|
On May 30 2009 14:11 2nd1rst wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:05 keV. wrote:On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states? No. These civil unions and domestic partnerships are also different in every state. Even if all the states had a gay marriage policy they would all be regulated separately with different clauses/discrepancies. In my eyes, the only way to make it fair, is to recognize some form of gay union at the federal level, that carries with it ALL of the benefits that legally married people receive. So does prop 8 not mean much in the grand scheme of things? If prop 8 had failed would other states be required to recognize gay marriages in California?
States don't have to recognize anything passed in another state period. The only thing they have to adhere to is propositions or laws passed by the federal government.
In reality prop 8 was just a massive attempt to keep the gay community down, funded by millions from Utah and other religious nutjobs with money.
Some form of gay marriage (I don't live there, I don't know) was already in place, and prop 8 repealed it.
|
On May 30 2009 14:13 scwizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:51 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:47 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:
[quote]
Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights. It doesn't endanger society at all; gay people are already living together and having relationships and the world hasn't exploded. 'Unnatural'? As if that's a good argument that anything is bad, and it's not even true... Heh. I know you aren't making these points, but I wanted to reply to hypothetical-Aegraen Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce. According to who? If you asked most people what the purpose of marriage was, I bet that most people wouldn't give that answer. Marriage is a human invention, a cultural concept, and it can change over time. Some of the cultural changes are effected by court rulings and passings of law. The word "marriage" means a lot more to people than what marriages mean legally. Marriages conjure up images of lifelong relationships, raising children together, weddings, the union of families. I think it's important that gay marriage be recognized legally, and not merely gay "civil unions", because saying that gays are allowed to marry says a number of other things as well, such as: 1. It's ok for two people of the same gender to raise children together. Who could object to a married couple raising a child? 2. It's ok for two people of the same gender to have sex with each other. Who could object to a married couple having sex? 3. A gay relationship is a real relationship. Who could say that a marriage "isn't a real relationship"?
I think damage control was giving a hypothetical argument. I don't think that is actually his view.
|
On May 30 2009 14:11 2nd1rst wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:05 keV. wrote:On May 30 2009 14:00 2b-Rigtheous wrote:
Kev, you raise a valid point about the civil union not being accepted in other states. However, there in lie the problem, other states.... So is not your problem with other states? No. These civil unions and domestic partnerships are also different in every state. Even if all the states had a gay marriage policy they would all be regulated separately with different clauses/discrepancies. In my eyes, the only way to make it fair, is to recognize some form of gay union at the federal level, that carries with it ALL of the benefits that legally married people receive. So does prop 8 not mean much in the grand scheme of things? If prop 8 had failed would other states be required to recognize gay marriages in California?
According to Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, yeah
But reactionaries like to ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit their purposes.
|
I find it kind of funny the most I hear against prop 8 (not necessarily on this board) is basically bashing people sticking to what would be their opinion or feeling (religious or otherwise)... but then there are guys like me who are fine if gays get the right to marry, marijuana is legalized, and a democrat sits as president even though I am extremely religious and quite conservative.
I think people should be free to make their choices, and I have heard a million arguements for either side, and I personally feel people have better things to do with their time.
I have chosen my life, I leave others to choose their.
With that said, I respect Prop 8 being upheld.
The people voted.
They voted before.
May next time they will vote differently.
And when they do, I will respect that vote.
|
lol, I know exactly what Prop 8 did, thank you very much... It's not rocket science. I was referring if Prop 8 had not been passed, it still doesn't solve the problem of civil union between homosexuals in other states, it just forces them to travel to Cali to get married. Homosexuals should not have to leave their state, only to return again, to obtain their rights.
|
On May 30 2009 14:13 scwizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:55 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:51 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:47 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:43 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:41 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:40 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:33 jeppew wrote:On May 30 2009 13:31 Nadagast wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:
[quote]
Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. Is voting a right? I'm pretty sure we don't let felons vote, right? Not making any moral equivalences, just saying, rights aren't necessarily shared by 100% of the population felons have their rights removed because they commited a crime, this isn't a fair comparison by any standard. I know and I'd say that for much the same reason, a 40 year old man has no right to marry a 10 year old girl, because sometimes rights aren't 100% 'do-whatever-you-want' universal Well that's what he would say to a man trying to marry a man Yeah except there is informed consent in the adult man + adult man case, in the 10 year old + 40 year old case, the 10 year old can't give informed consent Well that's what I would respond. Then he would tell you about how it endangers society and how it's unnatural. And how they already have rights. It doesn't endanger society at all; gay people are already living together and having relationships and the world hasn't exploded. 'Unnatural'? As if that's a good argument that anything is bad, and it's not even true... Heh. I know you aren't making these points, but I wanted to reply to hypothetical-Aegraen Essentially if gays are allowed to marry somehow it distorts the purpose of marriage since the point of marriage is to reproduce. According to who? If you asked most people what the purpose of marriage was, I bet that most people wouldn't give that answer. Marriage is a human invention, a cultural concept, and it can change over time. Some of the cultural changes are effected by court rulings and passings of law. The word "marriage" means a lot more to people than what marriages mean legally. Marriages conjure up images of lifelong relationships, raising children together, weddings, the union of families. I think it's important that gay marriage be recognized legally, and not merely gay "civil unions", because saying that gays are allowed to marry says a number of other things as well, such as: 1. It's ok for two people of the same gender to raise children together. Who could object to a married couple raising a child? 2. It's ok for two people of the same gender to have sex with each other. Who could object to a married couple having sex? 3. A gay relationship is a real relationship. Who could say that a marriage "isn't a real relationship"? 4. Attempting to breaking appart a married couple is wrong. It would be especially inconceivable to religious folk who consider marriage sacred to some degree. I really like this argument. It basically sums up the power that the law and word have over perception that many people seem unable to understand.
I think the counter would be, though, that currently marriage has religious connotations. Imagine a couple getting married...usually it would be a bride and a groom in a church.
So we see that marriage, although technically not, is still viewed as a religious institution and should be respected as such.
|
On May 30 2009 14:16 jeddus wrote:
I find it kind of funny the most I hear against prop 8 (not necessarily on this board) is basically bashing people sticking to what would be their opinion or feeling (religious or otherwise)... but then there are guys like me who are fine if gays get the right to marry, marijuana is legalized, and a democrat sits as president even though I am extremely religious and quite conservative.
I think people should be free to make their choices, and I have heard a million arguements for either side, and I personally feel people have better things to do with their time.
I have chosen my life, I leave others to choose their.
With that said, I respect Prop 8 being upheld.
The people voted.
They voted before.
May next time they will vote differently.
And when they do, I will respect that vote.
You sound like a pretty awesome guy =).
|
God, don't goto youtube and search prop 8 ads. That is some of the worst shit I have ever seen on both sides... There is a lot of hate.
|
On May 30 2009 13:49 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain What right should not extend to all groups?
The right to use letal force ? Prescribe medication ? etc...
|
I cant believe im writing this but, if you opose gay marriage, you are a sexist, who dont believe man can do the work of woman lol.
|
On May 30 2009 14:29 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 13:49 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:48 travis wrote:On May 30 2009 13:32 DamageControL wrote:On May 30 2009 13:28 Aegraen wrote:On May 30 2009 13:26 D10 wrote:
And btw, what the hell does gay marriage has to do with pephilia, poligamia and zoophilia or anything else for that matter.
If law can be as specific as to how much %of a substance you can trow in the air it can be specific in this.
And marriage being between 2 consenting HUMAN adults is nothing far fetched or that suggests base for none of those things Because a right is universal to all groups, not specific groups. No its not. legally it isn't, but morally I agree with aegraen ? please explain What right should not extend to all groups? The right to use letal force ? Prescribe medication ? etc...
already said i was wrong
and i wouldn't consider either of those rights so much as priveleges
|
lets call it even.
On the topic, its insane why marriage is even legislated, its like legislating baptism or other rituals.
Whats next ? They will try to make us pray the same way ?
|
United States12607 Posts
lol what happened to this thread...I cruised to page 15 and saw a debate over whether lesbians can fuck??
|
On May 30 2009 14:56 JWD wrote:
lol what happened to this thread...I cruised to page 15 and saw a debate over whether lesbians can fuck??
Ill give you the TLDR
Agrean made a retarded bet. We proved him wrong. He refused to pay.
|
About time Aegraen got banned.
|
what the fuck @ aegraen lol.
It's a tough issue though I think gays should be allowed the same marriage rights as straight people. I don't think a gay couple should be chosen over a straight couple, in adoption cases, but I doubt that will happen often as there are so many kids needing adoption.
|
The people have spoken.
Look beyond the particular issue.
The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge?
Everytime gay marriage goes before a popular vote, the people vote it down. The people have a right to self-determination above all else. Would you really trade democracy for oligarchy in order to win on a single issue? That is absolutely fucking retarded.
Prop 8/gay marriage brings out the stupidity and ignorance of the populace with respect to knowledge of government, like nothing I've ever seen.
If you really favor a small group of judges overturning an overwhelmingly popularly-voted piece of legislation, you are indeed subverting our democracy in favor of your single-issue obsession. Just remember, don't complain when the pendulum swings the other way, and democracy is subverted against your favorite political stance.
Self-determination is the most important liberty. Respect it or lose it,
|
On May 30 2009 22:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge?
Is 52 to 48 'overwhelming'?
|
On May 30 2009 22:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
The people have spoken.
Look beyond the particular issue.
The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge?
Everytime gay marriage goes before a popular vote, the people vote it down. The people have a right to self-determination above all else. Would you really trade democracy for oligarchy in order to win on a single issue? That is absolutely fucking retarded.
Prop 8/gay marriage brings out the stupidity and ignorance of the populace with respect to knowledge of government, like nothing I've ever seen.
If you really favor a small group of judges overturning an overwhelmingly popularly-voted piece of legislation, you are indeed subverting our democracy in favor of your single-issue obsession. Just remember, don't complain when the pendulum swings the other way, and democracy is subverted against your favorite political stance.
Self-determination is the most important liberty. Respect it or lose it,
Just because the majority of people vote for something, doesn't make it right.
|
On May 30 2009 22:43 HeadBangaa wrote:
The people have spoken.
Look beyond the particular issue.
The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge?
Everytime gay marriage goes before a popular vote, the people vote it down. The people have a right to self-determination above all else. Would you really trade democracy for oligarchy in order to win on a single issue? That is absolutely fucking retarded.
Prop 8/gay marriage brings out the stupidity and ignorance of the populace with respect to knowledge of government, like nothing I've ever seen.
If you really favor a small group of judges overturning an overwhelmingly popularly-voted piece of legislation, you are indeed subverting our democracy in favor of your single-issue obsession. Just remember, don't complain when the pendulum swings the other way, and democracy is subverted against your favorite political stance.
Self-determination is the most important liberty. Respect it or lose it,
A true democracy balances majority rule with minoritiy rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
