what about the people who get the gay agenda shoved down their throats when they see same sex on sex couples?

aren't they prone to death by suffocation?

I have to agree with Nubs. While I am personally against homosexuality (just as a note, I have friends who are gay. I'm against the act, not the people) I think the legal stance should allow homosexual unions (I don't care whether you call it marriage or civil union or jepsex).

Churches shouldn't be required to perform marriage ceremonies (they should have the right to deny gay marriages based on their religious beliefs), but the legality of the marriage/union, and all the rights associated with it should not be denied to them.

Guess what, all those homosexual people will still be homosexual whether or not you give them visitation rights and tax benefits. I have to agree with whoever asked why we put minority rights up to a majority vote when the majority despises the minority...

Everyone is a little bit gay*. If you deny it, we'll just assume you're EVEN MORE GAY.

(JM is currently 8% gay.)

I don't get how this is possible. It's like, "Haha, look at me, I'm not a bigot, see, see!?"

How ironic, coming from the man who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him MUST be stupid.

(11%; I was playing Gears2 and remembered how hot Kim's shiny bald head is.)

I think you're stupid because you made a fairly obvious claim then backed out when you were called out on it. Your posts this thread have been the equivalent of "HAHA GUYZ I WUS JUST KIDDING LOOL I CANT BELIEV U TOOK ME SRUSLY" except far more articulate.

I don't know what's more amusing, that, or how you think you're getting to me.

No, Carl doesn't have the right kind of bald head. He has a Homer Simpson type bald head. Kim is more like Patrick Stewart.

Okay.

Nice of you to replace your with an actual thought. And no, you're entirely wrong. I'm genuinely happy that it passed, and have made no effort to deny that at all.

All I've done is pointed out that you actually have NO IDEA AT ALL why I'm happy it passed and can only make wrong assumptions.

Perhaps, then, you could tell me instead of continuing to drag on this nonsense.

It's a step towards my solution. If it had failed... well, we'd have gay marriage in California. Which I've clearly stated I do NOT support. However, because it passed, it is being put back into the spotlight. It's being DISCUSSED again. And as long as people aren't happy with the result, there's a chance that the solution I support can still come to pass.

And there is that bit where it amuses me to no end how pissed off people get about these things.

What, you think a ban pushed by homophobic bible bashers is somehow "halfway there?" I mean, I understand bringing it into public discourse, but I seriously doubt anything good can come of it. Especially since it's a constitutional amendment.

Also I don't generally get pissed off about the internet. I'm not Rob.

You've never disagreed with something one of your friends has done? Just because you don't necessarily think it's right doesn't mean you're going to sever the friendship and never speak to them again. It's called understanding.

Who said anything about severing friendship?

I have a friend, albeit not a close one, who's a neocon. He's gay, and opposes gay marriage. And likes Ann Coulter. :headexplode:

Simple, I personally don't believe homosexuality is right. I see it as a sin, but I'm not gonna condemn you for it. While I'm against homosexuality from a religious perspective, I respect that this is a nation that shouldn't discriminate against people for their sexual orientation.

That's why I feel churches shouldn't be forced to perform marriage for someone, but the government should give them the same rights.

Well I'm against marriage .. period. Well .. not union of two people.. but the legal aspects of it. There should not be any legal benefits / aspects between two people.

It screws up a lot of families. I went to high school with a kid who had lesbian mothers. They split up. But you know what happened? Nothing. They went their own way. He lived with both of them just like most kids do with his split parents. But there was no legal bitterness. No going to court demanding things. 90% of my friends of have split parents involved a bitter legal battle. That's my opinion and a lot of people will disagree but anyways:

You love your partner? AWESOME. Since you love each other there is a level of trust and you can each do your own part. Live together. Have butt sex every night. I DON'T CARE.

You know what? Legalizing marriage WILL NOT STOP HOMOPHOBIA AND HATE.
Gays can't get in the Army. That's it.

Before inequality was about owning property. Being considered a citizen. VOTING.

I think it is crazy people focus on this marriage thing.

All that being said, I would definately consider myself slightly homophobic. I have gay friends but they are "normal". I do get uncomfortable around "fairy" types though.

That's not the point. The point is that straight couples get legal and financial benefits from being married, these are not available to gay couples, which is discriminatory.

I know, I was comparing it to blacks and women with the inequality thing.
It's just a matter of time before they get the rights IMO.
History has shown us they will get their rights.

Yea, it sucks they are not equal.
Funny how the blacks (Who had it worse) voted against this in great numbers.

I'm just saying I think they should try to focus their efforts on something other than marriage. I think they are bigger issues than that.

Did I say it was 'halfway there'?

Did I imply I thought such a thing?

Did you make another wrong assumption?

No, no, and yes.

That's pretty similar to "halfway there." Notice I put "halfway there" in quotations, because it wasn't meant literally. Why are you not replying to my post and instead trying to be witty? Why are you arguing the semantic difference between "a step in the right direction" and "halfway there," especially when both were used as non-literal figures of speech?

Oh, right, you just like pissing me off! Haha! :downs:

It's already being challenged: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602332289207499.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Basically, since the California Supreme Court ruled that the laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional, then an amendment that banned gay marriage would also be unconstitutional. That is, the constitution would contradict itself. It would require a constitutional revision to put this in the state constitution, which means it has to go through the legislature first, with a 2/3 vote.

More than you know.

:legal101: ?

People are, collectively and individually, so stupid and insane that a true democracy is the worst form of government ever created. How can we reconcile this fact with our pathetic attempts to capture the 'spirit' of democracy?

This is a law that specifically discriminates against a tiny minority of the population. It even uses discriminatory language*: the official ballot title was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." It was passed by a very slight majority of the population. It's iconic of why democracy is a bad idea. Stupid, uninformed people with their own terrifying agenda (the conservative christian corporate agenda) should not be allowed to participate in a referendum on another "agenda" that, by comparison, is about as dangerous as lollypops and candy canes.


(Discriminatory language litmus test: "Eliminates Right of Black Couples to Marry;" "Eliminates Right of Christian Couples to Marry")

Wow Jon, I made that same point last night. You can replace "same-sex" with almost any other word and it becomes blatantly discriminatory...

Also, doesn't the 14th amendment forbid states from abridging the rights of the people?

Well, you can be thankful that unlike last time, the people of California are actually fighting back almost instantaneously and I wish them all success. There are some movements going on in about an hour in a suburb of San Diego called Hillcrest. I've heard similar movements planned across the state today.

Like I said. Hurrah!

Best song ever.