• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:02
CEST 03:02
KST 10:02
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver5[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sep 7-12): SHIN, ByuN, MaxPax double down1StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon98Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism10Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon?179Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20)9
StarCraft 2
General
Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Has online-only competition during the pandemic changed your enjoyment of pro SC2? How do you feel about the StarCraft shooter announcement at BlizzCon 2026? Weekly Cups (Sep 7-12): SHIN, ByuN, MaxPax double down StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 6 - Qualifiers and Main Event RSL goes to London! 2026 Offline Finals Nov 21-22 SC2 AI Tournament 2026 Fall Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament KSL Week #92
Strategy
[H] ZvP Mid-Late Game: Stalkers Collossi HT
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
Mutation # 543 Enhanced Defenses The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 542 The Ascended Mutation # 541 Binary Choice
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Remastered crash fix suggestions Syncronization issues and can't find games a Announcement on the JEDI Ringing ASL22 General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro16 Group D The Casual Games of the Week Thread Small VOD Thread 2.0 BWCL Season 65 Announcement
Strategy
Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Game Theory for Starcraft
Other Games
General Games
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread EVE Corporation Diablo IV
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Post Your Watch!
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Diablo Animated Series on Netflix
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
[meme] I finally understa…
LUCKY_NOOB
Virtual Romance, Real-Life C…
TrAiDoS
Regacy Esports:Our Goa…
regacyesports
Dreaming of BW patches (mod…
c3rberUs
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 12290 users

Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9 10 11 12 13 57 Next
FragKrag
Profile Blog Joined September 2007
United States11567 Posts
November 06 2008 00:24 GMT
#201
On November 06 2008 07:21 mahnini wrote:
wtf cali always passes the most hippie shit and yet when it actually matters we fail.


we failed twice. lolol.

why did 2 pass? fucking animal rights hippies.
*TL CJ Entusman #40* "like scissors does anything to paper except MAKE IT MORE NUMEROUS" -paper
Creationism
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
China505 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-11-06 00:39:23
November 06 2008 00:38 GMT
#202
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha
The hoi polloi is the plague upon the world.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 00:43 GMT
#203
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.
Murk
Profile Joined July 2008
Canada304 Posts
November 06 2008 00:50 GMT
#204
Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!?
NrG.Bamboo
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States2756 Posts
November 06 2008 01:04 GMT
#205
On November 06 2008 09:50 Murk wrote:
Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!?

You're probably joking but.. just replace "homosexuals" with "black people" and see how it goes from completely acceptable to omgban racistZ!!
I need to protect all your life you can enjoy the vibrant life of your battery
d_so
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)3262 Posts
November 06 2008 01:20 GMT
#206
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.

manner
tika
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
127 Posts
November 06 2008 01:28 GMT
#207
On November 06 2008 08:26 travis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 08:05 MetalMarine wrote:
On November 06 2008 05:41 Kennigit wrote:
On November 06 2008 05:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
jkilla is religious.

Many christians support gay marriage. Lame excuse.


Maybe he just straight up hate homosexuals? Apparently a lot of people do, the results showed it. I personally don't care if they get married or not, but serious question to some people on here, Do you guys really care that homosexuals can't get married? Like deeply care, just wondering.


I don't deeply care about anything we'd discuss here

so no I guess


maybe you should tho, it might have useful feedback?
Meta
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States6228 Posts
November 06 2008 01:38 GMT
#208
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.



As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.
good vibes only
strongwind
Profile Joined July 2007
United States862 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-11-06 01:43:08
November 06 2008 01:40 GMT
#209
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.
Taek Bang Fighting!
d_so
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)3262 Posts
November 06 2008 01:51 GMT
#210
On November 06 2008 10:38 Meta wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.

Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.

Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.

Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha


you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.

if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.



As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.


-_- you keep thinking of individual scenarios. no shit. there are marriages that don't have church backing right now.

i'm talking about marriage in the aggregate sense.
manner
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:35 GMT
#211
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.
Sadist
Profile Blog Joined October 2002
United States7328 Posts
November 06 2008 02:37 GMT
#212
well if you wont let homosexuals use the marriage, why let muslims or atheists or buddhists or anyone else?
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
-_-
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States7081 Posts
November 06 2008 02:38 GMT
#213
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:40 GMT
#214
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.
Murk
Profile Joined July 2008
Canada304 Posts
November 06 2008 02:44 GMT
#215
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
-_-
Profile Blog Joined November 2003
United States7081 Posts
November 06 2008 02:45 GMT
#216
On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.


Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT?

But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...
DM20
Profile Joined September 2008
Canada544 Posts
November 06 2008 02:47 GMT
#217
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools, and the banning of gay marriage was snuck in.

It was a dirty trick and it worked.
Augury
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
United States758 Posts
November 06 2008 02:48 GMT
#218
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible


When does God say that homosexuality is a sin? Feel free to point that out to me, BTW God didn't write the bible.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24799 Posts
November 06 2008 02:49 GMT
#219
On November 06 2008 11:45 -_- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:


A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.

On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.


This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.

The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).

I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.


Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.

Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.


I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?


Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.


Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT?

But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...

You are missing his point, whether if it is intentional or not...
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
November 06 2008 02:50 GMT
#220
On November 06 2008 11:47 DM20 wrote:
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools,


could you explain what this even means
Prev 1 9 10 11 12 13 57 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
ISSL Monthly #1 - Day 1
CranKy Ducklings112
LiquipediaDiscussion
OSC
22:00
Masters Cup #151
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 2087
GuemChi 1722
Artosis 547
ViBE51
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm88
PGG 46
febbydoto21
League of Legends
Doublelift3991
Counter-Strike
minikerr23
Super Smash Bros
PPMD68
Other Games
summit1g10143
Liquid`RaSZi1761
Day[9].tv731
C9.Mang0289
XaKoH 258
PiGStarcraft133
Livibee122
Mew2King55
Liquid`TLO23
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1924
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 72
• EnkiAlexander 17
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki12
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• Day9tv731
• imaqtpie626
• Shiphtur94
Upcoming Events
IntoTheTV X SOOP
9h 58m
RotterdaM Event
15h 13m
Replay Cast
22h 58m
GSL
1d 9h
Replay Cast
1d 22h
GSL
2 days
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
2 days
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
3 days
[ Show More ]
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Light vs EffOrt
PiGosaur Cup
4 days
Kung Fu Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Calamity Invitational
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026

Upcoming

Acropolis #5 - GSA
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
SC4ALL II: Brood War
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Copium Cup
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.