go nuts people.. i am done discussing it. And its only up to California. I am surprised no one made a thread about this already..
and i will be changing my avatar sometime after polls close here in CA. Thus bringing on the next big thing I assume. So many people have seemed to follow my past Avatar trend from my Adobe Premier Avatar that I used for years, to a newer one of my User Name. And who knows what i might come up with later

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L_Hmdcy_lvQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L_Hmdcy_lvQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

i think gay people shouldn't be allowed to vote

monte's avatar is the most offensive one ive ever seen in my life and i cant wait for him to take that vile shit down.

protect marriage.. how does gay people getting married hurt heterosexual marriages??

protect marriage.. how does gay people getting married hurt heterosexual marriages??

because the bible says so and thats that, right monte?

if you want to protect marriage you should outlaw divorce.

Will the world come to an end if it is No on Prop8?

If it is No on Prop 8 is that god's will then?

Will the world come to an end if it is No on Prop8?

If it is No on Prop 8 is that god's will then?

whoa buddy, stop, youre using logic.

the federal government of the United States doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriage. And a majority of you people are supporting someone who running for president that doesn't support gay marriage

Almost every state in the United States has some sort of law that bans same sex marriage.

In fact FL & AZ are also voting on the same thing...

You realize the next step is outlawing divorce. That also hurts the sanctity of marriage.

the federal government of the United States doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriage. And a majority of you people are supporting someone who running for president that doesn't support gay marriage

Almost every state in the United States has some sort of law that bans same sex marriage.

In fact FL & AZ are also voting on the same thing...

what are you trying say, almost every state allowed slavery at one point, it doesnt make it right.

aw fuck why am i talking to monte about this.

Do you realize there was also a time when Blacks and Woman did not have any rights and all the major politicians of those eras did not support it.

If you think about it how is this any different?

I hope that the Yes on 8 campaign just happens to be more vocal than the No on 8 campaign because all the signs I've seen around town are overwhelming Yes signs. Field Poll last polled at 49-44 against prop 8 with 7% undecided. Undecided voters are key as it is conventional wisdom that undecided voters tend to vote no on propositions as a matter of default.

the federal government of the United States doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriage. And a majority of you people are supporting someone who running for president that doesn't support gay marriage

Almost every state in the United States has some sort of law that bans same sex marriage.

In fact FL & AZ are also voting on the same thing...

I love that it's on the ballot in FL, it got all the gay democrats to come out and vote for Obama. It'll be great if they outlaw something that was already illegal here but loose the state in the presidential race.

I don't really think the government should sponsor ANY marriage.

the federal government of the United States doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriage. And a majority of you people are supporting someone who running for president that doesn't support gay marriage

Almost every state in the United States has some sort of law that bans same sex marriage.

In fact FL & AZ are also voting on the same thing...

Monte, Obama endorses No on prop 8 as does the governor.

Even then, I don't see what other states have to do with this state's initiatives.

Thankfully it seems to be gods plan for Monte to never find a mate and have children.

I don't really think the government should sponsor ANY marriage.

You don't think the government should give incentives to people who want a strong family structure, of which marriage would appear to be an inherent part?

what are you trying say, almost every state allowed slavery at one point, it doesnt make it right.


Do you realize there was also a time when Blacks and Woman did not have any rights and all the major politicians of those eras did not support it.

If you think about it how is this any different?


THESE.

fucking fuck! what the fuck is wrong with fucking people get so fucking offending by the thought of gay people have equal fucking rights.

GOD FUCKING DAMMIT.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Thankfully it seems to be gods plan for Monte to never find a mate and have children.

o i keep lots of secrets away from Netphoria. I don't believe that I must tell you everything

On another note, all you people do is dog pile. You can't at least see why I believe one way

go nuts people.. i am done discussing it.

the federal government of the United States doesn't recognize Same Sex Marriage......

.

o i keep lots of secrets away from netphoria

we all know youre a fag

we all know youre a fag

And you are for gay marriage and you use such hateful anti-gay words.. :erm:

And you are for gay marriage and you use such hateful anti-gay words.. :erm:

na, only towards you

You don't think the government should give incentives to people who want a strong family structure, of which marriage would appear to be an inherent part?

Yeah, giving incentives to people who want a strong family structure has really worked at this point, hasn't it?

If people want to get married, let them go to whatever church/institution they please with whoever they please. I don't agree with gay marriage <i>for Catholics</i>, but if someone's not Catholic, who the hell am I to tell them they can't get married? What if, in their religious beliefs, it's perfectly fine?

It's a complicated personal subject, which the government shouldn't really have any hand in.

You can't at least see why I believe one way

You can start by replying to my posts. I've been addressing your points without insulting you. I've not seen one good reason to ban same sex marriage as long as straights allowed to marry.

o i keep lots of secrets away from Netphoria. I don't believe that I must tell you everything

On another note, all you people do is dog pile. You can't at least see why I believe one way

EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH ME.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF THESE PEOPLE?!?!?

fuck you, monte.

And you are for gay marriage and you use such hateful anti-gay words.. :erm:

many gays themselves call each other fags quite often, Monte. It's only the meaning you choose to put behind the word that can make it hateful. Sticks & Stones and all that shit.

Yeah, giving incentives to people who want a strong family structure has really worked at this point, hasn't it?

If people want to get married, let them go to whatever church/institution they please with whoever they please. I don't agree with gay marriage <i>for Catholics</i>, but if someone's not Catholic, who the hell am I to tell them they can't get married? What if, in their religious beliefs, it's perfectly fine?

It's a complicated personal subject, which the government shouldn't really have any hand in.

Well the church does not give people tax incentives, estate planning and other government benefits. And yes I believe these things help by giving incentive couples stay together which in helps children which studies have show benefit by having two parental units.

All I can say is that here in Canada there has been gay marriage for a couple years now. When this happened the world didn't come to an end. It also didn't diminish marriage for hetro couples, thousands of hetro couples continue to get married every year and it doesn't mean any less to them.

Its really a non-issue.

Well the church does not give people tax incentives, estate planning and other government benefits. And yes I believe these things help by giving incentive couples stay together which in helps children which studies have show benefit by having two parental units.

If you say so. I don't think taxes incentives have a huge effect on couples staying together/getting married. If a couple is staying together, it's because they're trying their hardest to make it work for personal or religious reasons, not because they're afraid to lose their tax benefits.

Well it's just an added incentive. What's the harm of government offering these incentives anyway?

Mormons want to "protect" "marriage".
Hm...

You can start by replying to my posts. I've been addressing your points without insulting you. I've not seen one good reason to ban same sex marriage as long as straights allowed to marry.

i have a hard time ever being willing to talk to you because of the past.

I am not going give you my reasons, because you have heard them all. You just don't believe what I believe. That marriage is not a man made institution.

you seriously cannot argue with someone who's beliefs are illogical and based on mythology.

/end fucking thread

Mormons want to "protect" "marriage".
Hm...

What exactly is being "protected"?

If gay marriage exists how does that in any way change marriage for straight people? Its still exactly the same thing. It doesn't prevent hetro couples from still getting married and it doesn't feel any different or less special for that couple on that special day.

What exactly is being "protected"?

If gay marriage exists how does that in any way change marriage for straight people? Its still exactly the same thing. It doesn't prevent hetro couples from still getting married and it doesn't feel any different or less special for that couple on that special day.

no, it's not the same thing.

changing "marriage" from the union of a man and woman, no matter how insincere or messed up their motives for being married are, would be altering a divine institution and therefore incur the wrath of god on all of us.

it makes perfect sense.

i voted NO and then sucked off a guy on the street campaigning

:rockon:

i have a hard time ever being willing to talk to you because of the past.

I am not going give you my reasons, because you have heard them all. You just don't believe what I believe. That marriage is not a man made institution.

are you saying that the only real marriage is the one defined by the judeo-christian god and all other forms should be banned from America?????

EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH ME.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF THESE PEOPLE?!?!?

fuck you, monte.
The majority of the country agrees with him on this one. This is another example of Netphoria being out of touch with the mainstream and then amazed and surprised when votes don't go its way.

Oh yeah, I voted No.. I think the government should stay out of marriage all together.

That marriage is not a man made institution.

if its a god made institution why does government have any right to step in anyways? why doesn't god keep gay people from getting married if he cares so much?

why does god allow gay people to be?

why does god allow gay people to be?

Free will.

Monte you are a living piece of shit. I hope that one lonely night, a vagrant bum jacks you off in your sleep.

.

i'm really just starting to come to terms with the fact that the guy (monte) isn't awful. he's just been brainwashed. and doesn't care.

oh COME ON. How can you not express a little :erm: with this? This is precisely the kind of evil government shit you, supposedly, hate.

In your view it's wrong for the government to tax income but you won't show any public concern for the government restricting gay rights.
did you miss the part where i said i voted no on 8

Free will.

na, i got your edit, theyre tempted by satan, right?

na, theyre tempted by satan, right?
Which plays into free will. At least that's the proper religious answer to the question that was posed.

did you miss the part where i said i voted no on 8

i did. sorry. You had me really concerned.

i did. sorry. You had me really concerned.

I was just trying to express that although everyone seems to be against Monte on this issue and are calling him crazy and off-base etc, his view is actually the majority view in the US.

I was just trying to express that although everyone seems to be against Monte on this issue and are calling him crazy and off-base etc, his view is actually the majority view in the US.

his opinion is still crazy and ignorant.

the smartest thing for the gay community to do would be to embrace civil unions as a compromise to get what they need and just have a bit of patience for this country to grow up a bit.

wow. you're a goddamn genius.

wow. you're a goddamn genius.

me? Sarcasm??

i have a hard time ever being willing to talk to you because of the past.

I am not going give you my reasons, because you have heard them all. You just don't believe what I believe. That marriage is not a man made institution.

I have heard your reasons and I've responded to them with civility in a recent thread on the general chat board (can't remember which thread) but you did not respond back. If you have beliefs you should be able to defend them.

It is fine for one person to have beliefs and someone else to have different beliefs, as you say. A problem only arises when one person's belief infringes on another person's right which is what proposition 8 does.

the smartest thing for the gay community to do would be to embrace civil unions as a compromise to get what they need and just have a bit of patience for this country to grow up a bit.

No important social reforms were accomplished by sitting and waiting for the rest of the country to "grow up." they were all done through activism. Civil unions for gays are the result of a decades long battle for recognitition and equality and the dirty work by activists who don't subscribe to your sit and wait philosopgy.

The majority of the country agrees with him on this one. This is another example of Netphoria being out of touch with the mainstream and then amazed and surprised when votes don't go its way.

So what you're saying is most of the country is as ignorant as Monte? I knew that. Was that supposed to be an argument against something? I can still be amazed at monumental ignorance. It's quite a thing to behold.

No important social reforms were accomplished by sitting and waiting for the rest of the country to "grow up." they were all done through activism. Civil unions for gays are the result of a decades long battle for recognitition and equality and the dirty work by activists who don't subscribe to your sit and wait philosopgy.

in no way was I shitting on activism or telling gays to 'be quiet' and wait.


geez. :think:

So what you're saying is most of the country is as ignorant as Monte? I knew that. Was that supposed to be an argument against something? I can still be amazed at monumental ignorance. It's quite a thing to behold.

I don't think ignorance is the proper word here.

in no way was I shitting on activism or telling gays to 'be quiet' and wait.


geez. :think:

Yes it was exactly what you were saying now go make like your screen name and get hit by a car.

I don't think ignorance is the proper word here.

Really? I think it's an apt description. I think its an ignorance of homosexuality that leads many to believe gays getting married means children will turn gay, that heterosexuality will be rendered meaninless and that God is going to send hurricanes to California.

Yes it was exactly what you were saying now go make like your screen name and get hit by a car.


are you serious??? Oh give me a break. You and I have been on the same side of most issues here. I agree Gay Marriage is absolutely fine and dandy. I have a slightly less aggressive view on how to get there and you want to throw stones.

Relax my fellow Obama fan.

Really? I think it's an apt description. I think its an ignorance of homosexuality that leads many to believe gays getting married means children will turn gay, that heterosexuality will be rendered meaninless and that God is going to send hurricanes to California.
I don't think that's necessarily what everyone who is against gay marriage thinks. I think there are disagreements on the fundamentals of the correctness of homosexual marriage, but I think we too quickly jump to brand people "ignorant" who disagree with us on these issues.

but I think we too quickly jump to brand people "ignorant" who disagree with us on these issues.

you mean like 18-25 year olds?

you mean like 18-25 year olds?
Lack of experience breeds ignorance. An issue can be studied and a different result found but that doesn't suggest ignorance.

It's a complicated personal subject, which the government shouldn't really have any hand in.

what if you don't believe in any god, but you want to get married? what kind of marriage will you go for then?

Lack of experience breeds ignorance.


What's Mccain's excuse?:eek:



sorry I just had to.

so if i understand right, a lot of you people find McCain & Obama as ignorant because they don't support Same Sex Marriage

so if i understand right, a lot of you people find McCain & Obama as ignorant because they don't support Same Sex Marriage

Oh please we all know Obama doesn't support it because he can't win if he does.

but if he really does think that then yes his view would be ignorant.

so if i understand right, a lot of you people find McCain & Obama as ignorant because they don't support Same Sex Marriage

I don't know if both men are truly against gay marriage because they are running for president and it would be politically unpopular to endorse same sex marriage. Obama however is against prop 8 like I told you before but you seem to ignore.

I should clarify when I say ignorant, I simply mean ignorant on this particular issue. But educated people tend to tolerate same sex marriage.

The majority of the country agrees with him on this one. This is another example of Netphoria being out of touch with the mainstream and then amazed and surprised when votes don't go its way.

Its okay that the people here are for their cause, but i just wish some people were a bit more civil about it.

As for Andrew question about thinking prop 8 not passing is going be the end of the world the answer of course is not going be the end of the world. But if that was the only reason to ever take a stand. Then morals are of little to no worth

Its okay that the people here are for their cause, but i just wish some people were a bit more civil about it.

As for Andrew question about thinking prop 8 not passing is going be the end of the world the answer of course is not going be the end of the world. But if that was the only reason to ever take a stand. Then morals are of little to no worth

there is nothing immoral about same sex people falling in love and wanting to make it a legally recognized relationship.

there is nothing immoral about same sex people falling in love and wanting to make it a legally recognized relationship.

Civil Unions are in place

Civil Unions are in place

Not the same. This issue is about legal status.

California's constitution forbids the state to allow one group of people to obtain one legal status and then deny another group of people the opportunity to obtain that same legal status.

It would be so much easier if you would divide marriage into two parts, one legal, one religious. No one cares about the Mormons' stance on gay marriage.

It would be so much easier if you would divide marriage into two parts, one legal, one religious. No one cares about the Mormons' stance on gay marriage.

there is. You can be married by the court and others with no religious element at all. Monte seems to think gays can't do this without breaking so divine moral code.

Civil Unions are in place

so that's not immoral but when the government or the couple looks at it and says their married then its against the will of a holy god.

Don't be mean, monte.

so funny to watch a gay twink argue about banning gay marriage

fuck monte and fuck all the mormons from utah who sponsored this bs ad campaign that has caused rioting and accidents from people picketing. fuck its fucking annoying

Prop 8 is killing right now.

Wow.

fuck this state!! all you old farts!!

I'm not gay but I'm thinking about having some homo anal sex and wishing upon a star right now... I mean really, who gives a flying fuck??? I can't imagine caring about this issue on the con side unless you truly have hate in your heart and are more than a little convinced that you might like your balls tickled by another dude (maybe just a little bit... )

Wait, what? People are actually voting for this? No fucking way.

voting and winning, but a lot of liberal areas are left uncounted

i don't care about ever getting married again, but it's pretty fucked up to think that people like monte could keep me from doing so if I wanted to.

Ban Same Sex Marriage 3017 of 25429 Precincts Reporting
V% Votes
Yes 54% 1,778,601
No 46% 1,501,622

It's still early. I'm holding out that as more votes come in from Alameda, Contra Costa, SF and all the bay area counties the numbers will tighten. It really comes down to LA county which by far has the most votes but I'm not very optimistic.

fuck we just need all these old homophobes to hurry up and die off already.

And a massive generation gap: the under-30s voted for marriage equality by 67 to 31 percent. The over 65s voted for discrimination by 57 - 43 percent.

excellent.. mormons wasted 20 million .. i wonder how many starving children that could feed .. i understand being for traditional marriage but what a misdirected way to use your energy

fuck we just need all these old homophobes to hurry up and die off already.

And a massive generation gap: the under-30s voted for marriage equality by 67 to 31 percent. The over 65s voted for discrimination by 57 - 43 percent.

blacks were also disproportionately in favor of prop 8 compared to other ethnicities. its trailing among whites, pretty even among latinos and asians, but right now 79% of black females and 68% of black males are voting yes on it. i was afraid of this when i saw blacks were coming out in droves to vote for obama. i imagine some kind of backlash but it isn't really fair since blacks make up less than 10% of CA's population. the blame goes to old people.

the old people is what made Prop 2 pass here in Texas a few years ago

well.

this puts a significant damper on my evening.

where are you guys seeing these numbers

Its really a non-issue.

this.

also

monte, YOU are a dog pile. you and your people

for euglogy

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory?view=8&tab=0&fnum=0

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/

this says it's going down, but it's exit polls.

fuck you monte.

thanks guys.

i don't even live on california. but.

yeah.

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.


...i mean. wtf. ugh.

:(

i'm going to have gay sex in a mormon temple before i die.

MARK IT. THE FUCK. DOWN.

at least Obama mentioned gays in his speech. =/

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.


...i mean. wtf. ugh.

Did it really take you this long to figure out blacks hate gays?

Did it really take you this long to figure out blacks hate gays?

well no, i guess not.

but to see it in practice on a night like this is slightly jarring.

Did it really take you this long to figure out blacks hate gays?

this is funny, because the biggest gay club in my city is the most ghetto place i've ever been. there are 20 black queers to every white one there.

this is pretty f'd up

The old people is what made Prop 2 pass here in Texas a few years ago.

I think mean every county except Travis County is what made Prop 2 pass in Texas.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/

this says it's going down, but it's exit polls.

The problem with this is I think there's a bit of Bradley Effect situation going on. People may be telling pollsters they are against prop 8 as to not seem bigoted but secretly vote yes for it, although being anti gay marriage isn't really considered a politically incorrect stance in this current cultural climate so I don't really know if that is even a factor.

Bone dumb Los Angeles County is sinking the No on 8 effort.

It passed here in Florida by the way. 63%

goddamn it we have a long fucking way to go.

so what happens to all the gay people who got married in los angeles before this?

I think that there marriage is terminated? fucked up

that is pretty fucked....

i am done discussing it.

Hi my name is Monte, black people in my religion don't go to my heaven, they go to separate one cause my religion don't believe blacks and whites should mix up there in my utopic Zion. The founding fathers of my religion were heavily persecuted because they enjoyed their polygymist marriages, and were driven out of their settlements or killed. I'm carrying on the same traditions as the people who persecuted Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, cause I roll like that and I'm fucking cool. Marriage is sacred and awesome and should be with men and women cause I say so, and your marriage needs to be sacred like I think it should be.

I'm a close minded asshole, who lives in another century.

Monte

how many signatures does it take to get something on the ballot in CA

5% of voters in the most recent election for governor?

you guys should try to make it illegal for mormons to get married to protect gay marriage

yeah didn't they start their own state to flee persecution for their polygamous tradition?

anyway, i don't think i've seen an endorsement from ryan patrick this whole election season. did bob barr get your vote.

I was just trying to express that although everyone seems to be against Monte on this issue and are calling him crazy and off-base etc, his view is actually the majority view in the US.

Oh, I know it is. It's just....his display on this board has been annoying. He's purposeful about it too. Of course he has his right to his opinions and his choices, but it still doesn't make it less disgusting.

Way to sour things you Californian bastards :(

Damn mormons.

yeah didn't they start their own state to flee persecution for their polygamous tradition?

anyway, i don't think i've seen an endorsement from ryan patrick this whole election season. did bob barr get your vote.

nah bob barr is a jackass

*Monte victory dance*

mormons are dumb

Leave it to California to fuck up a good night.

Hi my name is Monte, black people in my religion don't go to my heaven, they go to separate one cause my religion don't believe blacks and whites should mix up there in my utopic Zion. The founding fathers of my religion were heavily persecuted because they enjoyed their polygymist marriages, and were driven out of their settlements or killed. I'm carrying on the same traditions as the people who persecuted Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, cause I roll like that and I'm fucking cool. Marriage is sacred and awesome and should be with men and women cause I say so, and your marriage needs to be sacred like I think it should be.

I'm a close minded asshole, who lives in another century.

Monte

You are such a dumb fucking cunt for slamming one person for this. Obviously it took a bunch of Obama voters to down this as well. There are a ton of good reasons for voting against this measure. The people don't want this, let it die.

There are a ton of good reasons for voting against this measure. The people don't want this, let it die.

please tell me what those reasons are.

i hate this argument. "people don't want it!"

if i could get enough people behind a law that says all mormons must be lynched by angry mobs, should that be ok then?

"There are a ton of good reasons for voting against this measure"

what?

changing california's constitution to specifically take away someone's rights? That is disgusting.

the mormons are onto the ultimate goal of the GAY AGENDA

turning EVERYONE gay.

damn.

please tell me what those reasons are.

i hate this argument. "people don't want it!"

if i could get enough people behind a law that says all mormons must be lynched by angry mobs, should that be ok then?

A left-leaning state shoots this down and you have no idea why? It's not that tough to figure out. Gays, lesbians, and their supporters give off a very angry and bitter vibe to most Americans, including those who are really indifferent to whether or not they marry. As long as you continue to have this perceived anger, youll be viewed as trying to force this onto society. People don't want courts to radically change their laws, they want to do it at their own convenience. Until you learn how to communicate better and be able to rationally debate why it is you need to have this right, most people, including liberals, are going to put their guard up.

Personally, I think gays are more obsessed with the ceremony of marriage rather than the sanctity of it. Gays and lesbians watch their hetero friends having fun planning these extravagant weddings, with all the attention placed on the couple, and they just get insanely jealous. Don't tell me jealousy doesn't play into this at all Eulogy.

wow.

you're an awful, awful person.

i ask for the good reasons behind it and you give me "gays are angry?"

should gays (in california especially) not be angry that this happened? that their marriages are invalidated largely because church groups from out-of-state donated money for a completely secular purpose?

gays aren't asking to be married by catholic and mormon churches. i do not understand the objections. they are nonsensical.

"Take the discrimination with a smile. Eventually we'll come around!"

Personally, I think gays are more obsessed with the ceremony of marriage rather than the sanctity of it. Gays and lesbians watch their hetero friends having fun planning these extravagant weddings, with all the attention placed on the couple, and they just get insanely jealous. Don't tell me jealousy doesn't play into this at all Eulogy.

Also, what is this supposed to prove?

LOL, the blacks were just jealous of the people in the front of the bus. tee hee.

A left-leaning state shoots this down and you have no idea why? It's not that tough to figure out. Gays, lesbians, and their supporters give off a very angry and bitter vibe to most Americans, including those who are really indifferent to whether or not they marry. As long as you continue to have this perceived anger, youll be viewed as trying to force this onto society. People don't want courts to radically change their laws, they want to do it at their own convenience. Until you learn how to communicate better and be able to rationally debate why it is you need to have this right, most people, including liberals, are going to put their guard up.

Personally, I think gays are more obsessed with the ceremony of marriage rather than the sanctity of it. Gays and lesbians watch their hetero friends having fun planning these extravagant weddings, with all the attention placed on the couple, and they just get insanely jealous. Don't tell me jealousy doesn't play into this at all Eulogy.

First paragraph. Ok they are angry and you don't like the tone. Sure it would be nicer if they were nicer but in the big picture of the issue so what?

Second paragraph. A BIG SO FUCKING WHAT???


What the hell do these two things have to do with the overall issue?

Blaming this loss on "the Mormons" or "religious whackos" is shortsighted. All the mormons and religious nuts in California couldn't get anything passed without regular everyday Californians voting the same way. That's what happened, and the fact that it happened in the most liberal state should tell you something.

what should it tell us, nimrod?

Blaming this loss on "the Mormons" or "religious whackos" is shortsighted. All the mormons and religious nuts in California couldn't get anything passed without regular everyday Californians voting the same way. That's what happened, and the fact that it happened in the most liberal state should tell you something.

this is true. It is a generational thing and this country is not ready.

Personally, I think gays are more obsessed with the ceremony of marriage rather than the sanctity of it.

Please. If we're going to start making this about the 'sanctity' of marriage, maybe instead of banning marriage for gay couples, we should start banning divorces for straight ones.

And 'sanctity' is a non-issue, because this is about law and not the religious significance of marriage to faith-based groups.

Guys, you need to realize the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. You can argue and argue about why they think that, but it doesn't stop them.

Please. If we're going to start making this about the 'sanctity' of marriage, maybe instead of banning marriage for gay couples, we should start banning divorces for straight ones.



bingo. this right here.

i cannot take anyone seriously who tries to talk to me about the sanctity of marriage when i see billboards for "The Divorce Store" and hear about how things "just didn't work out."

you know what? you chose to be united before the state and the "eyes of God." you don't get to just say, "oops!"

divorce should undergo the same scrutiny that abortion does.

Guys, you need to realize the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. You can argue and argue about why they think that, but it doesn't stop them.

When California lifted the ban on interracial marriage, polling showed at the time that the majority did not want interracial marriage.

Guys, you need to realize the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. You can argue and argue about why they think that, but it doesn't stop them.

so i should be more upset then?

sorry mormons, a good portion of the rest of the population sucks just as hard as you. just without the fundraising and propaganda pushing efforts.

When California lifted the ban on interracial marriage, polling showed at the time that the majority did not want interracial marriage.

not exactly the same but your point still stands.

Guys, you need to realize the majority of Americans do not want gay marriage. You can argue and argue about why they think that, but it doesn't stop them.

old people just need to die. not that ONLY old people support this, but they put prop 8 over the top.

When California lifted the ban on interracial marriage, polling showed at the time that the majority did not want interracial marriage.

Your point stands - but if they keep calling for ballot measures it will fail repeatedly.

looks like business will boom in Canada.

so monte, tell me, how much different will california be, for the better, now that this proposition has passed?

Your point stands - but if they keep calling for ballot measures it will fail repeatedly.

i hope it is called for a ballot again and again.

intolerance cannot last forever.

i hope it is called for a ballot again and again.

intolerance cannot last forever.

They need to find a way to amend the constitution without putting it on the ballot. :)

you mean with the supreme court and all of that?

OMG

what should it tell us, nimrod?
How completely out of touch you are with the electorate.

old people just need to die. not that ONLY old people support this, but they put prop 8 over the top.
It is this attitude that keeps things the way they are. Instead of just thinking that "old people need to die" there need to be better compelling arguments FOR a measure rather than "Vote for this or you're a bigot and a hater" which is the only real argument I saw for Prop 8 in ads. I know a number of people who were offended by that because essentially they're calling someone's mom or brother a bigot.

i don't think it was completely out of line to expect what is understood to be one of, if not the most liberal states in the country to maybe pass a progressive initiative.

if we were talking about Montana, i'd be with you all the way.

but California? s'a bit harder to swallow.

you mean with the supreme court and all of that?

OMG
... the Surpreme Court can't amend the Constitution.... :erm:

i don't think it was completely out of line to expect what is understood to be one of, if not the most liberal states in the country to maybe pass a progressive initiative.

if we were talking about Montana, i'd be with you all the way.

but California? s'a bit harder to swallow.
The fact that it *was* California I think illustrates the point better than anything.

It is this attitude that keeps things the way they are. Instead of just thinking that "old people need to die" there need to be better compelling arguments FOR a measure rather than "Vote for this or you're a bigot and a hater" which is the only real argument I saw for Prop 8 in ads. I know a number of people who were offended by that because essentially they're calling someone's mom or brother a bigot.

what are they then, because the protecting the kids thing is complete bullshit. of course they are going to have different attitudes, but probably a lot more open minded ones.

I guess the whole discrimination argument isnt compelling enough/ advertised enough.

... the Surpreme Court can't amend the Constitution.... :erm:

being sarcastic... :erm:

:erm:

this is true. It is a generational thing and this country is not ready.

Old people just arent dying quick enough.

its sad that the majority of people in the nation still think like this

there really isnt a need to pigeonhole a group of people to pushing it over the edge, its just a problem in general still. its just kind of a bummer..

Old people just arent dying quick enough.

Good thing Washington's helping that cause.

It is this attitude that keeps things the way they are. Instead of just thinking that "old people need to die" there need to be better compelling arguments FOR a measure rather than "Vote for this or you're a bigot and a hater" which is the only real argument I saw for Prop 8 in ads. I know a number of people who were offended by that because essentially they're calling someone's mom or brother a bigot.

The Yes on 8 campaign ran a very dishonest and exploitative campaign. It used distortion to prey on people's fears. The traditional marriage people don't have any moral high ground to stand on. So you're wrong that mudflinging will not move people because it certainly moved people to pass prop 8.

The Yes on 8 campaign ran a very dishonest and exploitative campaign. It used distortion to prey on people's fears. The traditional marriage people don't have any moral high ground to stand on. So you're wrong that mudflinging will not move people because it certainly moved people to pass prop 8.

I never said mudslinging or distorting facts can't help pass something. But "vote for this or you're a bigot" is not a good tactic and obviously didn't work.

The only reason this passed is because Obama drove the Hispanic and black vote and those two groups disproportionately voted yes vs. white voters.

So I feel quite comfortable blaming something on racial minorities this time without being flip or apologetic about it.

people are clearly okay with being bigots.

To me, the most compelling argument against a gay marriage amendment and that amendments to constitutions are generally for outlining the rights of the people while laws exist to restrict people's rights within those bounds.

Also the divorce rate does more to destroy the sanctity of marriage then gays do. Marriage as the state sees it is a contractual agreement and to bar people from having that opportunity because the most they can give birth to is a cum filled turd...is dumb.

hateful:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_10905770

Around 4 p.m., a man in his 20s holding a "Yes on 8" sign crossed the street and attacked a 17-year-old girl opposing the proposition, knocking her down and striking her in the head, San Mateo police Lt. Mike Brunicardi said.

A man then ran up and spit in the girl's face, police said. Meanwhile, a passer-by attempted to help break up the altercation but was punched in the face by a 16-year-old boy, Brunicardi said.

I just don't understand how the religious right has managed to hijack the issue of gay marriage and make it into some sort of 'sanctity' thing and somehow have that resonate with the public. At the legal level, marriage is just a contract. I understand that very few people get married because of tax benefits, and that the fervor for 'protecting the sanctity of marriage' is for religious reasons, but that is not what is being legislated here. If you can start a business with someone of the same sex, if you can buy a car from someone of the same, if you can enter any other sort of legally binding contract with someone of the same sex - then why not marriage?

If any two consenting parties over the age of majority want to share property, have power of attorney in situations where the other is incapacitated, have hopsital visiting rights, and so on, why is that such a threat to people who already enjoy all those benefits? I am challenging anybody on this board who voted Yes on Proposition 8 to tell me why we should be legislating something so exclusionary when from a legal standpoint, there seems to be no ill effects on heterosexual couples who are already allowed all these benefits. Outside of religious beliefs, which have no place in law, give me one good reason why we should exclude two consenting adults from entering a contract of marriage.

because two peepees or two vajayjays will be touching. (no homo)

hateful:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_10905770

Around 4 p.m., a man in his 20s holding a "Yes on 8" sign crossed the street and attacked a 17-year-old girl opposing the proposition, knocking her down and striking her in the head, San Mateo police Lt. Mike Brunicardi said.

A man then ran up and spit in the girl's face, police said. Meanwhile, a passer-by attempted to help break up the altercation but was punched in the face by a 16-year-old boy, Brunicardi said.

Yeah there was an article here about some guy who beat up an 80-something year old man because of his Yes on 8 signs. This whole thing was totally out of control.

last night as i was out stand side by side with a guy who had a NO on 8 sign and myself with my YES on 8 sign we both were disappointed that people were resorting to violence, stealing signs and defacing property, and hateful name calling.

Also the divorce rate does more to destroy the sanctity of marriage ... Bingo. There is no sanctity of marriage anymore since more than 50 percent of all married couples will be divorced.

so monte, tell me, how much different will california be, for the better, now that this proposition has passed?

The state has always had a policy of none same sex marriage. Only recently had that law been overturned. With it passing it will be just as where we were and always should be. Although millions will disagree millions will agree. its a very split state on this issue

the vote counting process though isn't over. I am optimistically cautions about the outcome.

has this been posted... ?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q28UwAyzUkE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q28UwAyzUkE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

LIKE CALIFORNIA HAS NO BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN GAYS GETTING MARRIED.
You fucking bigot hater.

The state has always had a policy of none same sex marriage. Only recently had that law been overturned. With it passing it will be just as where we were and always should be. Although millions will disagree millions will agree. its a very split state on this issue. But, Monte, states had a policy for years and years and years of discriminating against blacks and women. That changed through incredibly tough times and was obviously the correct move. Do you not believe this, possibly, could be the case in this circumstance?

I am optimistically cautions about the outcome.
hehe

The state has always had a policy of none same sex marriage. Only recently had that law been overturned. With it passing it will be just as where we were and always should be. Although millions will disagree millions will agree. its a very split state on this issue

OK, but since you're the expert on why gay marriage is damaging, can you be the one to respond to my challenge above and tell me why two consenting adults can enter any other kind of legal agreement in your state without problem, and why the legal agreement of marriage should be any different whatsoever? Keep in mind that lots of people a few decades back thought banning interracial marriage was 'where it always should be' but it was considered to be unconstitutional from a purely legal standpoint.

sppunk, this is an issue for the state of CA not a federal law.

and just as i stood with a number of No on 8 people i explained that I am for keeping marriage as it is defined. I personally don't understand why civil unions don't have the same rights. especially since CU were added later on.

I voted to protect what marriage is and not what people think it should be. Respect it or just keep going the low road and hate me for it

OK, but since you're the expert on why gay marriage is damaging,

I never said that it was. I am defending the term marriage.

How completely out of touch you are with the electorate.

again, this means absolutely nothing. i don't care how "out-of-touch" I am with people who refuse to deny me a basic right on a ridiculously flimsy basis. and spare me the idea that i have the same rights because i can marry a woman. i guess it holds water logically, but come on.

again, just because a majority thinks it's ok does not mean that it's ok.

I never said that it was. I am defending the term marriage.

why?

sppunk, this is an issue for the state of CA not a federal law.

and just as i stood with a number of No on 8 people i explained that I am for keeping marriage as it is defined. I personally don't understand why civil unions don't have the same rights. especially since CU were added later on.

I voted to protect what marriage is and not what people think it should be. Respect it or just keep going the low road and hate me for it

do you not understand how it essentially deems homosexual relationships not-as-legitimate? even if the only difference is the language, it's a difference. and it's unfair, and it's wrong.

look, no gays are asking to be married in the mormon or catholic churches. that's where the religious involvement should end.

I just don't understand how the religious right has managed to hijack the issue of gay marriage and make it into some sort of 'sanctity' thing and somehow have that resonate with the public. At the legal level, marriage is just a contract. I understand that very few people get married because of tax benefits, and that the fervor for 'protecting the sanctity of marriage' is for religious reasons, but that is not what is being legislated here. If you can start a business with someone of the same sex, if you can buy a car from someone of the same, if you can enter any other sort of legally binding contract with someone of the same sex - then why not marriage?

If any two consenting parties over the age of majority want to share property, have power of attorney in situations where the other is incapacitated, have hopsital visiting rights, and so on, why is that such a threat to people who already enjoy all those benefits? I am challenging anybody on this board who voted Yes on Proposition 8 to tell me why we should be legislating something so exclusionary when from a legal standpoint, there seems to be no ill effects on heterosexual couples who are already allowed all these benefits. Outside of religious beliefs, which have no place in law, give me one good reason why we should exclude two consenting adults from entering a contract of marriage.

I've only skimmed the thread so I dunno if this has already been expressed or not, but just from my experience and all the ads I've seen, the religious right did not win with the message of "protecting marriage or its sanctity". They successfully turned this issue into "stop schools from teaching kids how to be gay", "protect the kids", "protect families."

sppunk, this is an issue for the state of CA not a federal law.

and just as i stood with a number of No on 8 people i explained that I am for keeping marriage as it is defined. I personally don't understand why civil unions don't have the same rights. especially since CU were added later on.

I voted to protect what marriage is and not what people think it should be. Respect it or just keep going the low road and hate me for it

Monte, I don't hate you for your opinion. I hate you for withholding your videos.

You have to understand that in supporting Proposition 8, you are not defending the term 'marriage'. What you are doing is suggesting that the state should be legislating that the legal status of marriage should be withheld based on the status of the sex of the two parties, a class which is protected at the state and federal levels. From a purely legal standpoint, how can you argue that this status should not be able to be conferred to any two consenting adults? Regardless of how you FEEL about the issue, how can you argue that any legal agreement discriminating on the basis of the sex of the two parties involved is Constitutional?

I've only skimmed the thread so I dunno if this has already been expressed or not, but just from my experience and all the ads I've seen, the religious right did not win with the message of "protecting marriage or its sanctity". They successfully turned this issue into "stop schools from teaching kids how to be gay", "protect the kids", "protect families."

Yes. I was speaking in broader terms, but this was unfortunately a very effective part of their message.

you guys aren't going to get anywhere with this argument.

you're not going to garner some new level of understanding from whatever asinine explanation monte sincerely gives you.

for the time being, civil unions it is. as unfair, unequal and closeminded as it is...

on to the next challenge, seriously....

:(

I know dude, but I really want Monte to at least try to give me an answer. I don't expect to change any minds. And as far as 'civil unions' go, I understand they don't carry the same rights as marriage. And if they did, our country has a precedent of striking down institutions that are "Separate but Equal" as being unlawful.

you guys aren't going to get anywhere with this argument.

you're not going to garner some new level of understanding from whatever asinine explanation monte sincerely gives you.

for the time being, civil unions it is. as unfair, unequal and closeminded as it is...

on to the next challenge, seriously....

:(

on to the next challenge, same as the old challenge.

you're absolutely right.

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

</>

yeah dude we know what it said

I never said that it was. I am defending the term marriage.
That entire post was filled with pertinent questions, all of which you've ignored. How do expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you can't even give answers that would shed light on your stance. The likeliest reason is that's you've never even asked these critical questions to yourself knowing that in any context that could be considered at all realistic, your stance on this issue boils down to gay people making you feel icky.

That entire post was filled with pertinent questions, all of which you've ignored. How do expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you can't even give answers that would shed light on your stance. The likeliest reason is that's you've never even asked these critical questions to yourself knowing that in any context that could be considered at all realistic, your stance on this issue boils down to gay people making you feel icky.

this is not a debate. there is no debate that is going sway me on what i believe marriage is.

The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

[....]

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

So, Monte, tell us - what's next on the Mormons' God-given agenda?

this is not a debate. there is no debate that is going sway me on what i believe marriage is.

but it is a debate on whether or not you get to impose that belief on the legal system of california.

someone tell him to read my posts now because i'm being civil

this is not a debate. there is no debate that is going sway me on what i believe marriage is.

You seem to be the kind of person that doesn't believe in anything - you just repeat everything you've been told since you were a child.
But hey, it's so much more comfortable, isn't it?

fuck that.

i want to see him explain how the ACLU suit isn't going to fly.

: )

fuck that.

i want to see him explain how the ACLU suit isn't going to fly.

: )

well let's not get too excited here

imagine the pro-prop 8 shitstorm that is bound to develop now.

Monte is just a brainwashed dogmatic mormon, people. Get over it. He's happy within his collective ignorance and has no convincing reason to step out of his bubble.

Who the fuck cares what his ideas on these things are? He did a good job explaining his sect's posture on the matter, and that is all that is needed. It sucks that the petition won, but bashing Monty isn't going to help.

i'm excited by the fact that there is more to the story than just "oh noes!1 a bunch of people voted "yes" and it's over!"

this still has legs, and that's enough for me at this point.

yes, i'm completely changing my standpoint on this, but this is a different story. i should have more faith in our people.

um.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-11/43202678.jpg
Bob Knoke, of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield, of Monrovia, Jim Domen, of Yorba Linda, and J.D. Gaddis, of Yorba Linda, celebrate returns for Proposition 8 at an Irvine hotel. (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times / November 4, 2008)


wow

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV0m2gH8Hms&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SV0m2gH8Hms&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

[....]

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."
This suit is never going to fly. You can't compare a Constitutionally guaranteed right, like free speech with "the right to marry."

Jeez I am so tired of this fucking issue can't we at least wait until next year to address this again?

Monte is just a brainwashed dogmatic mormon, people. Get over it. He's happy within his collective ignorance and has no convincing reason to step out of his bubble.

Who the fuck cares what his ideas on these things are? He did a good job explaining his sect's posture on the matter, and that is all that is needed. It sucks that the petition won, but bashing Monty isn't going to help.

i can say whatever the fuck i want to monte

This suit is never going to fly. You can't compare a Constitutionally guaranteed right, like free speech with "the right to marry."

Jeez I am so tired of this fucking issue can't we at least wait until next year to address this again?

You're tired of this issue?






Seriously? and no. there should be absolutely no waiting.

So, Monte, tell us - what's next on the Mormons' God-given agenda?

polygamy durrr

Jeez I am so tired of this fucking issue

Splendid. I hope this means you will keep your asinine trolling out of every gay marriage thread now.

i can say whatever i want to monte

and i continue not to answer you.

Splendid. I hope this means you will keep your asinine trolling out of every gay marriage thread now.
The fuck are you talking about, trolling? I've been no on 8 from the get go. I just think there are so many more important things that Californians need to worry about than this.

and i continue not to answer you.

i made like 5 completely civil posts before that one. and that post wasn't even necessarily saying anything bad about you. come on, man. just get through this thread with me and then you can ignore me all you want.

The fuck are you talking about, trolling? I've been no on 8 from the get go. I just think there are so many more important things that Californians need to worry about than this.

dude you need to understand that there are other people with perspectives that differ vastly from yours.

like, you know, gay people. and it's not as though the world has to stop turning while this gets figured out either.

i can say whatever the fuck i want to monte
Yes you can. Joke fail.

I just think there are so many more important things that Californians need to worry about than this.

Just because there are other issues that affect the state on a more practical operational level doesn't mean that Prop 8 isn't a huge deal to a sizeable group of people who perceive it to be an affront on their civil rights. In any situation where somebody feels their civil rights might be threatened, this is something that calls for lengthy and serious discussion. If you're tired of the debate, then just recluse yourself from talking about it. Nobody is making you open this thread. Problem solved.

dude you need to understand that there are other people with perspectives that differ vastly from yours.

like, you know, gay people. and it's not as though the world has to stop turning while this gets figured out either.

yeah, but we're out of touch with the mainstream electorate.

so we wouldn't understand.

Just because there are other issues that affect the state on a more practical operational level doesn't mean that Prop 8 isn't a huge deal to a sizeable group of people who perceive it to be an affront on their civil rights. In any situation where somebody feels their civil rights might be threatened, this is something that calls for lengthy and serious discussion. If you're tired of the debate, then just recluse yourself from talking about it. Nobody is making you open this thread. Problem solved.

My point isn't threads on a messageboard, it's the tying up of the courts and money spent that could better be served elsewhere.

^I agree. All that money those mormons raised could have been spent on charities or other causes. Now we have to litigate all over again to right this wrong.

^I agree. All that money those mormons raised could have been spent on charities or other causes. Now we have to litigate all over again to right this wrong.Yes and no. Yes on wasted money by the YES ON 8 people, no on litigation being the cure to all of our woes.

You are such a dumb fucking cunt for slamming one person for this. Obviously it took a bunch of Obama voters to down this as well. There are a ton of good reasons for voting against this measure. The people don't want this, let it die.

You live in Ca Shawn? :rofl:

I voted to protect what marriage is and not what people think it should be. Respect it or just keep going the low road and hate me for it

The road of prejudice and bigotry isn't that high. I don't hate you, but I find your intolerance repulsive. You've brought it here and put it on display, knowing people would disagree, so don't whine and tell other people they are taking the low road for disagreeing with you.

If any two consenting parties over the age of majority want to share property, have power of attorney in situations where the other is incapacitated, have hopsital visiting rights, and so on, why is that such a threat to people who already enjoy all those benefits?

Why isn't a civil union, essentially a marriage in everything but name, enough if the issue is just about rights? Because, it appears there's more to it than that. And the further things go, the more and more it becomes apparent that the issue isn't really rights or equality (at least not anymore). It seems more about getting some kind of official validation of the homosexual lifestyle than anything else. And that is what a lot of the anti-gay marriage people ultimately take offense to, IMO. It's one thing to ask people to be tolerant of homosexuals and their lifestyle and allow them all the benefits of marriage if only under a different name. It's quite another to ask the government to essentially put a societal stamp of approval on homosexuality. I don't think it's difficult to see where people might have a problem with that.

Why isn't a civil union, essentially a marriage in everything but name, enough if the issue is just about rights? Because, it appears there's more to it than that. And the further things go, the more and more it becomes apparent that the issue isn't really rights or equality (at least not anymore). It seems more about getting some kind of official validation of the homosexual lifestyle than anything else. And that is what a lot of the anti-gay marriage people ultimately take offense to, IMO. It's one thing to ask people to be tolerant of homosexuals and their lifestyle and allow them all the benefits of marriage if only under a different name. It's quite another to ask the government to essentially put a societal stamp of approval on homosexuality. I don't think it's difficult to see where people might have a problem with that.

this is truth.

Civil unions provides you with the rights.. that is 99% of what is required in a just society.


calling a long term committment between homosexual partners marriage is going to take a long time for people to accept. It's not that hard to understand.

The real crime is people who wish to deny gay people all the rights of married heterosexual couples.

i do believe monte is trolling everyone

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q28UwAyzUkE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q28UwAyzUkE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Why isn't a civil union, essentially a marriage in everything but name, enough if the issue is just about rights? Because, it appears there's more to it than that. And the further things go, the more and more it becomes apparent that the issue isn't really rights or equality (at least not anymore). It seems more about getting some kind of official validation of the homosexual lifestyle than anything else. And that is what a lot of the anti-gay marriage people ultimately take offense to, IMO. It's one thing to ask people to be tolerant of homosexuals and their lifestyle and allow them all the benefits of marriage if only under a different name. It's quite another to ask the government to essentially put a societal stamp of approval on homosexuality. I don't think it's difficult to see where people might have a problem with that.

and what would be the problem with this stamp of approval? i'm not arguing that people wouldn't disagree with it, but those people would be wrong.

i'm so sick of the word "tolerance." i do nothing that needs anyone's "tolerance."

i don't want anyone promoting backward ideas that aren't their own just because there are a lot of people who do have those backward ideas.

so corganist, you're saying that same-sex marriages can't happen because the government shouldn't put a "stamp of approval" on homosexuals?

i'm surrounded by ideas like this constantly. and it never gets easier to understand.

it all grows out of bigotry, and to claim that it doesn't is to turn a total blind eye to the whole situation.

Why isn't a civil union, essentially a marriage in everything but name, enough if the issue is just about rights?

....It seems more about getting some kind of official validation of the homosexual lifestyle than anything else.

So, to me, this is how you're framing the issue: granting "marriage" status to homosexuals is approval of homosexuality. That's elevating marriage to some kind of qualifier. So by this logic, granting "civil union" status to homosexuals would be, incidentally, disapproval of homosexuality. Or if disapproval is too harsh a word, its "lesser" than heterosexuality. So it seems like either way you're going to offend someone. And last I checked in California attitudes toward homosexuality have evened out. While most don't approve of gay marriage, barely a majority of Californians aren't morally objected to homosexuality. So who do you please in this case?

Well it's not an easy choice so we just have to frame the issue differently. We cannot think of terms of society approving or disapproving of the homosexual lifestyle. Why not, other than the complexities it causes as I mentioned before? Because that postulation is inherently flawed. The mistake here is you used the word "lifestyle." Homosexuality is a natural, biological occurance that cannot be adopted just as one cannot adopt having blue eyes or curly hair. It is not a choice so now society cannot be asked to approve or disapprove; we must accept it as a fact of nature. So the qualifier/disqualifers in "marriage" and "civil union" become irrelevant as a matter of legal standing. (Keep in mind we are arguing legal statuses, not the "definition" of marriage.)

A gay man, by nature, can never love a woman the way marriage requests a man to love a woman. Thus it is the state's job to accomodate these differences in human sexuality by opening marriage to same sex couples.

sometimes i feel like i'm falling in love with julio all over again

so corganist, you're saying that same-sex marriages can't happen because the government shouldn't put a "stamp of approval" on homosexuals?

Regardless of whether people disapprove or approve of homosexuality, society at some point is going to have to accept it as something that occurs in nature, and thats the point Corganist really fails to acknowledge: state sanctioned same-sex marriage is not an approval of homosexuality, it's an acceptance of homosexuality.

and what would be the problem with this stamp of approval? i'm not arguing that people wouldn't disagree with it, but those people would be wrong.

There is no problem if the government wants to give that stamp of approval and has good reason to give it. But that doesn't mean that it's a moral imperative. If the issue is about letting homosexual couples have the same sort of legal rights as married couples, that's well and good. But if the issue is somehow using the government as a tool to basically tell people "you are gonna accept gays and like it" just to prop up the self esteem of homosexuals, then that's completely different. And like I said, the focus on redefining marriage even when offered essentially every benefit of it seems to suggest the agenda is the latter more than the former.

I understand that homosexuals want to have certain legal rights and be accepted in society. But unfortunately, there's only one of those things the government can do anything about in the short term.

someone's from Arkansas

Corganist how did you vote on initiative 1?

Corganist how did you vote on initiative 1?

I voted for it. Believe it or not, the main reason I did so was to prevent unmarried straight couples from adopting. I figure if people don't take their relationship serious enough to get married, then they probably don't take things seriously enough to adopt children. If the language of the bill was expressly aimed at banning only gay adoption, I would have voted no.

I voted for it.

Despicable.

Despicable.

Because I don't want any two yahoos who decide to shack up for a while to be able to adopt a kid together? It's not my fault it impacts gays more than straights. I voted against the gay marriage/civil union ban in 2004.

And like I said, the focus on redefining marriage even when offered essentially every benefit of it seems to suggest the agenda is the latter more than the former.

The same municipal water is flowing into the gay public water fountain and the straight public water fountain, and yet gays are still complaining! It's the same water!

I voted for it. Believe it or not, the main reason I did so was to prevent unmarried straight couples from adopting. I figure if people don't take their relationship serious enough to get married, then they probably don't take things seriously enough to adopt children. If the language of the bill was expressly aimed at banning only gay adoption, I would have voted no.

Jesus fucking Christ. Who the fuck are you to tell people how to validate their commitment to each other? Fucking fascist.

The same municipal water is flowing into the gay public water fountain and the straight public water fountain, and yet gays are still complaining! It's the same water!

Which is more important: being equal, or being considered equal?

It's possible to have one but not the other?

Jesus fucking Christ. Who the fuck are you to tell people how to validate their commitment to each other? Fucking fascist.

People can "validate their commitments" any way they want to. That doesn't mean we should hand a kid over to any two people who happen to live together at a certain time. A marriage isn't much of a "validation of commitment" anyway, but at least it's something.

It's possible to have one but not the other?

Probably in the short term. In an ideal world, of course you should have both ASAP. But which one would you rather have first?

Because I don't want any two yahoos who decide to shack up for a while to be able to adopt a kid together? It's not my fault it impacts gays more than straights. I voted against the gay marriage/civil union ban in 2004.

Hell, single people should be able to adopt.

And obviously any adoption agency is not going to give a child to some "yahoo." I would hope, for the sake of the children, they do rigorous background checks and intensive interview process. But if a person is qualified to adopt they should be able to adopt whether straight, gay, married, unmarried, single, whatever.

hey

Probably in the short term. In an ideal world, of course you should have both ASAP. But which one would you rather have first?



Are you saying gays should settle for civil unions for a few years, let that percolate in society's collective mind for a few years, and then try this whole "actual equality" thing again?