talking about fundamental rights. They get the same rights...it's just not called marriage.

It's more to flaunt their victory over the religious right..not because they deeply love each other. If they did...they would act like those other gays who are perfectly content with what they have now..and don't feel the need to shove their way of live down other people's throat.

Isn't it discrimination if I want to marry my brother or sister then?
Or my mom?
I mean, we are in love...who are you to tell me what's right and wrong..

Where do you draw the line?...and how do you draw it?

It all goes back to generally accepted religious norms in society...whether you are religious or not...marriage has always been a sacred binding...even in pagan religions before Christianity...Islam...

As a southern Californian I resent the fact that this is the second time I have had to fight for my vote to be counted.

The people have spoken. Democracy has spoken.

Marriage is not a solely religious tradition .. and religion is nothing more than faith .. which is a belief in something you do not know to be true. Government should not be centered in ignorance.

AND as a Californian, rest assured, this is not the last time you'll have to deal with this issue .. eventually, you lose.

 

[Elyk88]

Marriage is not a solely religious tradition .. and religion is nothing more than faith .. which is a belief in something you do not know to be true. Government should not be centered in ignorance.

AND as a Californian, rest assured, this is not the last time you'll have to deal with this issue .. eventually, you lose.

It is sad that your agenda is more important than democracy.

The people have voted...let us be.

However...I do know it will come up every chance it gets. So I will be there fighting back for my vote.

Regardless of the religious foundation of marriage...

A common ground you will even admit is that the tradition of marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Answer me this then...

Should I be allowed to marry my brother?
Sister?
Dad/mom?

fully capable of communication unlike a dog or horse in those other arguments made...

would you support that?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Same sex benefits is one thing...but redefining marriage is totally different.

In other words "separate but equal"? We all know that isn't how it works. After Jim Crowe laws that was the state endorsed discrimination: separate but equal.

One problem is that because churches don't pay taxes...if a gay couple wanted to get married at a church, the church would not be allowed to discriminate because they are allowed the tax breaks from the state that says gay marriage is legal..

Pretty soon churches would be forced to decide to either..close down..start paying taxes..or simply allow gay couples to marry in their church.

Sounds good to me.

I don't see how it is discrimination...marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. You have the right to not get married. Stop talking about fundamental rights. They get the same rights...it's just not called marriage.

If marriage isn't a right, then how come there aren't any laws against straight people doing it? What do straight people have to do to get married? Get a license and prove they aren't already married. That's it. What do gay people have to do to get married? They can't! The only people marriage is not a right for are gay.

Everyone in this nation can get married except gay people. That's how its discrimination.

It's more to flaunt their victory over the religious right..not because they deeply love each other. If they did...they would act like those other gays who are perfectly content with what they have now..and don't feel the need to shove their way of live down other people's throat.

Are you kidding? They just want to flaunt what victory? And what "other gays" might you be referring to? The ones in the Catholic church?

And who is shoving their lives down someone else's throat?!

Isn't it discrimination if I want to marry my brother or sister then?
Or my mom?
I mean, we are in love...who are you to tell me what's right and wrong..

That's not even a logical argument!

Where do you draw the line?...and how do you draw it?

Um, with gay people. They get to marry and so do straights. Incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

It all goes back to generally accepted religious norms in society...whether you are religious or not...marriage has always been a sacred binding...even in pagan religions before Christianity...Islam...

This is your church's propadanda! Don't make these kind of ignorant statments: marriage has never been sacred to aetheists or secular humanists beyond that it is a way of committing to someone for life; and it doesn't matter when there is a separation of church and state in this nation. Religious beliefs should be kept out of government!

As a southern Californian I resent the fact that this is the second time I have had to fight for my vote to be counted.

The people have spoken. Democracy has spoken.

Yes, unfortunately, ignorant people out number the enlightened.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

It is sad that your agenda is more important than democracy.

The people have voted...let us be.

However...I do know it will come up every chance it gets. So I will be there fighting back for my vote.

Regardless of the religious foundation of marriage...

A common ground you will even admit is that the tradition of marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Answer me this then...

Should I be allowed to marry my brother?
Sister?
Dad/mom?

fully capable of communication unlike a dog or horse in those other arguments made...

would you support that?

You sound like an intelligent person and I respect your right to believe what you will .. but belief aside, the democracy that you cherish will ultimately make you the loser on this issue.

Gays have every right, as do you, to demand their rights be protected and ultimately, they will prevail. Would you be of the belief that this isn't true?

There are genetic reasons why you and your sister shouldn't marry or have children .. none of which exists about gays .. who can't have children.

Because you seem intelligent, sane, and civil .. may I ask .. what difference does it make to you what two consenting adults do with their lives?

 

[musicnotes16]

Yea. It was very surprising when Prop 8 passed

 

[Elyk88]

In other words "separate but equal"? We all know that isn't how it works. After Jim Crowe laws that was the state endorsed discrimination: separate but equal.

-No, how it works is one man one woman. Read a history book. Why can't they just call it a union?



Sounds good to me.

-So you are for separation from church and state..but then it is okay for the state to tell what they can and cannot do in church?

Can you say hypocrite?



If marriage isn't a right, then how come there aren't any laws against straight people doing it? What do straight people have to do to get married? Get a license and prove they aren't already married. That's it. What do gay people have to do to get married? They can't! The only people marriage is not a right for are gay.

Everyone in this nation can get married except gay people. That's how its discrimination.

-First of all...there are no laws saying a gay person can't get married. There are only laws against same-sex marriage. "I'm straight and wanna marry my bud just to get benefits...aw but I can't." - goes both ways...watch Chuck and Larry

Are you kidding? They just want to flaunt what victory? And what "other gays" might you be referring to? The ones in the Catholic church?

And who is shoving their lives down someone else's throat?!

-Well if it looks like marriage, gets the same benefits as marriage, but just isn't called marriage...then it seems like an agenda..

And there are gays who are more concerned with how to pay rent or put food on the table for their "partner" and that are content with being in a union together... Not to mention..plenty of straight couples stay together with not wanting to marry..to assume there are no gays like that is ignorant.



That's not even a logical argument!

- Why isn't it logical? So man and man is okay but man + man + man isn't?
Or a bi man with a husband and a wife? no polygamy? aww shoot..your discriminating now


Um, with gay people. They get to marry and so do straights. Incest is illegal. Homosexuality isn't.

-And Polygamy? Where do you draw the line for incest then? A 40 yr old and a 17 year old?


This is your church's propadanda! Don't make these kind of ignorant statments: marriage has never been sacred to aetheists or secular humanists beyond that it is a way of committing to someone for life; and it doesn't matter when there is a separation of church and state in this nation. Religious beliefs should be kept out of government!

-but government can force churches to marry gays?

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?



-Yes, unfortunately, ignorant people out number the enlightened.
LOL , unfortunately for your agenda...ignorant people are allowed to vote..

and unfortunately... Democracy does not rule out your so called ignorant.

ha..talk about fundamental rights and yet you wont defend my vote.

 

[Andrew2382]

Reporter- What's your statement Mr. Kanye West

Kanye- negro's don't like gay people

 

[doeton]

Reporter- What's your statement Mr. Kanye West
Kanye- negro's don't like gay people

minds me of some psychobabble about how the mistreated continue the cycle of mistreatment.

 

[Tech_Esq]

course in Missouri the pub legislature passed concealed carry in direct defiance of a statewide voter ballot rejection of the measure...

A representative legislative act is not anti-democratic, necessarily although I would consider it less democratic than a plebiscite. At least the public has recourse to a legislative action. They can vote the bums out and change the law. If a court does it by "interpretation of the law," they are just fucked.