• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:44
CEST 19:44
KST 02:44
  • 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
[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors0Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun13[ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt1: Inheritors16[ASL21] Ro16 Preview Pt2: All Star10Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - The Finalists22
Community News
RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event10Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results02026 GSL Season 1 Qualifiers25Maestros of the Game 2 announced92026 GSL Tour plans announced15
StarCraft 2
General
Code S Season 1 - RO12 Group A: Rogue, Percival, Solar, Zoun Code S Season 1 (2026) - RO12 Results Team Liquid Map Contest #22 - The Finalists Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool MaNa leaves Team Liquid
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 5 - Qualifiers and Main Event GSL Code S Season 1 (2026) SC2 INu's Battles#15 <BO.9 2Matches> WardiTV Spring Cup SEL Masters #6 - Solar vs Classic (SC: Evo)
Strategy
Custom Maps
[D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3 [A] Nemrods 1/4 players [M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 523 Firewall Mutation # 522 Flip My Base Mutation # 521 Memorable Boss
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Why there arent any 256x256 pro maps? [ASL21] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Progenitors BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL21 General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL21] Ro8 Day 2 Escore Tournament StarCraft Season 2 [BSL22] RO16 Group Stage - 02 - 10 May
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers What's the deal with APM & what's its true value Any training maps people recommend?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread Daigo vs Menard Best of 10 Diablo IV
Dota 2
The Story of Wings Gaming
League of Legends
G2 just beat GenG in First stand
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas TL Mafia Community Thread Five o'clock TL Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread 3D technology/software discussion Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [Req][Books] Good Fantasy/SciFi books Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread McBoner: A hockey love story Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
streaming software Strange computer issues (software) [G] How to Block Livestream Ads
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Movie Stars In Video Games: …
TrAiDoS
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Broowar part 2
qwaykee
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1823 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 States11563 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 States6226 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 States24771 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
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
14:00
Season 2 - May 2026
RotterdaM854
uThermal509
mouzHeroMarine419
IndyStarCraft 246
SteadfastSC217
elazer99
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 854
uThermal 509
mouzHeroMarine 419
IndyStarCraft 246
SteadfastSC 217
Railgan 120
elazer 99
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 27741
Horang2 1956
EffOrt 1452
Shuttle 1397
ggaemo 378
Leta 230
firebathero 199
PianO 145
Dewaltoss 124
Sharp 94
[ Show more ]
actioN 61
ToSsGirL 49
Barracks 43
Hm[arnc] 32
Rock 22
Pusan 21
Sacsri 19
Terrorterran 13
Dota 2
Gorgc5116
qojqva3031
monkeys_forever303
Counter-Strike
fl0m5912
olofmeister2382
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor452
MindelVK9
Liquid`Hasu4
Other Games
Liquid`RaSZi1271
FrodaN1239
Beastyqt988
B2W.Neo537
KnowMe236
mouzStarbuck151
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick806
BasetradeTV559
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream68
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Adnapsc2 12
• Reevou 5
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV684
• lizZardDota258
League of Legends
• Jankos2083
Other Games
• imaqtpie726
• Shiphtur271
Upcoming Events
BSL
1h 16m
IPSL
1h 16m
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
6h 16m
Replay Cast
15h 16m
Wardi Open
16h 16m
Afreeca Starleague
16h 16m
Jaedong vs Light
Monday Night Weeklies
22h 16m
Replay Cast
1d 6h
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 16h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 16h
Snow vs Flash
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
1d 17h
SHIN vs Nicoract
Solar vs Nice
GSL
2 days
Classic vs Cure
Maru vs Rogue
GSL
3 days
SHIN vs Zoun
ByuN vs herO
OSC
3 days
OSC
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Escore
4 days
The PondCast
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Zoun vs Ryung
Lambo vs ShoWTimE
Replay Cast
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
BSL
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Cure vs Zoun
Clem vs Lambo
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-05-02
WardiTV TLMC #16
Nations Cup 2026

Ongoing

BSL Season 22
ASL Season 21
CSL 2026 SPRING (S20)
IPSL Spring 2026
KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 2
KK 2v2 League Season 1
Acropolis #4
SCTL 2026 Spring
RSL Revival: Season 5
2026 GSL S1
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026
IEM Rio 2026
PGL Bucharest 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 1
BLAST Open Spring 2026
ESL Pro League S23 Finals
ESL Pro League S23 Stage 1&2
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S2: W6
BSL 22 Non-Korean Championship
Escore Tournament S2: W7
Escore Tournament S2: W8
CSLAN 4
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
HSC XXIX
uThermal 2v2 2026 Main Event
Maestros of the Game 2
2026 GSL S2
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
PGL Astana 2026
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.