Originally posted by KidRock
Equality for who?
Originally posted by Robtard
http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385
Oh, the gays.
Re: Re: Proposition 8- Allowing gay marriage in Califorina
Originally posted by Quiero MotaNah its not legal here, yet. I hope that prop doesnt pass and i hope it never will. most of teh people who vote yes are scared because they think gay will be taught in schools, which they are mistaken because thats not even part of the prop.
Isn't it already legal there? So why's it even on the ballot?
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah. They're putting up those motion cameras that can video a face or a license plate, even in total darkness, from up to 200 feet away. When they're triggered they make an announcement that the person is being recorded and their picture has been sent to the police. This is in Los Angeles. They bought something like a dozen of them and said they have a conviction rate somewhere in the 80s. If I remember, they were debuted in another city and really helped and L.A. is going to try them out.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
The question is...Anyone sense a conspiracy as [b]Proposition 8
conveniently sounds like "Preparation H"?Well....anyone? [/B]
😆 😆 😆
Still, I would not vote...it isn't really the states responsibility to tell people who should get to form a civil union with. Grans should get to have them with their grandchildren. Sisters and brothers should be allowed also-
After all why should marriage be limited to people who love each other? If people want to take advantage of the financial and legal benefits of marriage- shouldn't they be allowed too?
Originally posted by Devil King
It's on the ballot to "eliminate" the right of same sex couples to marry.
I don't even know why gay couples would want to enter such institution as marriage.
By even wanting marriage, homosexual couples are adhering to hetrosxual norms.
I think homosexual couples should make up their own type of institution to celebrate homosexuality.
I don't know what that would look like, but I am sure someone out there might be already thinking of the same idea.
However, If homosexual couples want to be in a marriage, there is no plausable reason to deny them to.
(putting religion aside)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Is this one of these so called rights of the Constitution that your so found of?
No, it isn't a right. It's a symbolic issue. It's an issue that people have been lead to believe they have the right to grant or deny to certain people, while they themselves enjoy it. It's been brow-beaten into the people of this country that they have the say so on what rights are doled out to what people. This is not where those constitutional rights origniated, they didn't come from that piece of paper. Surely during our conversations you didn't assume I did. Those rights I'm so fond of are ours by virtue of existence, not because some one knocked on my neighbours door and asked him if he thought I should have a right he has simply by default. This isn't about the sanctity of marriage, not in a nation that could care less about it. It's about two political parties turning a personal and emotional issue into the chance for miserable, powerless people to have a teenytiny bit of power over another human being. That's why people get hate crimed for being gay. It isn't because god says it's wrong, it's because some thug decided he wanted to show his power over someone else. Every citizen in this state that votes yes to this is commiting their own little hate crime. Every citizen in this country that votes against equal rights for anyone else is commiting their own little hate crime. THAT should be illegal; turning another human being's rights in to the national plaything of bigots.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think homosexual couples should make up their own type of institution to celebrate homosexuality.
I don't know what that would look like, but I am sure someone out there might be already thinking of the same idea.
It would add another divine between them and other people (plus it seems really dickish). There's also the fact that if gays invented their own form of marriage is would essentially admit that marriage is only for heteroseuxals. The principal of marriage is much more important than the act.
Originally posted by Robtard
Constitution aside, marriage is still a right granted to one group and denied another.
I agree, many groups are denied the right to marry...
Originally posted by Devil King
No, it isn't a right. It's a symbolic issue. It's an issue that people have been lead to believe they have the right to grant or deny to certain people, while they themselves enjoy it. It's been brow-beaten into the people of this country that they have the say so on what rights are doled out to what people. This is not where those constitutional rights origniated, they didn't come from that piece of paper. Surely during our conversations you didn't assume I did. Those rights I'm so fond of are ours by virtue of existence, not because some one knocked on my neighbours door and asked him if he thought I should have a right he has simply by default. This isn't about the sanctity of marriage, not in a nation that could care less about it. It's about two political parties turning a personal and emotional issue into the chance for miserable, powerless people to have a teenytiny bit of power over another human being. That's why people get hate crimed for being gay. It isn't because god says it's wrong, it's because some thug decided he wanted to show his power over someone else. Every citizen in this state that votes yes to this is commiting their own little hate crime. Every citizen in this country that votes against equal rights for anyone else is commiting their own little hate crime. THAT should be illegal; turning another human being's rights in to the national plaything of bigots.
Feeling better?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would add another divine between them and other people (plus it seems really dickish). There's also the fact that if gays invented their own form of marriage is would essentially admit that marriage is only for heteroseuxals. The principal of marriage is much more important than the act.
Marriage is a hetrosexual norm to potray ''love and commitment''.
Homosexuals shouldn't adhere to hetrosexual norms, since hetrosexuality should not dictate norms for what love or union mean or how they're defined.
Should homosexuals be given right to marriage? Yes.
I have a right to a civil partnership, so gay couples should have right to marriage.
Its not ''segregation'' or devide. Its a different option.
Its the same as the ridiculous ignorant comments to gay couples such as ''who is the guy and who is the girl in the relationship''.
Its because people, regardless of how much they claim they ''don't mind homosexuals'' (like anyone wanted their premission to begin with), still box homosexual couples in hetrosexual box of norms, be it union, relationship, child adoption...etc.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Marriage is a hetrosexual norm to potray ''love and commitment''.
Yeah, because the majority of gay couples can't get married.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Homosexuals shouldn't adhere to hetrosexual norms, since hetrosexuality should not dictate norms for what love or union mean or how they're defined.
No the norm defines the norm. And the norm does exist, so what exactly is your point?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its not ''segregation'' or devide. Its a different option.
It'd hardly be seen that way.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its because people, regardless of how much they claim they ''don't mind homosexuals'' (like anyone wanted their premission to begin with), still box homosexual couples in hetrosexual box of norms, be it union, relationship, child adoption...etc.
So homosexuals aren't people then? Just about everyone boxes people into neat little groups, why should gays be excluded. That's stupid at best and actually is discrimination at worst.
Discrimination is necessary in many cases for everyday life. A child cannot legally obtain a drivers license until the age of 16 or 17, which is very fair and that is discrimination.
I'm against gay marriage because of how I view the sanctity of marriage, which stills holds more meaning than one can comprehend to many people. If that means redefining the term marriage today to uphold the more traditional substance, so be it.