California gay marriage ban gaining steam

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What does your religious concept of marriage have to do with the state of civil, secular marriage?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I like that they changed it. Means alot to folks, and as I was reading the first article, I was thinking how to fix it, and they used the idea I thought of.

[Kodiak]

So tell me Kodiak (and others) how do you feel about this? Personally, I think the state should have told them to get fucked and treat them as single if they still wouldn't sign the original form, and I think the father-in-law is a special kind of scum to use his daughter's wedding to mess with politics, but that's just me.

I agree, the state should've told them exactly that. I believe in obeying the laws of the land and working to change them through legal means where conscience dictates. And yeah, that father-in-law is a douche.

[FSTargetDrone]

If we were to follow through with Kodiak's use of 'tradition' as a way to prevent social progression, than slavery would have to be re-introduced as it was tradition to own people like a piece of property long before the definition of Judeo-Christian marriage was ever concieved.

That, and the general misogyny espoused by too many religions.

These attitudes, they gall me to no end. Not only but especially because I have gay relatives and gay friends who cannot get married like I could. One of my female friends is "engaged" and hopes to be married to her girlfriend in every way that matters except for the one little detail about it ultimately not being binding in law, merely because of where she lives.

[Duckie]

Why indeed quibble? Because it IS symbolic, and it's an important symbol to many people who believe that it should maintain its traditional definition. I'm aware that these arguments are the same, by and large, as the ones that were used to advocate racial segregation but I believe that the comparison ends there. There are no "gay only" stores, "straight only" lunch counters, or anything of the like. As you said, it's a symbolic preference on my part and I don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does anything to reduce anyone's constitutional rights or demote their welfare.

Except that you're fighting on the side of the people who do want to do just those things, so you're de facto supporting the effort to ban any sort of recognition of gay partnerships. This is merely the first step.

Perhaps you're not aware that any church which does NOT recognize same-sex marriages could be classified as a "hate group" and sued? This would cause hundreds of churches to either compromise their beliefs or lose tax-exempt status.

Absolute lie and propaganda dissemated by people who want to ban gay marriage. No church would be forced to perform a gay marriage. Instead, they'd get it at city hall or a willing church, because what kind of idiot would get married in a church that hates them? Recognition of marriage having been performed is a state issue, not a church issue, and would thus be carried out by the government. Unless in California churches calculate your taxes or allow you to visit hospitals or inherit, that is.

Fact 1: You believe homosexuals do not deserve to be able to be married.

Agreed

Rather obvious, but I like to start with the basics.

Fact 2: You believe that homosexuals are attempting to hijack the concept of marriage.

Not the "concept" but rather using this opportunity to define it themselves WITHOUT a ballot measure but instead using a ruling by the state supreme court.

Regardless, we can simplify your position to "Them Gays Are Trying To Steal Marredgez!". Noted.

Fact 3: You believe that homosexuals are doing this in order to force acceptance of homosexuality upon society.

Agreed

Glad we can note you not only as a bigot and an idiot but also as a vast Homosexual Conspiracy loon.

Fact 4: You believe that homosexuality is not condoned by the majority of society, and therefore it is completely morally indefensible to support gay marriage, because the majority is always right.

I'm saying that the majority of Californians did condone same sex marriages in 2001 and that I do not condone it now. I did not say that supporting gay marriage is morally indensibile, in fact there are many strong arguments out there. I'm saying that I do not support it because of my own beliefs.

AKA: Wishy washy bullshit that means "I know it's wrong to hate gay people, but they're yucky and I don't want to let them get married because of that."

Essentially, you're not worth talking to, because absolutely nothing I say can convince you that gay marriage is not an issue of gays attempting to force your children to become gay and steal the moral bedrock out from under society. Good day, unless you have some claim that I have misrepresented you or revisions to make to your insane yammerings.

[Kodiak]

What does your religious concept of marriage have to do with the state of civil, secular marriage?

Since you can't have a religious marriage without a civil recognition they're connected in that respect. I don't think you can change the definition of one without changing the other though.

AKA: Wishy washy bullshit that means "I know it's wrong to hate gay people, but they're yucky and I don't want to let them get married because of that."

I don't hate gay people, but I also don't condone homosexuality. I don't approve of Gay marriage but I support full rights as domestic partners and would vote against any law to reduce those rights.

Essentially, you're not worth talking to, because absolutely nothing I say can convince you that gay marriage is not an issue of gays attempting to force your children to become gay and steal the moral bedrock out from under society. Good day, unless you have some claim that I have misrepresented you or revisions to make to your insane yammerings.

Glad you see that too. Good day to you as well.

[Duckie]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

[SpacedTeddyBear]

I did not say that supporting gay marriage is morally indensibile, in fact there are many strong arguments out there. I'm saying that I do not support it because of my own beliefs.

I don't understand how it hasn't gotten through your skull yet, but your support of prop. 8 does indeed deny equality to the gay/lesbian community regardless of your beliefs. One grants equality, the other strips it away. IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE! Why should a group of people not be given the same entitlements as another despite paying the same taxes that you do?

Yes, and I also believe we should all sit in the dark at night since it was "tradition" to do so before the advent of fire

Your brilliance in being able to discern the difference between social and technological progression is quite astounding.

[Terralthra]

So tell me Kodiak (and others) how do you feel about this? Personally, I think the state should have told them to get fucked and treat them as single if they still wouldn't sign the original form, and I think the father-in-law is a special kind of scum to use his daughter's wedding to mess with politics, but that's just me.

I agree, the state should've told them exactly that. I believe in obeying the laws of the land and working to change them through legal means where conscience dictates. And yeah, that father-in-law is a douche.

Having laws overturned by the Supreme Court is a legal means of changing the law of the land in this country, dumbass.

Please justify your assertion that gays do not 'deserve' to get married. If you attempt to say that that's how it has been in the past, please note that a) appeals to tradition are fallacy; one must show that it was objectively better in the past, because of those traditional strictures, and b) that's not how it was in the past. Judeo-Christian-Islamic law all provides for one man and as many women as he could afford. Do you support polygyny?

I don't hate gay people, but I also don't condone homosexuality. I don't approve of Gay marriage but I support full rights as domestic partners and would vote against any law to reduce those rights.

Yet you claim not to be bigoted. You don't condone homosexuality? Justify this, please.

[Ekiqa]

What does your religious concept of marriage have to do with the state of civil, secular marriage?

Since you can't have a religious marriage without a civil recognition they're connected in that respect. I don't think you can change the definition of one without changing the other though.

Yes, because you can have a civil marriage without a religious one.

All you have to do is state you want a religious marriage.

[CaptainChewbacca]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

There ARE groups lobbying to make homosexuality more accepted in society, you know. There's probably not so much of the world-conquering, though.

[Gandalf]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

There ARE groups lobbying to make homosexuality more accepted in society, you know. There's probably not so much of the world-conquering, though.

There's a pretty big difference between promoting acceptance and forcing it on people in the way Kodiak seems to imply.

[General Zod]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

There ARE groups lobbying to make homosexuality more accepted in society, you know. There's probably not so much of the world-conquering, though.

Lobbying for awareness and acceptance does not translate into "forcing acceptance".

Although as an aside, I suppose some people would have said Martin Luther King Jr. was attempting to force the acceptance of blacks on society back in the 60s too.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't hate gay people, but I also don't condone homosexuality. I don't approve of Gay marriage but I support full rights as domestic partners and would vote against any law to reduce those rights.

It is not your business to condone or not condone homosexuality. You have no ethical or moral grounds on which to justify any condemnation of homosexuality, which exists broadly in the animal kingdom, has been accepted as a traditional marriage institution in numerous historical cultures, and is no more or less acceptable than any other form of "a rubbing of the genitals to produce a somewhat pleasurable spasm", as the good Marcus Aurelius dismissed sex in his Meditations; i.e., a socially irrelevant act of pleasure of minimal consequence. And yet you are driven insensate by the idea of people who for biological reasons prefer such rubbing with members of the same sex, over the opposite sex. In particular homosexuality has even less social consequences than heterosexuality because heterosexuality can produce offspring, which must then be cared for by the State, whereas homosexual acts cannot; this very nature of homosexuality makes it very irrelevant to the overall health of society, and gives absolutely no justification for it being impeded, whereas the moral and ethical rights of homosexuals are unquestionably equal to those of anyone else.

Insomuch as homosexuals are not going to be marrying and having children anyway, there is no possible reason to deny them the rights of marriage in their own unions, and to give it, by the secular authorities, the appellation of marriage. Your church can certainly do what it pleases; I don't, and couldn't, care less about your outmoded and retarded superstition. The pertinent fact here is that you are simply going to vote in favour of the resolution because you are viscerally terrified (or, deep down inside, pleased) by the thought of another man sliding his cock up your ass, and you're first cloaking it in religious hypocrisy (when we all know that religion is an irrelevant and immaterial social consideration, a glorified club for garden parties) and then cloaking that in turn in the claim that it harms no-one, which it is actually a bell-weather signal for the second-class status of homosexuals and more or less open invitation to gay-bashing through the declaration that they are, in fact, less human than you are.

So, fuck off and die, you worthless little cumstain. You have no argument, and you're just voting the way you are because the thought of a cock thrusting back and forth in your ass and making your own cock hard from the stimulation to your prostate is scaring the hell out of you.

Essentially, you're not worth talking to, because absolutely nothing I say can convince you that gay marriage is not an issue of gays attempting to force your children to become gay and steal the moral bedrock out from under society. Good day, unless you have some claim that I have misrepresented you or revisions to make to your insane yammerings.

Glad you see that too. Good day to you as well.

It's the summary execution of unthinking bigots like yourself which would make a communist revolution in America have redeeming features.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What does your religious concept of marriage have to do with the state of civil, secular marriage?

Since you can't have a religious marriage without a civil recognition they're connected in that respect. I don't think you can change the definition of one without changing the other though.

Actually, you CAN change the definition of one without changing the other. Because, you know, the two are separate and have distinct definitions. The fact that they occur one after the other does not mean they are the same. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that your desire to redefine marriage to just heterosexual couples is merely a smokescreen for your homophobia.

[Stark]

Wow, was that the 'you can't let gays marry because I'm married and I don't want marriage to be a concept involving gay people'?

That's OBVIOUSLY discriminatory. Frankly, since marriage isn't fucking religious even under law and you're simply trying to keep people out of the 'marriage club' even after they're allowed all the functional rights, it's clear as day that it's pure bigotry (since you have no problem with allowing them the functional elements of the thing, just not the PRECIOUS NAME). It makes me laugh that he's saying that since you can be 'marriage without the name' you should be happy, because if you're given the name then it VIOLATES WHAT TEH PEEPLZ THINK IT IZZ, even though it's nothing to do with other people or religion at all. It's even funnier that he makes a big deal out of how the nasty gay people want the name even though it's meaningless because they have all the rights... it being so meaningless he's prepared to vote for clearly discriminatory and backwards laws to 'protect' it from gay people. Clearly, it's nothing worth fighting over at all and gay people should just go back and be happy with their slave 'partnerships'!

But hey, he's a fucking mormon, so who's surprised? lol!

[Duckie]

But hey, he's a fucking mormon, so who's surprised? lol!

Ah, that explains it! A man can have sixteen wives, but god forbid that any of the wives be married to eachother!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What I want to know is why I can't just consider myself to be married and call myself married? I mean, what the fuck, when someone says they're married in public do you demand a copy of their marriage license? Even if this retarded ban passes, homosexuals should just start calling each other husbands and wives and saying they're married, and ignoring the lack of the word until it becomes completely ingrained in the national consciousness that they're married. I bet little shithead cumstains like Kodiak would advocating arresting homosexuals and tossing them in prison for saying they were married in such circumstances, though.

[Ender]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

Umm, there is such a movement (not the second part, but the first). I'm part of it - I have one of those LGBT Ally signs they give out here.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What I want to know is why I can't just consider myself to be married and call myself married? I mean, what the fuck, when someone says they're married in public do you demand a copy of their marriage license? Even if this retarded ban passes, homosexuals should just start calling each other husbands and wives and saying they're married, and ignoring the lack of the word until it becomes completely ingrained in the national consciousness that they're married. I bet little shithead cumstains like Kodiak would advocating arresting homosexuals and tossing them in prison for saying they were married in such circumstances, though.

That is precisely what I plan on doing in the event that this measure passes.

[Duckie]

A message to the audience: Note that at no time does Kodiak deny the existance of a Vast Homosexual Conspiracy that is attempting to force acceptance of homosexuality on society (and thus presumably make children gay and destroy straight relationships and possibly conquer the world).

Umm, there is such a movement (not the second part, but the first). I'm part of it - I have one of those LGBT Ally signs they give out here.

In case you missed the above refutations, promoting tolerance of homosexuality is not the same as forcing society to accept homosexuality.

Unless, as General Zod notes, you believe that Martin Luther King was attempting to force people to accept blacks as equals. It's a difference of implication, and in that difference of tone is the distinction between factual and lunacy.

[Mayabird]

You know, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry another dude. It's not like your marriage is going to get annulled and you'll be forced to be someone else's butt-buddy or anything like that.

Look at me. I oppose the concept of the state of Georgia, so I moved. Very simple.

[Guardsman Bass]

Perhaps you're not aware that any church which does NOT recognize same-sex marriages could be classified as a "hate group" and sued? This would cause hundreds of churches to either compromise their beliefs or lose tax-exempt status.

If one of these groups seriously made it an issue (which is unlikely - there weren't a rush of lawsuits by gay couples to force churches to recognize these marriages when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, or when Canada did it). Besides, what type of gay couple is seriously going to want to be married in a church that absolutely loathes them?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Perhaps you're not aware that any church which does NOT recognize same-sex marriages could be classified as a "hate group" and sued? This would cause hundreds of churches to either compromise their beliefs or lose tax-exempt status.

If one of these groups seriously made it an issue (which is unlikely - there weren't a rush of lawsuits by gay couples to force churches to recognize these marriages when Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, or when Canada did it). Besides, what type of gay couple is seriously going to want to be married in a church that absolutely loathes them?

He may be referring to this stupid ad. It's the first pro-prop-8 ad that kicked off their television campaign. Of course there is nothing to indicate that such is even possible. It's just fearmongering all over again.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, fuck off and die, you worthless little cumstain. You have no argument, and you're just voting the way you are because the thought of a cock thrusting back and forth in your ass and making your own cock hard from the stimulation to your prostate is scaring the hell out of you.

For the record, I'm voting the other way, but the thought of a cock up my ass scares me too. Especially if it was there all of a sudden, without warning me.